Hollingsworth & Whitney Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 18, 1948

80 N.L.R.B. 366 (N.L.R.B. 1948)

In the Matter of HOLLINGSWORTH & WHITNEY COMPANY, EMPLOYER
and INTERNATIONAL AssociATIoN OF MACHINISTS, PETITIONER
Case No.1-RC-892.-Decided November 18,1948
DECISION
AND
ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Water-
ville, Maine, on July 27, 1948, before Robert E. Green, 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
this case to a three-man panel consisting of the undersigned Board
Members.*
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the National Labor Relations Act.
2. The labor organizations involved herein claim to represent em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the represen-
tation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section
9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations
Act, for the following reasons :
The Petitioner seeks to sever from the unit of production and main-
tenance employees presently represented by International Brotherhood
of Pulp, Sulphite and Paper Mill Workers, AFL, the Intervenor
herein, a group of maintenance mechanics in the construction crew.
The Employer and the Intervenor contend that the proposed unit is
inappropriate.'
The Intervenor has been recognized since 1941 as the collective
bargaining representative of substantially all the Employer's produc-
*Chairman Herzog and Members Reynolds and Gray.
In view of our dismissal of the petition herein on the ground that the unit sought is
inappropriate , we find it unnecessary to consider the other contentions raised by the
Employer and Intervenor.
80 N. L. R. B., No. 79.
366
HOLLINGSWORTH & WHITNEY COMPANY 367
tion and maintenance employees, including the construction crew
mechanics presently sought to be represented by the Petitioner.
Although the Petitioner was certified in 1945, pursuant to a consent
election, as representative of a unit of machinists, millwrights, repair-
men, welders and their helpers and apprentices, the Intervenor has
continued to represent the construction crew mechanics as part of its
production and maintenance unit, and they have shared equally with
the other employees the wage increases and insurance benefits obtained
for them by the Intervenor.
There are 13 construction crew mechanics who, together with 6 con-
crete men, constitute a separate department known as the construction
crew. The Petitioner does not seek to represent the concrete men. The
construction crew mechanics perform general maintenance work at the
Employer's plant and at the residences the Employer maintains for its
employees. Their work consists of repairing windows, putting up
posts, stringing cable, laying roofs and floors, sanding floors, pre-
paring concrete forms, removing snow and ice, and similar tasks. On
occasions, construction crew mechanics do carpentry work or make
repairs to machines, functions generally performed by the millwrights
and the repairmen. The construction crew mechanics also frequently
work with and assist the maintenance craftsmen who are included in
the production and maintenance unit, but they do not perform the
work of such craftsmen. The work performed by the construction
crew mechanics does not require a high degree of skill, and they are
classified as among the least skilled of the Employer's employees. The
Petitioner, in its brief before the Board, concedes that the construc-
tion crew do not constitute a craft unit. As it is clear that the con-
struction crew mechanics are not craftsmen, and as no other sufficient
reason appears for severing them from the existing production and
maintenance unit,2 we shall dismiss the petition.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the entire record in this case, the National Labor
Relations Board orders that the petition herein be, and it hereby is,
dismissed.
2 See Matter of United Concrete Pipe Corporation , 79 N. L . R. B. 1023; Matter of
C. T. Dearing Printing Company, 79 N. L. R. B. 1020; Matter of Oliver G. Kelley, d/b/a
0. G. Kelly, 78 N. L. R B 1166; Matter of General Mills, Inc, Mechanical Division, 77
N. L. R. B. 474; Matter of Shampaine Company, 77 N. L. R. B. 1100.