Indiana Limestone Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 6, 1949

83 N.L.R.B. 1124 (N.L.R.B. 1949)

In the Matter Of INDIANA LIMESTONE COMPANY, INC., EMPLOYER and
LOCAL UNION No. 16, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL
WORKERS, A. F. OF L., PETITIONER
Case No. 35-RC-186.-Decided June 6, 1949
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION'
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before William A.
McGowan, hearing officer of the National Labor Relations Boad. 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-member panel [Members Reynolds, Murdock, and
Gray].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
National Labor Relations Act.
2. The labor organizations named below claim to represent em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. The question concerning representation :
The Petitioner seeks a unit of electricians in the Employer's Stone
Division. The Employer and the Intervenor have been parties to
separate collective bargaining contracts for employees in the Stone
and Metal Divisions since 1934 and 1942, respectively. They last con-
tract for the Stone Division expired February 15, 1949. However,
the Intervenor presently has a contract with the Employer for all the
Metal Division employees, which contract was executed June 1, 1948,
and is effective until June 1, 1950. The Intervenor contends that, as
the employees sought by the Petitioner devote a portion of their time
to electrical work in the Metal Division, its existing contract is a bar
to a present determination of representatives.
The Intervenor's contract includes only employees working in the
Metal Division. Without determining whether or not the electricians
1 At the hearing Local 599, International Association of Machinists, herein called the
Intervenor , was permitted to intervene because of contractual interest.
83 N. L. R. B., No. 157.
1124
INDIANA LIMESTONE COMPANY, INC. 1125
are covered by this contract while performing occasional duties in the
Metal Division, we find that, because the Petitioner is seeking to repre-
sent these employees with respect to their duties in the Stone Division
and in consideration of the fact that the Intervenor's contract does not
purport to cover employees working in that Division, the contract in
question does not constitute a bar to this proceeding.2
We find that a question affecting commerce exists concerning the
representation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of
Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The appropriate unit :
The Petitioner seeks certification as exclusive bargaining repre-
sentative of a unit of maintenance electricians, their apprentices and
helpers at the Employer's Bedford, Indiana, plant, excluding office
and clerical employees, guards, professional employees, and supervi-
sors as defined in the Act. The Employer takes no position as to the
appropriateness of the unit sought. The Intervenor contends that the
unit requested is inappropriate on the ground that the electricians are
not craftsmen and do not comprise a separate identifiable group apart
from the general maintenance unit, and also upon the ground that
the bargaining history between the Employer and the Intervenor on
a broader basis precludes the finding of a separate unit for electricians.
The Employer's operations which involve 14 quarries and mills, ex-
tend over an area of approximately 30 miles by 6 miles. Its two main
divisions are the Stone and Metal Divisions. In the Stone Division
there is a general maintenance unit consisting of 75 employees. Twelve
of these employees are the maintenance electricians and helpers whom
the Petitioner seeks to represent in this proceeding.
As noted above the Intervenor contends that the electricians do not
constitute a craft group. The record discloses that the electricians
have a substantial amount of experience and perform the usual func-
tions of skilled electricians; that they repair and maintain electrical
lines, rewire motors and test electrical equipment, using ohm-meters,
watt-meters, ammeters, voltmeters, and other electrical instruments
peculiar to the electrical craft. It further appears that, although the
Employer has no formal apprenticeship program in effect for these
employees, it hires electricians who have been trained elsewhere in the
electrical craft for inclusion in the present group of electricians.
Moreover, it is undisputed that the latter are under the separate
supervision of an electrical supervisor who hires and discharges such
employees and generally controls their activities. Although, due to
the manner in which the maintenance unit is operated, electricians are
often directed by other maintenance supervisors as to the subject
1 Matter of McKesson and Robbins, Inc., 63 N L R. B. 88.
844340-50-vol. 83-72
1126 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
matter of their duties, electricians are assigned to their jobs in the
Stone and Metal Divisions by the electrical supervisor who alone
directs them as to the manner in which they shall perform their work.
Furthermore, the electrical supervisor is the only person authorized to
inspect electrical jobs after they have been completed by the electri.
cians. These employees have their own headquarters which they
share with some quarry employees, but no other maintenance em-
ployees.
Although the electricians are under separate supervision and have
separate headquarters, the Intervenor argues that they do not consti-
tute a readily identifiable group upon the ground that at times they do
nonelectrical work and also work in the production division. The
Intervenor further argues in support of its contention that other
maintenance employees also do electrical work. The primary duties
of the electricians are at all times electrical. Although they occa-
sionally do minor nonelectrical repairs and other maintenance em-
ployees infrequently do minor electrical work, this is due primarily
to the fact that the work of the maintenance employees carries them
throughout a large area and also to the fact that the distance between
jobs makes it inconvenient for them to travel to other jobs involving
relatively unimportant maintenance work of the type which they
would normally perform. However, the proportion of time devoted
to nonelectrical work by the maintenance electricians is relatively
small and, in our opinion, is insufficient to alter the craft character of
their principal employments Nor is the craft nature of their work
affected by the fact that the electricians spend about 30 percent of
their total time in the Metal Division installing the electrical parts
on cranes being produced for sale by the Employer. Assignment of
electricians to this type of work is not regular or permanent .4
Although the electricians spend a portion of their time doing produc-
tion work in the Metal Division, this type of work requires the exercise
of their usual skills as electricians and is not of a different and unre-
lated character such as would impair their separate identity as elec-
tricians.
The record as a whole reveals that the unit sought by the Petitioner
is substantially a traditional craft group of maintenance electricians
separately supervised and located, of a type which the Board has estab-
lished on numerous occasions in separate craft units for the purposes
8 Matter of Hughe8 Aircraft Company, 81 N. L. R. B. 867 ; Matter of Todd Shipyards
Corporation, 80 N. L. R. B. 382.
* The Employer began building cranes about July 1948 . Future assignment of elec-
tricians to this type of work is entirely dependent upon whether or not the Employer
continues to receive orders for cranes.
INDIANA LIMESTONE COMPANY, INC. 1127
of collective bargaining where they so desired it, notwithstanding their
previous inclusion in a broader unit.'
We find that the following employees may constitute a unit appro-
priate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9 (b) of the Act: all maintenance electricians and their
helpers at the Employer's Bedford, Indiana, plant, excluding all other
maintenance employees, office and clerical employees, guards, profes-
sional employees, and supervisors as defined in the Acts However, we
shall make no final unit determination at this time, but shall first
ascertain the desires of these employees as expressed in the election
hereinafter directed. If a majority vote for the Petitioner, they will
be taken to have indicated their desire to constitute a separate bar-
gaining unit.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION 7
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
purposes of collective bargaining with the Employer, an election by
secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than
30 days from the date of this Direction, under the direction and super-
vision of the Regional Director for the Region in which this case was
heard, and subject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62 of National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 5, as amended, among
the employees described in paragraph numbered 4, above, who were
employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date
of this Direction, including employees who did not work during said
pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation or temporarily
laid off, but excluding those employees who have since quit or been
discharged for cause and have not been rehired or reinstated prior to
the election, and also excluding employees on strike who are not en-
titled to reinstatement, to determine whether they desire to be repre-
sented, for purposes of collective bargaining, by Local Union No. 16,
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, A. F. of L., or by
Local 599, International Association of Machinists, or by neither.
6 Matter of United States Rubber Company , 81 N. L . R. B. 17 ; Matter of General Tire
and Rubber Company, 79 N. L. R. B . 580; Matter of Tin Processing Corporation, 78
N. L. R. B. 96.
6 Although Board Member Gray is of a contrary view for the reasons set forth in his
dissenting opinion in Matter of D. I. du Pont De Nemours and Company, 83 N. L. R. B.,
865, he considers himself bound by the majority holding in that case and therefore
joins in this Decision.
I Any participant in the election directed herein may , upon its prompt request to, and
approval thereof by, the Regional Director have its name removed from the ballot.