Marble Contractors' Association of Allegheny County and Vicinity, et al.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 20, 1952

99 N.L.R.B. 217 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

MARBLE CONTRACTORS' ASSOCIATION OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY 217
partments; and (4) that in any event the continuous process type of
operation at this plant mitigates against separate units.
We do not agree that either the degree of integration in this indus-
try or the history of collective bargaining on a broader basis neces-
sarily precludes the establishment of separate craft units.' As indi-
cated above, electricians at this plant are presently represented in a
separate craft unit. However, the Board has consistently refused to
sever multicraft or departmental groups from a preexisting produc-
tion and maintenance unit.4 Accordingly, assuming without deter-
mining that the employees sought to be represented are craft in char-
acter, we find, in view of the request for the inclusion of employees
from unrelated crafts, that the proposed unit is multicraft and there-
fore inappropriate. We shall, therefore, dismiss the petition.
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed herein be, and it hereby
is, dismissed.
3 United States Pipe & Foundry Company, 87 NLRB 115.
* See Westinghouse Electric Corporation, 96 NLRB 1128.
MARBLE CONTRACTORS' ASSOCIATION OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY AND
VICINITY, ET AL.' and UNITED STONE AND ALLIED PRODUCTS WORKERS
of AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER. Case No. 6-RC-1027. May 20,
1952
Decision and Direction of Election
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National La-
bor Relations Act, a hearing was held before William A. McGowan,
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-mem-
ber 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 em-
ployees of the Employer.2
1 In addition to the Association , the following members of the Association are parties to
this proceeding : Nick Battista , d/b/a Nick Battista Marble Works ; Louis Battista, d/b/a
Louis Battista Marble Works ; Pittsburgh Marble Company ; Ramps, Marble & Tile Company,
Inc. ; Raymond Volpatt ; and Angela E. Chirichigno , d/b/a Columbia Marble Company.
1 International Association of Marble , Slate and Stone Polishers, Rubbers and Sawyers,
Tile and Marble Setters Helpers and Terrazzo Workers Helpers, ALP, herein termed the
Intervenor , was permitted to intervene on the basis of an adequate showing of interest.
99 NLRB No. 49.
218 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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.
4. The Petitioner seeks an association-wide unit of all shop or in-
side employees at the Employer's Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, opera-
tions. Although the Employer and the Intervenor agree as to the
association-wide scope of the unit, they would also include in the
unit all outside employees, other than marble setters.
The Employer companies are engaged in manufacturing, selling,
and installing marble and similar products. Their employees fall
within 2 general groups : (1) About 32 inside workers, classified as
sawyers, rubbing bed operators, machine polishers, hand polishers,
and laborers, who prepare and process the marble into products such
as sills, mantels, and the like; and (2) outside workers, consisting of
about 16 marble setters and 17 helpers and apprentices, who perform
various types of marble installation work.
The inside and outside workers perform essentially different types
of work under separate immediate supervision. Interchange is limited
to slack periods, when usually the lesser skilled employees of one group
assist the other group, and to times when marble setter apprentices
work inside during a portion of their apprenticeship. The duties of
the inside employees are generally confined to the shop, while those
of the outside employees are usually performed at the installation
site.
Bargaining for the marble setters, whom the parties agree should be
excluded, and the other outside employees, has been conducted on a
basis separate from the inside employees for many years .3 On June
-23, 1950, following the Board decision in Columbia Marble Company,
89 NLRB 1482, in which the composition of the unit was agreed to by
the parties, the Intervenor, which won the election, was certified as
bargaining representative of the inside employees .4 However, no
bargaining agreement was executed covering these employees 5
Under all the circumstances, including the separate bargaining
history covering the outside employees and the essentially different
nature of their work, we believe that the interests of the inside em-
ployees are divergent from those of the outside workers and we shall
exclude the latter employees from the unit .6
' Local 33, Stone and Marble, Terrazzo and Tuck Pointers Union, Bricklayers , Masons &
Plasterers' International Union of America , AFL, has represented the marble setters, and
the Intervenor has represented the apprentices and helpers.
4 The Employer 's witness testified that there has been no change in the Employer 's method
of operations since the Board decision in the Columbia Marble Company case, supra.
' On April 16, 1951 , Local 14 of the Intervenor submitted a contract to the Employer
covering all the Employer 's employees, but the agreement was never signed. Separate
bargaining for the outside employees continued thereafter.
' See York Corporation , 87 NLRB 613. Also see McCann Steel Company, 94 NLRB
No. 65.
POTOMAC ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY 219
Accordingly, we find that all inside employees at the Employer's
Pittburgh, Pennsylvania; operations, excluding office, clerical, pro-
fessional, and outside employees, guards, and supervisors as defined
in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
[Text 'of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
POTOMAC ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY and CLIFFORD W. SCHMITz, JR.,
PETITIONER , and ELECTRIC UTILITIES UNION OF WASHINGTON, D. C.11
Case No. 5-RD-66. May 00, 1959
Decision and Direction of Election
Upon a petition for decertification duly filed under Section 9 (c) of
the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before David C.
Sachs, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hear-
ing 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].
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 Petitioner, an employee of the Employer, asserts that the
Union is no longer the representative, as defined in Section 9 (a) of
the Act, of the employees designated in the petition. The Union, a
labor organization, is the currently recognized representative of the
employees in question.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of the 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 have the Union decertified as the bar-
gaining representative of all engineer A's, assistant engineers, junior
engineers, cost engineer A's, assistant cost engineers, junior cost
engineers, and engineer-surveyor. The Petitioner contends, and the
Union denies, that employees in the above categories are professional
employees within the meaning of Section 2 (12) of the Act, and that
such employees together constitute an appropriate unit separate from
the unit covered by the Union's contract with the Employer? The
Employer takes no position in this matter.
I The name of the Union appears as amended at the hearing.
2 There is no contention that the contract constitutes a bar to this proceeding.
99 NLRB No. 29.
r