Outboard Marine Corp.

316 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD elections in the following voting groups of employees at the Em- ployers Weldon Spring, Missouri, plant, excluding from both groups office clerical employees, laboratory personnel, powerplant employees, guards, watchmen, professional employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act. Group 1: All maintenance and construction electricians, their help- ers, and apprentices; Group 2: All production and maintenance employees, but exclud- ing electricians. If the employees in the electrician voting group vote for Local 1, they will be taken to have voted for separate representation, and the Regional Director conducting the election is instructed to issue a certification of representatives to Local 1 for a separate unit of elec- tricians, which the Board, in these circumstances, finds to be appro- priate for the purpose of collective bargaining. And, in that event, should a majority of the employees in the production and maintenance voting group select a bargaining representative, the Regional Di- rector is instructed to issue a certification of representatives to such bargaining representative for a unit of production and maintenance employees, excluding electricians, which the Board in these circum- stances finds to be appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining. On the other hand, if a majority in the electrician voting group do not select Local 1, the ballots of the employees in the electrician voting group will be pooled with those of the employees in the production and maintenance voting group.' If the employees in the pooled group select a bargaining representative, the Regional Director is instructed to issue a certification of representatives to such bargaining repre- sentative for a unit of production and maintenance employees, includ- ing electricians, which the Board in such circumstances finds to be an appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining. [Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.] ' If the votes are pooled, they shall be tallied in the following manner : The votes for Local 1 shall be counted as valid votes, but neither for nor against Local 6 or the Intervenor; all other votes are to be accorded their face value whether for or against representation by Local 6 or the Intervenor. Outboard Marine Corporation 1 and Independent Marine and Machinists Association , Petitioner. Case No. 13-RC-7303. October 7, 1960 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 Sinclair Kassoff, hearing 3 The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing. 129 NLRB No. 32. OUTBOARD MARINE CORPORATION 317 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 Jenkins and Fanning]. 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 certain employees of the Employer? 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Sections 9(c) (1) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act. The Petitioner, which requests an election in a unit of employees in the engine section of the Employer's marine engineering division, represented these employees prior to their transfer from another plant of the Employer. The Employer agrees that this is an appropriate unit. The Intervenor also agrees that this unit is appropriate except that it would sever therefrom a unit of patternmakers, which it seeks to represent separately. The Employer and the Petitioner oppose the severance of this unit. There are 39 employees in the engine section unit, and 4 patternmakers. The Employer manufactures outboard motors, motor scooters, lawn mowers, and other mechanical products at the plant here involved which is located at Waukegan, Illinois. Due to a corporate reorgani- zation in January 1960, the employees in the unit claimed by the Petitioner were transferred from another division of the Employer, also located in Waukegan, to a newly established engineering division which designs, develops, and tests the outboard motors produced at various plants of the Employer. The Petitioner, which represented these employees for about 25 years prior to the transfer, filed an unfair labor practice charge against the Employer when it refused to recognize the Petitioner as their representative after the transfer. A complaint was issued, but the parties subsequently agreed to hold an election, and the complaint was withdrawn. The Petitioner filed its petition pursuant to this agreement. The four patternmakers manufacture, alter, and repair wooden patterns and core boxes. They work in a pattern shop which is physically separated by walls from the other departments. They perform only patternmaking functions, are supervised by a foreman who is a skilled patternmaker and who supervises no other employees, and do not interchange with other employees. They receive the high- est hourly wage rate of the 39 employees here involved. While the 'Patterns \iakers League of North America, Chicago Association, herein called the Inter%error, intervened on the basis of a showing of interest. 318 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Employer maintains no formal apprenticeship program, the record shows that one of the patternmakers has had a total of almost 40 years' experience, and another has had 5 years' experience in this craft with the Employer. There is no indication that the other two em- ployees do not possess equivalent skill and training in the pattern- making craft. None of the parties disputed the craft status of the patternmakers. While the Employer and the Petitioner opposed severance of the patternmakers, they did so on the basis only of the bargaining history and the terms of the settlement agreement pro- viding for an election in the historical unit. It is clear, however, that these factors cannot preclude the Board from finding a craft unit appropriate herein.' Moreover by the elections herein, the Board is not precluding the Petitioner from obtaining representation in the unit covered by the settlement agreement, should the employees so desire. In view of the foregoing, and the record as a whole, we find that the patternmakers are craftsmen who may constitute a separate ap- propriate unit if they so desire.' The Intervenor has traditionally represented employees in the patternmakers' craft. In view of our determination that the patternmakers may constitute a separate craft unit if they so desire, we shall make no final unit determination at this time but shall direct separate elections in the following voting groups of employees in the Employer's engineering division, Waukegan, Illinois : A. All patternmakers, excluding all other employees, office clerical employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. B. All experimental mechanics, experimental parts mechanics, tool- makers, machinists, stock chasers, and janitors, excluding all pattern- makers, rate setters, metal polishers, office clerical employees, technical employees, professional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.' If a majority of the employees in voting group A vote for the Intervenor, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to con- stitute a separate appropriate unit, and the Regional Director con- ducting the election directed herein is instructed to issue a certificate of representatives to the Intervenor for such unit which the Board, under such circumstances, finds to be appropriate for collective bar- gaining. In that event, if a majority of the employees in voting group B select the Petitioner, the Regional Director is instructed to issue 3 See Section 9(b) (2) of the Act ; American Potash & Chemical Corporation, 107 NLRB 1418; Southern Paperboard Corporation, 112 NLRB 302; Vickers, Incorporated, 122 NLRB 155 4 See General Motors Corporation, Chevrolet Motor Division, Tonawanda Foundry Plant, Tonawanda, New York, 111 NLRB 841, 844-845. 5 Except as indicated with regard to the patternmakers, the parties stipulated to the -composition of this voting group. FOREIGN CAR CENTER, INC. 319 a certification of representatives to the Petitioner for such unit, which the Board, under the circumstances, finds to be appropriate for pur- poses of collective bargaining. However, if a majority of the employees in voting group A do not vote for the Intervenor, such group appropriately will be included in the same unit with the employees in voting group B, and their votes will be pooled with those in voting group B.e If a majority of the employees in the pooled group select the Petitioner, the Regional Director is instructed to issue a certification of representatives to the Petitioner for the pooled group which the Board in such circumstances finds to be an appropriate unit for purposes of collective bargaining. [Recommendations omitted from publication.] "If the votes are pooled , they are to be tallied in the following manner : The votes for the Intervenor shall be counted as valid votes but neither for nor against the Peti- tioner, all other votes are to be accorded their face value , whether for the Petitioner or for no union. Foreign Car Center, Inc., formerly Bob Snead, Inc. and Machin- ists Lodge 695, International Association of Machinists, AFL- CIO. Case No. 19-CA-1948. October 7, 1960 DECISION AND ORDER On May 3, 1960, at the close of the hearing in the above-entitled proceeding, Trial Examiner Wallace E. Royster , en bane, granted the Respondent's motion to dismiss the complaint . The complaint, as dismissed , alleged that the Respondent , by disavowing its contract with the Union in midterm and thereafter refusing to recognize the Union as the exclusive bargaining representative , refused to bargain in violation of Section 8(a) (5) and (1) of the Act. The facts are as follows : On or about December 9, 1958, Bob Snead, Inc., signed an exclusive bargaining contract with the Union, covering several classifications of mechanics, to rununtil June 1961 . Although formerly employing at least two mechanics, at the time this contract was executed and continuing until the date of the hearing herein, Bob Snead, Inc., and its successor, Foreign Car Center, Inc., employed only one mechanic. In December 1959, Oliver Beatty, sales manager for Bob Snead, Inc., informed a union representative that a new corporation, For- eign Car Center, Inc., would take over the operations of Bob Snead, Inc., and that Foreign Car Center, Inc., would not be bound by the Union's existing contract with Bob Snead, Inc. On January 4, 1960, Beatty became the president and a minority stockholder of Foreign Car Center , Inc. Thereafter, the new cor- 129 NLRB No. 36.