F. E. Schundler & Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 22, 1953

106 N.L.R.B. 345 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

F. E. SCHUNDLER & CO., INC. 345
perform the same work in the same department and exercise
substantially the same skills as do the employees comprising
the unit sought. Because the proposed unit comprises only a
segment of a group of employees who possess similar skills
and perform comparable work, we find that it is inappropriate.4
With regard to the Petitioner's alternate request for an
associationwide unit identical with the present, long-established
contract unit, it appears that such unit is confined to female
employees. The Board has held that units based upon sex are
inappropriate,' and absent a showing that there exists a sub-
stantial difference in skills between male and female em-
ployees," the Board will dismiss a petition requesting a unit
so predicated. But even if we assume that the contract unit
can be justified on the basis of difference in skills between
sexes--and the record suggests that such difference may
exist, at least at the Employer's plant--we would not order an
election in the requested unit because the Petitioner does not
possess sufficient showing of interest among the employees
composing said unit and because one of the essential con-
tracting parties, Allied Printing Employers Association, was
not made a party to this proceeding, nor was it given notice of
hearing.
Accordingly, by reason of all of the foregoing, and upon the
entire record, we shall dismiss the petition herein.
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
4International Harvester Company, 100 NLRB 1345.
' Underwriters Salvage Company of New York,'99 NLRB 337.
6Cf. Lloyd Hollister , Inc., 55 NLRB 32; H. W. Wilson Company, 48 NLRB 938.
F. E. SCHUNDLER & CO., INC. and INTERNATIONAL UNION
OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, LOCAL UNION 953, Petitioner
F. E. SCHUNDLER & CO., INC. and CHAUFFEURS, TEAM-
STERS & HELPERS LOCAL UNION NO. 492, AFL, Petitioner.
Cases Nos . 33-RC-448 and 33-RC-450 . July 22, 1953
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon separate petitions duly filed, a consolidated hearing was
held in the above-entitled cases before Byron Guse, 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 National
Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in
connection with these cases to a three-member panel [Members
Houston, Styles, and Peterson].
Upon the entire record in these cases, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the Act.
106 NLRB No. 58.
346 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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 Employer operates a perlitel mine and mill at No Agua,
New Mexico, and a loading plant at Antonito, Colorado, 22
miles distant, for the shipment of the mine product.
International Union of Operating Engineers, Local Union
953, the Petitioner in Case No. 33-RC-448, herein called the
Operating Engineers, seeks to represent in a single bargaining
unit all operators of crushers, dryers, tractor equipment,
the loading plant, and shovel type equipment; oilers and
greasers; mechanics; and welder helpers, and all other
employees coming under the recognized jurisdiction of hoisting
and portable engineers at the Employer's mine, mill, and
loading plant, excluding office and clerical employees, guards,
all other employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
Chauffeurs, Teamsters & Helpers, Local Union 492, the
Petitioner in Case No. 33-RC-450, herein called the Teamsters,
seeks to represent in a single unit all truckdrivers, truck-
drivers' helpers, and utility men at the Employer's mine, mill,
and loading plant, excluding office and clerical employees,
guards, all other employees, and supervisors as defined in the
Act. The Employer moves to dismiss both petitions on the
ground that the only appropriate unit is one which includes all
production and maintenance employees at its mine, mill, and
loading plant.
The Employer's operations are briefly described as follows:
Ore from the mine, carried by truck to the mill, is dumped
into a jaw crusher which breaks it up into smaller pieces.
The ore is then rinsed, dried, recrushed, and separated. The
perlite, which by this time is the consistency of sugar, is
dropped into tanks. The tanks are carried by truck from the
mill to the loading plant at Antonito, at which point they are
loaded onto freight cars or placed in storage.
The Employer currently employs 18 employees, of whom
10 are classified as common laborers; 2 as truckdrivers;
2 as shovel operators; 1 as a carpenter; 1 as a loader; 1 as a
maintenance man; and 1 as a watchman. Apparently, 5 em-
ployees, doing combined work, fall in part within the work
classifications sought by the Operating Engineers; and 2 in
part within the work classifications sought by the Teamsters.
These work classifications are not, however, indicative of the
work actually performed by the employees designated.
The employees work in two shifts under the supervision of
a superintendent, who responsibly directs their activities.
None of the employees is hired on the basis of specialized
skills and, with the exception of the carpenter, who is classified
as a temporary employee and whom neither of the Petitioners
seeks to represent, all are relatively inexperienced. The two
1 Perlite is a volcanic material used in the preparation of ready- mix plaster.
HYSTER COMPANY 347
employees classified as truckdrivers are licensed drivers.
They drive a semitrailer and a "bob-tail" truck on a public
highway between the mill and the loading plant; unlicensed
employees drive the two unregistered dump trucks, which ply
between the mine and the mill on the Employer's property.
Neither licensed nor unlicensed employees who drive trucks
are sufficiently skilled to maneuver a trailer truck completely
and properly without aid. In fact, the only employee who has
had sufficient skill and experience to do so is classified as
a shovel operator, and there is no evidence that he drives a
truck. All employees are hired at the rate paid by the Em-
ployer to common laborers. The only training the employees
receive is what they learn in the performance of the particular
jobs to which they are assigned.
Employees spend unspecified amounts of time performing
the work of the classifications under which they are listed.
Their work frequently overlaps that of other employee classi-
fications. Thus, the 2 truckdrivers, currently paid at the same
rate as common laborers, may spend half an entire day
cleaning out accumulations of dust in the mill. They spend half
their time performing utility work, because there is not
sufficient driving to occupy their time. The 2 shovel operators
operate trucks between the mine and the mill; 1 shovel operator
also doubles as a tractor operator ; and 1 shovel operator is
one of the 2 employees who perform welding operations. The
other employee who performs welding operations is classified
as the maintenance man; he also performs minor repairs on
the Employer's machinery and exercises the supervisory
powers of the superintendent in the latter's absence. There is
no history of collective bargaining for the Employer's em-
ployees. No labor organization seeks to represent them in a
single production and maintenance unit.
Under these circumstances, we find that the employees
herein sought to be represented have no special craft skills
nor do they constitute groups with homogeneity of interests not
possessed by other employees at the Employer's operations.
They are therefore not entitled to representation in separate
units on a craft or other basis. We shall accordingly dismiss
the instant petitions.2
[The Board dismissed the petitions.]
2 The Waterbury Tag Company, 102 NLRB 1116.
HYSTER COMPANY and DISTRICT LODGE NO. 24, INTER-
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, AFL, Petitioner.
Case No. 36-RC-938. July 22, 1953
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Robert. J.
106 NLRB No. 60.