Employing Plasterers Association of the District of Columbia, Inc.

EMPLOYING PLASTERERS ASSOCIATION 17 clerical employees, professional employees, guards, and all super- visors as defined in the Act. (a) All truckdrivers. (b) All occasional drivers and janitor-porters. If a majority of the employees in voting group (a) select the Teamsters, which is seeking to represent them separately, those em- ployees will be taken to have indicated their desire to constitute a separate bargaining unit, and the Regional Director conducting the election is instructed to issue a certification of representatives to the Teamsters for such unit. On the other hand, if a majority of the employees in voting group (a) do not vote for the Union which is seeking to represent them in a separate unit, their votes will be pooled with those in voting group (b) and. the Regional Director is in- structed to issue a certification of representatives to the labor organi- zation selected by a majority of the employees in the pooled group, which the Board in such circumstances, finds to be a single unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining. - [Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.] Employing Plasterers Association of the District of Columbia, Inc.' and Wood, Wire and Metal Lathers International Union, Local No. 9, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 5-RC-2126. June 5,1957 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 Robert W. Knadler, 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 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 certain employees employed by members of the Employer Association.' The name of the Employer Association appears as amended at the hearing. A list of the members of the Association is appended hereto. 2 We affirm the hearing officer's ruling denying intervention to the Construction Con- troctors Council and the Master Builders Association. We also deny the Employer Asso- ciation's request for oral argument as the issues raised herein have already been passed ,-Upon by the Board. After the close of the hearing, Carpenters District Council moved for intervention and sought to file a brief., As we are not satisfied that the Carpenters have a valid basis for intervention, particularly in view of our determination herein, we deny the 'motion to intervene and reject the brief proffered by the Carpenters and purporting to discuss the merits of the current representation proceeding. 118 NLRB N. 5. 450553-58-vol. 118-3 18 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion of employees of members of the Employer Association within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The Petitioner seeks an election in a unit of all lathers and ap- prentices employed by members of the Employer Association, ex- cluding all other crafts, office clerical employees, guards, and super- visors as defined by the Act. The Association does not dispute the appropriateness of the unit. However, it moved at the hearing that the Board make a factual finding that the employees in the unit requested have been doing certain specific jobs duties and that the unit description embrace employees exercising the duties thus described. The record establishes that the lathers are engaged in work tasks of a craft nature, exercising a degree of skill well recognized in the building and construction industry as constituting a craft group of a traditional character. An apprentice training program is admin- istered jointly by the Association and the Petitioner. This program provides a continuous supply of qualified journeymen. To qualify as a journeyman lather, a person must serve 3 years as an apprentice, attend school weekly, and work alongside a qualified journeyman who has himself served an apprenticeship. The Association does not dispute the craft nature of the employees sought, but requests the Board to describe the appropriate unit as em- ployees of members of the Association who "perform the work tasks described in Article V, Sections 1 and 2, of the current agreement between the Association and the Lathers." A similar request was made in The Plumbing Contractors Association of Baltimore case,' and rejected by the Board. In that case, reference was made to Gen- eral Aniline ct Film Corporation,' in which the Board denied a motion which in substance requested the Board to define the certification- in terms of work jurisdiction. In the Plumbing Contractors case, the Board specifically declined to overrule its decision in the General Aniline case, and stated : We believe that the Intervenors misapprehend the effect of a Board certification in a representation proceeding. As the Board has heretofore held, and as we here reiterate, a Board certification in a representation proceeding is not a jurisdictional award; it is merely a determination that a majority of the employees in an appropriate unit have selected a particular labor organization as their representative for purposes of collective bargaining. It is true that such certification presupposes a determination that the group of employees involved constitute an appropriate unit for collective bargaining purposes, and that in making such determi- 4 The Plumbing Contractors Association of Baltimore, Md. Inc., 93 NLRB 1081. 5 General Aniline & Film Corporation, Ansco Division, 89 NLRB 467. EMPLOYING PLASTERERS ASSOCIATION 19° nation the Board considers the general nature of the duties and work tasks of such employees. However, unlike a jurisdictional award, this determination by the Board does not freeze the duties or work tasks of the employees in the unit found appropriate. Thus, the Board's unit finding does not per se preclude the em- ployer from adding to, or subtracting from, the employees' work assignments. While that finding may be determined by, it does not determine, job content; nor does it signify approval, in any respect, of any work task claims which the certified union may have made before this Board or elsewhere. Accordingly, we find no merit in the Association's request, and shall, without departing from the normal unit description, describe the employees in the unit sought herein as requested by the Petitioner. We shall direct that an election be held among the following em- ployees of the members of the Association, who we find constitute a unit appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act: All lathers and apprentices, excluding all other crafts, office clerical employees, guards, and super- visors as defined by the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] APPENDIX MEMBERS OF EMPLOYING PLASTERERS' ASSOCIATION Novinger Company, Inc., 3801 Cedarcraft Place, Brentwood, Maryland R. Floyd Jennings and Son, 4934 Elm Street, Bethesda, Maryland Gus Rubino & Company, 5050 Minnesota Avenue, Kenilworth, Maryland E, Ray Murray, 4620 Wisconsin Avenue NW., Washington, D. C. S. Lozupone & Son, 430 Fifth Street NW., Washington, D. C. John H. Hampshire, Inc., 4626 Annapolis Road, Bladensburg, Maryland D. Compe & Sons, 1421 Powhatan Street, Alexandria, Virginia James J. Conroy, Inc., 409 Butternut Street NW., Washington, D. C. Atlantic Craftsmen, Inc., 3021 M Street NW., Washington, D. C. A, W. Lee, Inc., 1461 N. Fort Myer Drive, Arlington, Va. 20 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Krafft-Murphy Company, 2302 Wisconsin Avenue NW., Washington, D. C. A & P Construction Company, Kensington, Md. Alpo Plastering Company, Washington, D. C. James Kane & Sons, Alexandria, Va. Michael's Plastering Company, Alexandria, Va. Lloyd E. Mitchell Company, Baltimore, Md. Charles F. O'Brian, Arlington, Va. United States Gypsum Company and United Papermakers and Paperworkers, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 1-RC-4661. June 5, 1957 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 George A. Sweeney, 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 this case, the Board funds : 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. The Employer moved to dismiss the petition because th:e authoriza- tion cards the Petitioner submitted to support the petition bear the designation "American Federation of Labor and Congress of In- I The Petitioner objected to the hearing officer's refusal to admit into the record certain letters the Employer had distributed among its employees at the time of the organiza- tional campaign and certain documentary material pertaining to the bargaining unit place- ment of employees working for other employers engaged in business operations similar to the Employer's. We find the hearing officer's rulings were not prejudicial because, if admitted. the proffered evidence would not affect our ultimate findings in this case. 2 The Industrial Union Department, AFL-CIO, requested permission, after the close of the hearing, to appear as an amicus curiae. The request is hereby granted. The Petitioner and the aniicus requested oral argument. The request is hereby denied as the record and the briefs adequately present the issues and the positions of the parties. 118 NLRB No. 4.