Southbridge Finishing Co.

54 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The Employer also contends that the watch engineers are supervisors within the meaning of the Act. The watch engineers work in the Employer's powerhouses at East Hartford, Willgoos Laboratory, D. E. Laboratory, and Southington and are in charge of crews consisting of from 4 to 9 employees. The powerhouses operate on a 3-shift schedule, and the watch engineers take turns on each shift. Although there is a fore- man in charge of each powerhouse during the day shift, a watch engineer is in complete charge in each powerhouse during the other 2 shifts. They also have complete charge of the assignment and direction of the work of the employees under them and maintain discipline among their crews. At times the foremen seek the watch engineers' opinions about the work of employees in their crews and give great weight to these opinions when rating employees. In view of these facts and on the record as a whole, we find that the watch engineers are supervisors within the meaning of the Act.5 We shall, therefore, amend our certifications of representa- tives issued in Cases Nos. 1-R-2194, 1-RC-626, 1-RC-1531, and 1-RC-2173 in accordance with these findings.6 [The Board ordered the certifications of representatives issued in Cases Nos. 1-R-2194, 1-RC-626, 1-RC-1531, and 1-RC-2173 amended so that the units for which the Interna- tional Association of Machinists, AFL, was certified shall exclude the classification of all watch engineers,' and dismissed the petitions filed in this consolidated case.] Member Beeson took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Order. 5 Tide Water Associated Oil Company, supra 6 There are no watch engineers at the Meriden or Portland plant. 7This is not to be construed as a recertification. SOUTHBRIDGE FINISHING COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, LOCAL UNION NO. 86, A.F.L., Petitioner and TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, CIO. Cases Nos. 1-RC-3326, 1-RC-3327, 1-RC- 3328, 1-RC-3329, and 1-RC-3331. March 25, 1954 DECISION AND ORDER Upon separate petitions filed under Section 9 ( c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before Leo J . Harroran , hearing officer . The hearing officer ' s rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record in these cases, the Board finds: 108 NLRB No. 13. SOUTHBRIDGE FINISHING COMPANY 55 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the mean- ing of the Act. 2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain employees of the Employer. 3. The Operating Engineers , which traditionally organizes and represents powerplant maintenance employees, seeks to sever 1 production division, the plastics division, from the present maintenance and combined production divisions unit and to sever 4 alleged craft units in the multicraft maintenance department, preferring to sever the entire maintenance de- partment. The Employer is neutral "except for the splitting off of certain crafts and designating the specific work of these people . . . they are one group in itself." The Intervenor op- poses any severance, contending that the plastics division and production employees are not distinct from the textile division employees and that the Petitioner is wrongly transgressing its jurisdictional limits as defined by its parent organization, the AFL. In American Potash & Chemical Corporation, 107 NLRB 1418, the Board has stated the restricted circumstances under which it will permit severance of employees in a "craft unit" or in a "department unit." Neither can be appropriate as units for severance unless sought by a union which traditionally represents employees within such units. In addition, a craft unit must consist of a distinct and homogeneous group of skilled journeymen craftsmen working as such. Assuming, without deciding, that the requested craft units meet this latter test, we find that here the craft requests are for inappropriate units because the Petitioner is not a union which traditionally repre- sents such craftsmen. On the other hand, a department unit must be, at least, a functionally distinct and separate group of skilled employees who have traditionally been accorded separate representation. As the Petitioner is not a union which tradi- tionally represents such departments, we find both the multi- craft maintenance department and 1 of 2 production departments to be inappropriate. Moreover, 1 production department cannot even constitute a "department unit" within the meaning of the Potash rule, stated above. [The Board dismissed the petitions.] Member Beeson took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Order.