W. P. Fuller & Co.

814 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD on the part of the Guild since that time. Substantially all officers of the Guild are now officers of the UAW. The record indicates that the Guild is now defunct and that the UAW is the successor to the Guild. Accordingly, we find that 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. We shall place the UAW on the ballot in the election directed below but, in order to avoid any possible confusion, we shall indicate on the ballot that the UAW is successor to the Guild.5 4. The Petitioner requests that decertification election be held in the certified unit. The Union would exclude tool designers from the unit in which they have been included, on the ground that they -are technical employees. It is now established Board policy that a decertification election will be directed only in the recognized or certified units We shall therefore, include tool designers in the unit. We find that all employees of the Employer at its Dayton, Ohio plant, including tool crib attendants and tool designers, but ex- cluding office clerical and professional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Sec- tion 9(b) of the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] 6 Cf. Suburban Propane Gas Corporation, 86 NLRB 1232. 6 Campbell Soup Company, 111 NLRB 234; Westinghouse Electric Corporation, 115, NLRB 530. W. P. Fuller & Company, Petitioner and Hawaii Teamsters and Allied Workers, Local 996 and United Brotherhood of Carpen- ters & Joiners of America, Local No. 745. Case No. 37-RM-921. December 31, 1958 DECISION AND ORDER Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before David E. Davis, 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 Leedom and Members Bean and Fan- ning.] 122 NLRB No. 87. W. P. FULLER & COMPANY 815 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 employees of the Employer. 3. No question affecting commere exists concerning the represen- tation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, for the following reasons: In June 1958 the Teamsters claimed to represent the employees at the Capehart project under its contract with the Employer. The Employer refused such recognition on the ground that the project was a separate operation from its main operations, and therefore not covered by the contract. The Employer then filed the present petition. The Employer is engaged in the sale of paint and glass, and is also a specialty contractor engaged in the supply and installation of glass and other allied building products. Its main operations in Honolulu, on Ala Monana Boulevard, consist of a retail store, a fabricating shop, warehouses, and general offices. On Novem- ber 8, 1956, Hawaii Teamsters and Allied Workers, Local 996, herein called the Teamsters, was certified as collective-bargaining representative for all the Employer's employees on the Island of Oahu, with certain specified exclusions. Pursuant to this certifica- tion, the Employer and the Teamsters executed a contract on March 20, 1957, effective until December 12, 1958, covering all full- time employees of the Employer employed in the Territory of Hawaii. There are approximately 35 employees in the certified unit. As already noted, the Teamsters contend that the employees involved in this proceeding, working at the Capehart Housing project, are covered by its contract with the Employer and that it is therefore a bar. In August 1957 the Employer entered into a subcontract for the installation of jalousies, door frames, screens, and mirrors at the Capehart Housing project at the Schofield Barracks. Work at this project was started in December 1957 but did not get into full production until March 1958. In its regular operations, the Em- ployer fabricates as well as installs materials. At the Capehart project, however, the Employer does no fabrication but merely assembles, at the job site, materials received from suppliers. The subcontract calls for work on approximately 1,260 units. Previ- ously, the largest number of units the Employer had contracted for on any project was about 100 units, and the Employer's regular staff was able to handle the work. The Capehart project has been 816 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD handled separately from the Employer's main operations, with separate bookkeeping and payroll. A separate warehouse for mate- rials to be used at the project has been established. Six employees from the Employer's regular staff, including the job superintendent, were assigned to the project for its dura- tion. Other employees were recruited through advertisements, and about six were obtained through the United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America, Local No. 745. These employees were hired only for the duration of the project. At the time of the hearing, there were between 45 and 50 employees working at the project, including those detailed from the main operations. The wage rates of the temporary employees conform to the require- ments of the Davis-Bacon Act rather than to the terms of the contract with the Teamsters and, except for the permanent em- ployees working at the project, the benefits of the contract were not extended to these employees. Working conditions for the employees are determined by the job superintendent at the project. Except for emergency situations, there is no interchange between the employees at the Employer's main operations and the project. In view of these facts, we find that the Capehart project is not an accretion to the Employer's main operations and the contract, executed before this project was started, does not cover the em- ployees working there. As the parties to the contract did nothing to bring these employees within the terms of the contract, we find that it does not cover them and does not constitute a bar to this proceeding. Under ordinary circumstances we would permit the employees at this project to decide whether they wish to be separately repre- sented or to be included within the current contract unit. This project, however, is now in the process of being completed.' The employees temporarily assigned from the Employer' s main opera- tions at Ala Moana will return there and, unless there are vacancies at Ala Moans which some of them can fill, the employees hired for work at the project will be discharged. As it appears that employ- ment of the workers concerned will be terminated soon, we believe that no useful purpose will be served by proceeding with a determi- nation of representatives at this time 2 Accordingly, we shall dis- miss the petition. [The Board dismissed the petition in Case No. 37-RM-21.] 1 The Employer's work on this project will be finished in January 1959. z Replogle Globes, Inc., 107 NLRB 152.