The Chain Belt Co.

THE' CHAIN BELT COMPANY Schedule I 271 V. L. Smith Eugene Allison R. L. Walker L. M. Smith J. A. Bettis T. B. Henderson Miguel Franco Jose Gonzales Luciana Rociquez James Price C. L. Reavis C. L. Morrow F. H. Welling Acie Henderson M. C. Bell H. L. Jones M. C. Powell Schedule II W. A. Cates W. H. Lindsey N. F. Roberson Lewis R. Tucker W. E. Rule F. F. Coughran Juan R. Urista John Mullins A. M. Coplen W. B. McCreary Frank Drummond J. I. Chappell Francisco Valenzuela THE CHAIN BELT COMPANY, BALDWIN-DUCKWOR11H DIvIsION ( SPRING- FIELD PLANT ) and UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, PETI- TIONER. Case No. 1-RC-2761. July 18,1952 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 Sidney A. Coven, 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 [Chairman Herzog and Members Murdock 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 organization involved claims to represent employees of the Employer. •3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion 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, which already represents a unit of production and maintenance employees at the Empl'oyer's Springfield belt manu- facturing plant, now seeks to add to the unit a group of timekeepers and experimental machinery room employees who have not previously been included in the unit. Both the Petitioner and the Employer re= quest that the Board direct an election to determine whether these employees wish to be represented by the Petitioner as part of the larger production and maintenance unit. We have previously included time- 100 NLRB No. 42. 272 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD keepers 1 and experimental employees 2 in production and maintenance units. In view of the wishes of the parties, and as no reason appears for excluding these employees, we are of the opinion that the time- keepers and experimental employees may properly be included in the unit. As no question of representation exists at the present time in the basic production and maintenance unit, we shall direct an election among all timekeepers and experimental machinery room employees, excluding executives, engineers, assistant engineers, draftsmen, time- study men, salesmen, cooperative apprentices, laboratory employees, first-aid attendants, office and clerical employees, guards, and super- visors as defined in the Act .3 If a majority of the employees voting in the election cast their ballots for the Petitioner, they will be taken to have indicated their desires to be part of the over-all production and maintenance unit and the Petitioner may bargain for timekeepers and experimental machinery room employees as part of that unit' [Text of Directiop of Election omitted from publication in this volume.] 1 Aluminum Company of America, 80 NLRB 1342; Boeing Airplane Company, 78 NLRB 795. 2 J. I. Case Company, 80 NLRB 223 ; Leach Company, 94 NLRB No. 99. 3 The description of the voting group appears as amended at the hearing 4 See Great Lakes Pipe Line Company, 92 NLRB 583 (Member Murdock dissenting) Gulf Ott Corporation, 92 NLRB 700. AUTO TRANSPORTS, INC.' and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAM- STERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, GENERAL DRIVERS, WAREHOUSEMEN & HELPERS, LOCAL 498, AFL, PETITIONER. Case No. 17-RC-1275. July 18,1952 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 Margaret L. Fassig, hearing officer. At the hearing, the Employer moved to dismiss the petition upon the grounds that the unit sought is inappropriate and the Peti- tioner may not properly represent the employees sought herein. For reasons discussed in paragraph numbered 4, infra, the motion is hereby denied. The motion of the Petitioner that the Board investigate the alleged alteration of certain of Employer's exhibits is denied for the reasons hereinafter stated. The hearing officer's rulings made at thL 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 [Chairman Herzog and Members Murdock and Peterson]. ' The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing. 100 NLRB No. 48.