Magic Chef, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 25, 1953

104 N.L.R.B. 1118 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

1118 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Although not accepting the descriptive term of "isolated" as used by the General Counsel
as being accurately descriptive of it, as it was located at the junction of two fairly well
traveled roads, with lighting about, and stores and dwellings nearby, it was certainly demon-
strated to be at a location off the regular path for any ordinary travel of these supervisory
officials. In fact, none of them had ever been to the Black Horse Inn before and have not gone
there since. I cannot accept that mere coincidence brought these five representatives of the
Respondent to this unusual location at approximately the same time of night. Not even the
curiosity urge would ordinarily operate with such clock-like regularity. Curiosity which
impels supervisory officials to leave their own hearth, journey appreciable distances in a
car at night to unusual places, solely for the purpose of observing union meetings, is in
itself an evidence of activity prohibited to the Respondent and his agents. The very presence
of supervisory officials on such an occasion under the circumstances indicated constitutes
surveillance. 8 In such conduct I find the Respondent interfered with, restrained, and coerced
its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed under Section 7, and engaged in unfair
labor practice in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection
with the operations of the Respondent described in section I, above, have a close, intimate,
and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend
to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow thereof.
V. THE REMEDY
It having been found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices,
through acts of interference, restraint, and coercion, it will be recommended that the
Respondent cease and desist therefrom.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By interfering with, restraining , and coercing its employees in the exercise of rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce
within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Respondent did not violate Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act in the discharge of Robert
W. Cobbett, Sr., on August 29, 1952.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
8Cummer-Graham Co., 90 NLRB 722; N. L. R B. v. Clark Bros. Co. Inc. , 163 F. 2d
373 (C. A. 2). N. L. R. B. v. Collins & Aiktnan Corp., 146 F 2d. 454 (C. A. 4).
MAGIC CHEF, INC. and LOCAL NO. 1, INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, AFL, Peti-
tioner. Case No. 14-RC-2123. May 25, 1953
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Walter
A. Werner, 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, Murdock, and
Styles] .
104 NLRB No. 151.
MAGIC CHEF, INC. 11 19
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 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, for the following reasons:
The Petitioner seeks to represent a unit of all maintenance
electricians, apprentices, and helpers, and all pipefitters,
apprentices, and helpers. The Employer and Local Union
No. 96 of Stove Mounters International Union of North America,
AFL, herein called the Intervenor, who have been parties to
successive collective-bargaining agreements covering these
employees since 1937 and who have had a collective-bar-
gaining relationship sincd 1913, urge that the contractual
unit of all production and maintenance employees excluding
machinists and toolmakers and diemakers is the only appro-
priate unit.
The Employer is engaged in the manufacture of stoves.
Nineteen employees, classified as maintenance electricians,
are attached to department 62, which also includes 4 power-
house employees, all under the supervision of 1 foreman
and his assistant . The maintenance electricians as a group
spend an average of 60 to 70 percent of their time in elec-
trical duties.' Electrical duties at the Employer's plant
consist of wiring circuits, motors, controls, and welders;
and repairing circuits, motors, controls, welders, and elec-
tric power tools. Major installations are performed by out-
side contractors. The rewinding of motors is done outside
the plant. These employees rarely work on energized lines
above 220 volts.
Electricians may be hired from the outside or from within
the plant. If they are inexperienced, they are classified as
apprentices and enter upon a 2-year period of training to
equip them to perform the particular type of electrical work
required by the Employer. During this time they receive
periodic pay increases regardless of skill. At the end of 2
years they are classified as " journeymen electricians";
but this term as used by the Employer is not the equivalent
of a journeyman electrician as that term is used in the
electrical industry. The record reveals that the training
period, originally 4 years, was reduced to 2 years because
the electricians objected to the longer period on the ground
that they would not in any event, be true journeymen at the
end of the 4 years.
i Two of these employees spend 90- 95 percent of their time in electrical duties; 2, 90
percent ; 4, 80 percent ; 1, 70-75 percent; 1, 70 percent ; 3, 60 percent ; 2, 50 percent; 1,
40 percent ; and 1, 10 percent. Two employees are engaged primarily in pipefitting duties.
While the foreman testified that they spent 99 percent of their time in such duties, 1 of
the employees testified in contradiction that only 75 percent of his time was spent in pipe-
fitting duties.
1120 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The nonelectrical work performed by these employees
consists of pipefitting duties, including cutting, reaming, thread-
ing, and fitting pipe, maintenance of the steam-heating system,
insulating pipe, painting pipe, making mechanical repairs,
and unloading acid cars.
In view of the foregoing, we find that the maintenance
electricians are not a homogeneous, cohesive group of crafts-
men entitled to separate representation.:, We accordingly
find that a unit of maintenance electricians, or, in the alter-
native, a unit of maintenance electricians and pipefitters,
is inappropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining,
and shall dismiss the petition herein.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition herein be, and
it hereby is, dismissed.
2 E. I. DuPont de Nemours and Company. Inc.. 85 NLRB 1301; Columbia Southern Chem-
ical Corporation, 97 NLRB 1555.
STANDARD-TOCH CHEMICALS, INC., and LOCAL 781, IN-
TERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUF-
FEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA,
AFL; AND LOCAL 950, BROTHERHOOD OF PAINTERS,
DECORATORS AND PAPERHANGERS OF AMERICA, AFL.
Case No. 13-RM-143. May 25, 1953
DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS OF
ELECTION
Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent
election, an election by secret ballot was conducted in the
above-entitled proceeding on November 25, 1952, under the
direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the
Thirteenth Region, among the employees in the agreed unit.
The tally of ballots issued after the election showed that, of
the approximately 70 eligible voters, all cast ballots, of
which 33 were for the Union, 36 were against the Union, and
1 was challenged.
On December 1, 1952, the Union filed objections to the
election. Thereafter, in accordance with the Board's Rules and
Regulations, the Regional Director conducted an investigation
and on December 31, 1952, issued and duly served upon the
parties a report on objections, and on January 5, 1953, an
amendment to report on objections. In his report as amended,
the Regional Director recommended that a hearing be held
with respect to the alleged lack of secrecy of the ballot and
that the Union' s remaining objections be overruled. On January
12 and 13, 1953, respectively, the Employer and the Union
filed exceptions to the Regional Director's report and recom-
104 NLRB No. 152.