F. E. Schundler & Co., Inc.

F. E. SCHUNDLER & CO., INC. 345 perform the same work in the same department and exercise substantially the same skills as do the employees comprising the unit sought. Because the proposed unit comprises only a segment of a group of employees who possess similar skills and perform comparable work, we find that it is inappropriate.4 With regard to the Petitioner's alternate request for an associationwide unit identical with the present, long-established contract unit, it appears that such unit is confined to female employees. The Board has held that units based upon sex are inappropriate,' and absent a showing that there exists a sub- stantial difference in skills between male and female em- ployees," the Board will dismiss a petition requesting a unit so predicated. But even if we assume that the contract unit can be justified on the basis of difference in skills between sexes--and the record suggests that such difference may exist, at least at the Employer's plant--we would not order an election in the requested unit because the Petitioner does not possess sufficient showing of interest among the employees composing said unit and because one of the essential con- tracting parties, Allied Printing Employers Association, was not made a party to this proceeding, nor was it given notice of hearing. Accordingly, by reason of all of the foregoing, and upon the entire record, we shall dismiss the petition herein. [The Board dismissed the petition.] 4International Harvester Company, 100 NLRB 1345. ' Underwriters Salvage Company of New York,'99 NLRB 337. 6Cf. Lloyd Hollister, Inc., 55 NLRB 32; H. W. Wilson Company, 48 NLRB 938. F. E. SCHUNDLER & CO., INC. and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, LOCAL UNION 953, Petitioner F. E. SCHUNDLER & CO., INC. and CHAUFFEURS, TEAM- STERS & HELPERS LOCAL UNION NO. 492, AFL, Petitioner. Cases Nos . 33-RC-448 and 33-RC-450 . July 22, 1953 DECISION AND ORDER Upon separate petitions duly filed, a consolidated hearing was held in the above-entitled cases before Byron Guse, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with these cases to a three-member panel [Members Houston, Styles, and Peterson]. Upon the entire record in these cases, the Board finds: 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 106 NLRB No. 58. 346 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent employees of the Employer. 3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the representation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, for the following reasons: The Employer operates a perlitel mine and mill at No Agua, New Mexico, and a loading plant at Antonito, Colorado, 22 miles distant, for the shipment of the mine product. International Union of Operating Engineers, Local Union 953, the Petitioner in Case No. 33-RC-448, herein called the Operating Engineers, seeks to represent in a single bargaining unit all operators of crushers, dryers, tractor equipment, the loading plant, and shovel type equipment; oilers and greasers; mechanics; and welder helpers, and all other employees coming under the recognized jurisdiction of hoisting and portable engineers at the Employer's mine, mill, and loading plant, excluding office and clerical employees, guards, all other employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act. Chauffeurs, Teamsters & Helpers, Local Union 492, the Petitioner in Case No. 33-RC-450, herein called the Teamsters, seeks to represent in a single unit all truckdrivers, truck- drivers' helpers, and utility men at the Employer's mine, mill, and loading plant, excluding office and clerical employees, guards, all other employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act. The Employer moves to dismiss both petitions on the ground that the only appropriate unit is one which includes all production and maintenance employees at its mine, mill, and loading plant. The Employer's operations are briefly described as follows: Ore from the mine, carried by truck to the mill, is dumped into a jaw crusher which breaks it up into smaller pieces. The ore is then rinsed, dried, recrushed, and separated. The perlite, which by this time is the consistency of sugar, is dropped into tanks. The tanks are carried by truck from the mill to the loading plant at Antonito, at which point they are loaded onto freight cars or placed in storage. The Employer currently employs 18 employees, of whom 10 are classified as common laborers; 2 as truckdrivers; 2 as shovel operators; 1 as a carpenter; 1 as a loader; 1 as a maintenance man; and 1 as a watchman. Apparently, 5 em- ployees, doing combined work, fall in part within the work classifications sought by the Operating Engineers; and 2 in part within the work classifications sought by the Teamsters. These work classifications are not, however, indicative of the work actually performed by the employees designated. The employees work in two shifts under the supervision of a superintendent, who responsibly directs their activities. None of the employees is hired on the basis of specialized skills and, with the exception of the carpenter, who is classified as a temporary employee and whom neither of the Petitioners seeks to represent, all are relatively inexperienced. The two 1 Perlite is a volcanic material used in the preparation of ready- mix plaster. HYSTER COMPANY 347 employees classified as truckdrivers are licensed drivers. They drive a semitrailer and a "bob-tail" truck on a public highway between the mill and the loading plant; unlicensed employees drive the two unregistered dump trucks, which ply between the mine and the mill on the Employer's property. Neither licensed nor unlicensed employees who drive trucks are sufficiently skilled to maneuver a trailer truck completely and properly without aid. In fact, the only employee who has had sufficient skill and experience to do so is classified as a shovel operator, and there is no evidence that he drives a truck. All employees are hired at the rate paid by the Em- ployer to common laborers. The only training the employees receive is what they learn in the performance of the particular jobs to which they are assigned. Employees spend unspecified amounts of time performing the work of the classifications under which they are listed. Their work frequently overlaps that of other employee classi- fications. Thus, the 2 truckdrivers, currently paid at the same rate as common laborers, may spend half an entire day cleaning out accumulations of dust in the mill. They spend half their time performing utility work, because there is not sufficient driving to occupy their time. The 2 shovel operators operate trucks between the mine and the mill; 1 shovel operator also doubles as a tractor operator ; and 1 shovel operator is one of the 2 employees who perform welding operations. The other employee who performs welding operations is classified as the maintenance man; he also performs minor repairs on the Employer's machinery and exercises the supervisory powers of the superintendent in the latter's absence. There is no history of collective bargaining for the Employer's em- ployees. No labor organization seeks to represent them in a single production and maintenance unit. Under these circumstances, we find that the employees herein sought to be represented have no special craft skills nor do they constitute groups with homogeneity of interests not possessed by other employees at the Employer's operations. They are therefore not entitled to representation in separate units on a craft or other basis. We shall accordingly dismiss the instant petitions.2 [The Board dismissed the petitions.] 2 The Waterbury Tag Company, 102 NLRB 1116. HYSTER COMPANY and DISTRICT LODGE NO. 24, INTER- NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, AFL, Petitioner. Case No. 36-RC-938. July 22, 1953 DECISION AND ORDER Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Robert. J. 106 NLRB No. 60.