United States Pipe and Foundry Co.

202 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 4. The Employers and the Petitioner were in agreement as to the appropriate units, while the Intervenortookno position." Accordingly, we find that the following groups of employees constitute units appropriate for collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act: (1) All employees of Hilo Iron Works at its Hilo, Hawaii, plant, excluding office clerical employees, professional employees, guards, working foremen, and all other supervisors as defined in the Act. (2) All employees of American Factors, Ltd. (Hilo Branch) employed in its warehouse, lumberyard, carpenter shop, and lumber mill at Hilo, Hawaii, including truckdrivers and Ross carrier operators, but excluding office clerical employees, professional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. (3) All employees of American Factors, Ltd. (Kona Branch) employed in its warehouse, lumberyard, carpenter shop, and coffee mill at Kona, Kailua District, Hawaii, excluding office clerical employees, professional employees, guards, and super- visors as defined in the Act. (4) All employees in the trucking department of Hilo Trans- portation & Terminal Co., Ltd., at Hilo, Hawaii, excluding office clerical employees, professional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. [Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.] 11 At the hearing, the Petitioner was permitted to amend its unit request in Case No. 37-RC- 166 to exclude two working foremen as supervisors . As these individuals appear to have the power to discharge and discipline employees , we shall exclude them. It appears that the proposed units are the same as those covered in the Intervenor's con- tracts with the Employers. UNITED STATES PIPE AND FOUNDRY COMPANY and IN- TERNATIONAL MOLDERS & FOUNDRY WORKERS UNION bF NORTH AMERICA, AFL, Petitioner . Case No. 10-RC- 682. April 17, 1953 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION On March 13, 1946, United Steelworkers of America, CIO, hereinafter referred to as the Steelworkers, was certified' as representative for a unit of all production and maintenance employees at the Employer's Chattanooga, Tennessee, plant, including pattern-shop helpers, pattern storage men, laborers, and carpenters who work under the supervision of the pattern- shop foreman. International Molders and Foundry Workers, hereinafter referred to as the Molders, was certified as repre- 1 After an election held pursuant to the Board's Decision and Direction of Election in Case No. 10-RC-1593. 65 NLRB 979. It was again certified as representative for the same unit after a consent election in 1947, in Case No. 10-RC-2530. 104 NLRB No. 13. UNITED STATES PIPE AND FOUNDRY COMPANY 203 sentative of all molders, molders' apprentices, coremakers, and coremaker apprentices at the Employer's Chattanooga, Tennessee, plant on December 9, 1949, following an election held pursuant to the Board's Decision and Direction of Election in Case No. 10-RC-682.2 On January 14, 1953, the Board received an undated document entitled "Motion to Interpret Supplemental Decision and Certification of Representatives in Case No. 10-RC-682," filed by the Molders, requesting that the Board include employees performing plastic molding at the Employer's Chattanooga plant in the Molders' unit. On January 16, 1953, the Employer filed its "Motion to Interpret Supple- mental Decision and Certification of Representatives in Case No. 10-RC-682," requesting the Board to include such em- ployees in the production and maintenance unit, represented by the Steelworkers. The Board having considered the issues raised by the respective motions, and finding that a conflict as to material facts existed, on February 3, 1953, ordered the Regional Director for the Tenth Region to hold a hearing. On February 25, 1953, pursuant to said order, a hearing was held in this matter before Gilbert Cohen, hearing officer. The Employer and the Molders appeared and participated. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Upon the basis of the evidence adduced at said hearing and on the entire record in the case, the Board3 makes the follow- ing supplemental findings: In February 1952, the Employer set up two new job classifi- cations known as plastic-mold operator numbers 1 and 2. Only the position of plastic-mold operator No. 1 has been filled and that only for a total of 5 weeks during the period from February 1952 to July 1952.4 The operator's duties consist of mixing materials according to a given formula, pouring the resultant mix into a permanent pattern, inserting the pattern into a press and operating the press to force the air from the mix, with- drawing the pattern and placing it into an electric oven, cooling the pattern in water, and chipping the fins from the finished product. The resulting product is then used by the coremakers. It takes approximately 2 days to train an em- ployee to become an efficient plastic-mold operator. He works under the supervision of the pattern-shop foreman, who also supervises employees in the production and maintenance unit. The plastic-mold operator performs his work in cleaning shed No. 5, to which the construction maintenance men also report for assignment. The employees inthe molders unit work in another building. 287 NLRB 115. 3Pursuant 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]. 4As it appears on the record that the Employer intends to utilize the services of the plastic- mold operator whenever market conditions require , we will make a determination as to its proper unit placement . Charlotte Barth Howell & Van Schaack& Co., 95 NLRB 1028. footnote 3. 204 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Upon the foregoing and the record as a whole it is apparent that the plastic-mold operator does not possess the skills usually associated with a craft employee. Nor does he have such a community of interest with molders and coremakers as to warrant his inclusion in the molders unit. On the contrary his interests are more closely allied with those of the production and maintenance employees. Therefore we find that the plastic- mold operator is appropriately included in the production and maintenance unit represented by the United Steelworkers of America, CIO.5 sAlthough the Steelworkers did not appear at the reopened hearing, it did intervene in the original hearing in this case. Furthermore the Employer testified that it had signed a contract with the Steelworkers on October 31, 1952, covering plastic-mold operators, thus it is apparent that the Steelworkers is willing to represent this classification as part of its unit. STAINLESS WELDED PRODUCTS, INC. and LOCAL 274, UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN AND APPREN- TICES OF THE PLUMBING AND PIPEFITTING INDUSTRY, AFL, Petitioner. Case No. 2-RC-5019. April 17, 1953 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND DIRECTION Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election issued by the Board in the above-entitled proceeding on November 3, 1952, an election by secret ballot was conducted on November 24, 1952, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Second Region, among the employees of the Employer in the unit found to be appropriate. At the close of the election a tally of ballots was furnished the parties. The tally shows that 67 ballots were cast, of which 27 were for the Petitioner, 24 were against the Petitioner, and 16 were challenged. No objections to the conduct of the election were filed by either of the parties. As the challenged ballots were sufficient in number to affect the results of the election, the Regional Director, pursuant to the Board's Rules and Regulations, conducted an investigation and, on February 26, 1953, issued and Ferved upon the parties his report on challenges. In his report, the Regional Director recommended that challenges to the ballots of Genino (Jerry) Agresti, Robert Masalski, Aroy Williams, Albert Johnson, Frank Greb, Ennio Dellavia, and Louis Ricco be sustained, and that the challenges to the ballots of Frank Cavalier, Frank Morgan, Louis Zawada, Bernard Bentsen, Xavier Boguslawski, John Impomeni, John Kelly, Valgene Lloyd, and Elwood Rennie be overruled and that these ballots be opened and counted. The Petitioner duly filed exceptions to the Regional Director's recommendations with respect to the ballots cast by the individ- uals considered below.' 1 As no exceptions have been filed to the Regional Director 's recommendations with respect to the ballots cast by Aroy Williams, Albert Johnson, Frank Greb, Ennio Dellavia, and Louis Ricco, we shall adopt these recommendations and sustain the challenges. 104 NLRB No. 18.