American Smelting and Refining Co.

244 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 5. The Employer seeks to include the part-time extra employees whom the Teamsters and the Retail Clerks would exclude. These employees work regularly, but for limited hours, generally averaging a minimum of 9 hours a week. They do the same work as regular employees, are carried on the same payroll, and receive the same rate of pay, but are not eligible for certain other benefits until they have worked a specified minimum number of hours in a year. In accordance with our customary practice , we shall permit these regular part-time employees to vote.' [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] [The Board dismissed the petition.] 7Sears, Roebuck & Co., 91 NLRB 1411. AMERICAN SMELTING AND REFINING COMPANY, EL PASO SMELTING WORKS' and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 583, AFL, Petitioner. Case No. 33-RC-447. July 21, 1953 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Byron E. Guse, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made atthe hear- ing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board had delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Members Murdock, Styles, and Peterson]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds: 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the mean- ing of the National Labor Relations Act, 2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain employees of the Employer.: 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representation of employees of the Employer within the mean- ing of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The Petitioner seeks to sever from the existing unit of production and maintenance employees, a unit of electricians and their helpers in the electrical department at the Employer's El Paso Smelting Works. The Intervenor contends that this unit is inappropriate because of a 10-year history of collective bar- gaining on a plantwide basis in which the employees sought herein have been included. The Employer takes no position. 1 The name appears as corrected at the hearing. 2 International Union of Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers, Local 509, was permitted to intervene. 106 NLRB No. 43. AMERICAN SMELTING AND REFINING COMPANY 245 The Employer, a New Jersey corporation, is engaged at its El Paso Smelting Works in the processing of crude ores of silver, copper, gold, lead, and zinc. For the past 10 years, it has bargained with the Intervenor on the basis of a single unit of all production and maintenance employees, including the electricians and their helpers. The Employer employs 10 journeymen electricians, 1 ap- prentice helper, and 4 helpers who do the necessary electrical work throughout the plant. They have a separate electrical shop to which they report for work assignments. This shop serves as an office for the chief electrician and the electrical foreman and contains tools, work benches, and electrical sup- plies. The journeymen electricians, under the direction of the chief electrician, maintain and service the generating system and machinery. In the performance of their duties, they re- pair motors, rewind coils, maintain and service underground and overhead power lines, and repair emergency breakdowns of other electrical machinery. The apprentice helper and the helpers assist the journeymen electricians and, inaddition, replace electrical fixtures and repair "light" lines. There is no interchange between the electrical employees and the production and maintenance employees.3 Upon the foregoing facts, we are satisifed that the employees sought by the Petitioner exercise skills characteristic of the electricians' craft. Notwithstanding the bargaining history on a broader basis, we find that journeymen electricians, the ap- prentice helper, and helpers comprise an identifiable, skilled, and homogeneous craft group which the Board has frequently held may, if they so desire, constitute an appropriate unit. 4 We shall therefore direct an election in the following voting group: All journeymen electricians, the apprentice helper, and helpers in the electrical department at the Employer's El Paso, Texas, Smelting Works, excluding all other employees, office clerical employees, plant clerical employees, watch- men, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. If a majority of the employees in the voting group select the Petitioner, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to constitute a separate appropriate unit, and the Regional Di- rector conducting the election directed herein is instructed to issue a certification of representatives to the Petitioner for such a unit, which the Board, under such circumstances, finds to be appropriate for the purpose of collective bargaining. If, however, a majority of the employees in the voting group select the Intervenor, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to remain part of the existing production and maintenance unit, 9 Occasionally, a production or maintenance employee may be permanently transferred as a helper in the electrical department. 4W. C. Hamilton and Sons. 104 NLRB 627; Ingersoll Products Division of Borg-Warner Corporation, 100 NLRB 1531; Rheem Manufacturing Company, 100 NLRB 564 The Inter- venor's motion to dismiss the petition is therefore denied. 246 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD and the Regional Director is instructed to issue a certificate of results to that effect. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] Member Peterson, dissenting: The only justification for directing a self-determination election in the present case is the craft character of the electricians ' group. However , as stated in my dissent in the Hamilton case ,' this factor is insufficient to warrant a self- determination election where, as here , there has been a successful collective -bargaining history for approximately 10 years. 5 W. C. Hamilton and Sons, 104 NLRB 627. THE GENERAL TIRE AND RUBBER COMPANY and LOCAL UNION NO. 211 OF THE UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN AND APPRENTICES OF THE PLUMBING AND PIPEFITTING INDUSTRY OF THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA, AFL, Petitioner. Cases Nos . 39-RC-583 and 39-RC-599. July 21, 1953 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held in these cases before Clifford W. Potter and John F. Burst, hearing officers. The hearing officers' rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.' Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with these cases to a three-member panel [Members Murdock, Styles, and Peterson]. IIn its brief, the Employer moved to dismiss the petition in Case No. 39-RC-599 on the grounds, in substance , ( 1) that the Petitioner does not have an adequate showing of interest among employees sought therein; and ( 2) that the hearing officer acted improperly in ad- vising the Petitioner at the hearing on the petition in Case No. 39-RC-583 . The motion is denied. As to (1): Showing of interest is an administrative expedient and is not litigable by the parties . Moreover, we are administratively informed that the Petitioner has an adequate showing of interest among employees sought in Case No. 39-RC-599. Swift & Company, 94 NLRB 917. As to (2): On March 23, 1953, the Petitioner filed its petition in Case No. 39-RC-583, requesting a unit of pipefitters and welders . At the hearing on this petition , held on April 10, 1953, the Petitioner sought to amend its petition to include instrument repairmen , insulators, and salvagemen. The hearing officer advised the Petitioner to file new or amended petitions, and adjourned the hearing. On the same day, the Petitioner filed an amended petition request- ing a unit of pipefitters , welders, insulators, and salvagemen and a new petition in Case No. 39-RC-599, requesting a unit of instrument repairmen . At the consolidated hearing, held on May 12, 1953, all parties were afforded full opportunity to litigate any issue raised by the petitions. So far as the record discloses , the Employer was not prejudiced in any way by this procedure. Cf. Paraffine Companies, Inc., 85 NLRB 325. 106 NLRB No. 49.