Florence Stove Co.

664 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 3. The Respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) or (3) of the Act. [Recommendations omitted from publication.] FLORENCE STOVE COMPANY andLOCAL UNION NO. 86, INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, AFL, P e t i t i o n e r and LOCAL 2893, UNITED STEEL- WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO. Case No. 1-RC-3254. August 7, 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 Harold M. Kowal, 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 Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Members Houston, Styles, and Peterson]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds: 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the 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 meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The Petitioner seeks to sever a unit of powerhouse employees from an existing production and maintenance unit at the Employer's Gardner, Massachusetts, plant. The Inter- venor and Employer contend that the unit sought is inappro- priate because of a substantial plantwide bargaining history and the integrated character of plant operations. The Employer is engaged in the manufacture of electric stove ranges, electric heaters, and minor aircraft parts at its Gardner plant. Since 1944 the powerhouse employees have been represented by the Intervenor, along with other production and maintenance employees. The Employer employs about 450 em- ployees in its operations. Of these, 5 employees, consisting of 1 licensed engineer and 4 licensed firemen, are assigned to the powerplant. The work of the powerhouse employees is confined exclusively to the powerplant, a two-story building, consisting of a boiler- room and an engine room, which is attached to the main plant. The powerhouse employees perform the usual duties of their classification in connection with the operation of the high- 106 NLRB No. 107 FLORENCE STOVE COMPANY 665 pressure boilers. Although the powerhouse employees are subject.to the same general conditions of employment as other plant personnel, they work under separate immediate super- vision,' and have separate locker and shower facilities. Trans- fers from the powerhouse to other departments have been relatively infrequent.' We find from the foregoing, and upon the entire record, that the powerhouse employees comprise a distinct, homogeneous, and functionally coherent group of the type which the Board has customarily held may be accorded separate representation.3 Neither the past bargaining history on a more comprehensive basis nor the character of the Employer's operations renders such a unit inappropriate. We find, therefore, that all powerhouse employees employed at the Employer's Gardner, Massachusetts, plant, excluding all other employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act, may constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. However, we shall make no final unit determination at this time, but shall first ascertain the desires of these em- ployees as expressed in the election hereinafter directed. If a majority vote for the Petitioner they will be taken to have indicated their desire to constitute a separate appropriate unit, and the Regional Director conducting the election directed herein is instructed to issue a certification of representatives to the Petitioner for the unit described above which the Board, under such circumstances, finds to be appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining. In the event a majority vote for the Intervenor, the Board finds the existing unit to be appropriate and the Regional Director will issue a certification of results of election to such effect. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.) Member Peterson, dissenting: The employees sought herein by the Petitioner have been represented by the Intervenor in a production and maintenance unit for 9 years. In view of this substantial collective-bargain- ing history on a plantwide basis, and in the absence of other factors which would warrant their severance from the estab- 'The Intervenor would exclude as a supervisor the engineer working in the powerhouse, while the Petitioner and Employer would include him. The record shows that the engineer is in charge of the powerhouse employees, responsibly directing the operation of the boilers. He also has the power effectively to recommend the hiring of new powerhouse employees. We shall exclude the engineer as a supervisor within the meaning of the Act. Armour and Company, 88 NLRB 309. 2 The record shows that during the past 9 years there have been 3 permanent transfers of powerhouse employees to other departments. During the winter months employees from pro- duction jobs are transferred to work as helpers in the powerhouse. 3 The Gates Rubber Company, 95 NLRB 351. 666 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD lished unit,4I would not accord these employees separate representation. 4See my dissenting opinion in W. C. Hamilton and Sons, 104 NLRB 627. SHIRLINGTON SUPERMARKET, INC., and Its Subsidiaries, SHIRLEY FOOD STORE NO. 1, INC., SHIRLEY FOOD STORE NO, 2, INC., SHIRLEY FOOD STORE NO. 5, INC., SHIRLEY FOOD STORE NO. 6, INC., and WESTMONT SUPERMARKET, INC. and LOCAL 1501, RETAIL CLERKS INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AFL, Petitioner. Case No. 5-RC-1095. Au- gust 7, 1953 SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL DECISIONAND CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES Pursuant to a Supplemental Decision, Order, and Second Direction of Election issued on January 15, 1953,1 an election was conducted in this proceeding on February 7, 1953, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Fifth Region, among the employees in the unit heretofore found appropriate. The results of the election, as shown by the tally of ballots, were that of approximately 62 eligible voters, 55 cast valid ballots, of which 32 were for, and 23 were against, the Petitioner. There were 2 challenged ballots. On February 12, 1953, the Employer filed timely objections to conduct affecting the results of the election on seven grounds. The Regional Director investigated the objections, and on March 27, 1953, issued his report on objections, recommending that the Employer's objections be overruled, and that the Petitioner be certified as the collective- bargaining representa- tive of the employees in the appropriate unit. On April 3, 1953, the Employer filed exceptions to the Regional Director's report on objections. On April 21, 1953, the Board issued an order directing a hearing on the Employer's objection No. 7 because it appeared to raise substantial and material issues of fact, and further directing that the hearing officer designated to conduct the hearing prepare and cause to be served upon the parties a report containing resolutions of credibility of wit- nesses, findings of fact, and recommendations to the Board as to the,disposition of said objection. Pursuant to the order of the Board, a hearing was held on May 11, 1953, before John M. Dyer, hearing officer. The Boards has reviewed the rulings made by the hearing officer 1102 NLRB 312. 2 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Members Houston. Murdock, and Styles]. 106 NLRB No. 109.