Schaffner Brothers Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 4, 1953

102 N.L.R.B. 1010 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

1010 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
clerical employees, professional employees, guards, and supervisors
as defined in the Act 14
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
11 The exclusions are pursuant to agreement of the parties.
SCHAFFNER BROTHERS COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
FIREMEN & OILERS, LOCAL 249, AFL, PETITIONER. Case No.
6-RC-1188. February 4, 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 L. Hudson,
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 [Chairman Herzog and Members 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 .2
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 a unit of all the Employer's power depart-
ment employees, including engineers, firemen and maintenance men,
but excluding all other employees, guards, professional employees,
and supervisors. At the hearing, however, the Petitioner stated that
if the Board finds such a unit is inappropriate, it is willing to repre-
sent the Employer's firemen and engineers in one unit, and the main-
tenance mechanics in a separate unit. Both Intervenors contend that
the Petitioner's requested unit is inappropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining. The Employer takes no position on the unit
question.
1 At the hearing, International Union of Operating Engineers , Local 859, AFL, herein
called Local 859, moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that the unit requested by
the Petitioner is inappropriate. For the reasons stated herein, Local 859's motion to
dismiss the petition is denied
2 Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen of North America, Local 34, AFL,
herein called Local 34, and Local 859, were permitted to intervene at the hearing on the
basis of recently expired contracts with the Employer.
102 NLRB No. 92.
SCHAFFNER BROTHERS COMPANY 1011
Local 34 has represented the Employer's production and mainte-
nance employees, including the maintenance mechanics requested by
the Petitioner, in a single unit. Its most recent contract with the
Employer covering these employees expired on October 1, 1952. Local
859 has represented the Employer's engineers and firemen in a single
unit. Its most recent contract with the Employer covering these em-
ployees expired November 1, 1952.
There are 4 firemen and 3 engineers who work under the supervi-
sion of a chief engineer. They work in the powerhouse, separate
from other company buildings, where they tend boilers, stokers,
generators, water pumps, and compressors. All of these employees
are licensed. The powerhouse is operated on a 24-hour basis, 1 fire-
man and 1 engineer being on duty at all times. There are no transfers
between the powerhouse employees and other departments at the
plant.
There are four employees classified as maintenance mechanics, who
work under the separate supervision of a maintenance foreman. They
work only during the day shift, in a shop building separate from other
plant buildings. Maintenance mechanics perform all maintenance
work in and about the plant premises, except the maintenance of
motor vehicles. A considerable part of their work involves main-
taining steam lines, and assisting the engineers and firemen in the
maintenance and repair of powerhouse equipment. They also do
carpentry work, steamfitting, painting, electrical repairs, plumbing,
and general mechanical work. One of the mechanics is employed full
time as a painter. They are not licensed.
The maintenance mechanics do not appear to possess interests or
exercise skills sufficiently related to those of the powerhouse em-
ployees to warrant their inclusion in a single unit. Accordingly, we
find that the multidepartmental unit sought by the Petitioner is in-
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining. Nor does the
record indicate that the maintenance mechanics have the journeymen
skills and duties which we require in order to grant severance. We
therefore find that the maintenance mechanics do not constitute a
true craft group, and we shall not direct an election among these
employees.3
We find, however, that the firemen and engineers constitute a
group such as the Board has generally accorded separate representa-
tion.4 We shall therefore direct an election in this group.
There remains for consideration the supervisory status of the chief
engineer. The record shows that he has power effectively to recom-
mend the hiring and discharge of the engineers and firemen, and may
Cf. General Foods Corporation, 97 NLRB 1243.
Ford Motor Company, Aircraft Engine Division, 96 NLRB 1075.
1012 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
discipline them. We find that he is a supervisor within the meaning of
the Act, and therefore not eligible to vote in the election directed
herein.
We find that all engineers and firemen at the Employer's Erie, Penn-
sylvania plant, excluding maintenance mechanics and all other em-
ployees, office clerical, confidential 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 Section
9 (b) of the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election 5 omitted from publication in this
volume.]
' Local 34 stated at the hearing that it did not desire to participate in any election which
might be ordered in a unit which did not include the maintenance mechanics.
ARNOLD STONE COMPANY OF N. C., INC. and UNITED STONE AND ALLIED
PRODUCTS WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO , PETITIONER . Cabe LVO. 11-
RC-440. February 4, 1953
Supplemental Decision and Certification of Representatives
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election issued herein by
the Board on October 29, 1952,1 an election by secret ballot was con-
ducted under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director
for the Eleventh Region (Winston-Salem, North Carolina). Upon
conclusion of the balloting, a tally of ballots was furnished the parties
by the Regional Director. The tally shows that of approximately 61
eligible voters, 58 cast ballots, of which 43 were for the Petitioner, 13
were against the Petitioner, and 2 were challenged.
On November 18, 1952, the Employer filed objections to the conduct
of the election and to conduct affecting the results of the election.
Thereafter, in accordance with the Board's Rules and Regulations, the
Regional Director conducted an investigation and on December 3,
1952, issued and duly served upon the parties his report on objections,
recommending that the objections be overruled and that the Peti-
tioner be certified. On December 12, 1952, the Employer filed timely
exceptions to report on objections and a supporting brief. The Peti-
tioner filed a brief in support of the Regional Director's report.
The facts upon which the objections are based are not disputed.
The petition in this case was presented at the Board's Regional Office
on September 11, but for clerical reasons was not docketed until the
I Not reported in printed volumes of Board decisions.
102 NLRB No. 98.