Florence Stove Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 7, 1953

106 N.L.R.B. 664 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

664 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
3. The Respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8 (a) (1) or (3) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
FLORENCE STOVE COMPANY andLOCAL UNION NO. 86,
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS,
AFL, P e t i t i o n e r and LOCAL 2893, UNITED STEEL-
WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO. Case No. 1-RC-3254. August
7, 1953
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 Harold M.
Kowal, 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 [Members Houston, Styles, 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 organizations involved claim to represent
certain employees of the Employer.
3. 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.
4. The Petitioner seeks to sever a unit of powerhouse
employees from an existing production and maintenance unit
at the Employer's Gardner, Massachusetts, plant. The Inter-
venor and Employer contend that the unit sought is inappro-
priate because of a substantial plantwide bargaining history and
the integrated character of plant operations.
The Employer is engaged in the manufacture of electric
stove ranges, electric heaters, and minor aircraft parts at its
Gardner plant. Since 1944 the powerhouse employees have been
represented by the Intervenor, along with other production and
maintenance employees. The Employer employs about 450 em-
ployees in its operations. Of these, 5 employees, consisting of
1 licensed engineer and 4 licensed firemen, are assigned to
the powerplant.
The work of the powerhouse employees is confined exclusively
to the powerplant, a two-story building, consisting of a boiler-
room and an engine room, which is attached to the main plant.
The powerhouse employees perform the usual duties of their
classification in connection with the operation of the high-
106 NLRB No. 107
FLORENCE STOVE COMPANY 665
pressure boilers. Although the powerhouse employees are
subject.to the same general conditions of employment as other
plant personnel, they work under separate immediate super-
vision,' and have separate locker and shower facilities. Trans-
fers from the powerhouse to other departments have been
relatively infrequent.'
We find from the foregoing, and upon the entire record, that
the powerhouse employees comprise a distinct, homogeneous,
and functionally coherent group of the type which the Board has
customarily held may be accorded separate representation.3
Neither the past bargaining history on a more comprehensive
basis nor the character of the Employer's operations renders
such a unit inappropriate.
We find, therefore, that all powerhouse employees employed
at the Employer's Gardner, Massachusetts, plant, excluding
all other employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the
Act, may constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the
Act. However, we shall make no final unit determination at
this time, but shall first ascertain the desires of these em-
ployees as expressed in the election hereinafter directed. If a
majority vote for the Petitioner they will be taken to have
indicated their desire to constitute a separate appropriate unit,
and the Regional Director conducting the election directed
herein is instructed to issue a certification of representatives
to the Petitioner for the unit described above which the Board,
under such circumstances, finds to be appropriate for purposes
of collective bargaining. In the event a majority vote for the
Intervenor, the Board finds the existing unit to be appropriate
and the Regional Director will issue a certification of results
of election to such effect.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.)
Member Peterson, dissenting:
The employees sought herein by the Petitioner have been
represented by the Intervenor in a production and maintenance
unit for 9 years. In view of this substantial collective-bargain-
ing history on a plantwide basis, and in the absence of other
factors which would warrant their severance from the estab-
'The Intervenor would exclude as a supervisor the engineer working in the powerhouse,
while the Petitioner and Employer would include him. The record shows that the engineer is
in charge of the powerhouse employees, responsibly directing the operation of the boilers. He
also has the power effectively to recommend the hiring of new powerhouse employees. We
shall exclude the engineer as a supervisor within the meaning of the Act. Armour and Company,
88 NLRB 309.
2 The record shows that during the past 9 years there have been 3 permanent transfers of
powerhouse employees to other departments. During the winter months employees from pro-
duction jobs are transferred to work as helpers in the powerhouse.
3 The Gates Rubber Company, 95 NLRB 351.
666 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
lished unit,4I would not accord these employees separate
representation.
4See my dissenting opinion in W. C. Hamilton and Sons , 104 NLRB 627.
SHIRLINGTON SUPERMARKET, INC., and Its Subsidiaries,
SHIRLEY FOOD STORE NO. 1, INC., SHIRLEY FOOD STORE
NO, 2, INC., SHIRLEY FOOD STORE NO. 5, INC., SHIRLEY
FOOD STORE NO. 6, INC., and WESTMONT SUPERMARKET,
INC. and LOCAL 1501, RETAIL CLERKS INTERNATIONAL
ASSOCIATION, AFL, Petitioner. Case No. 5-RC-1095. Au-
gust 7, 1953
SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL DECISIONAND
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
Pursuant to a Supplemental Decision, Order, and Second
Direction of Election issued on January 15, 1953,1 an election
was conducted in this proceeding on February 7, 1953, under
the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the
Fifth Region, among the employees in the unit heretofore found
appropriate. The results of the election, as shown by the tally
of ballots, were that of approximately 62 eligible voters, 55
cast valid ballots, of which 32 were for, and 23 were against,
the Petitioner. There were 2 challenged ballots.
On February 12, 1953, the Employer filed timely objections
to conduct affecting the results of the election on seven grounds.
The Regional Director investigated the objections, and on
March 27, 1953, issued his report on objections, recommending
that the Employer's objections be overruled, and that the
Petitioner be certified as the collective- bargaining representa-
tive of the employees in the appropriate unit. On April 3, 1953,
the Employer filed exceptions to the Regional Director's report
on objections. On April 21, 1953, the Board issued an order
directing a hearing on the Employer's objection No. 7 because
it appeared to raise substantial and material issues of fact,
and further directing that the hearing officer designated to
conduct the hearing prepare and cause to be served upon the
parties a report containing resolutions of credibility of wit-
nesses, findings of fact, and recommendations to the Board
as to the,disposition of said objection.
Pursuant to the order of the Board, a hearing was held on
May 11, 1953, before John M. Dyer, hearing officer. The
Boards has reviewed the rulings made by the hearing officer
1102 NLRB 312.
2 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 [Members Houston. Murdock, and
Styles].
106 NLRB No. 109.