J. L. Shiely Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 3, 1948

80 N.L.R.B. 119 (N.L.R.B. 1948)

In the Matter of J. L. SHIELY COMPANY, EMPLOYER and DISTRICT 77
OF THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, PETITIONER
Case No.18-RC-115.Decided November 3,1948
DECISION
AND
ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before a hearing
officer of the National Labor Relations Board. 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 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 involved claim to represent employees
of the Employer.
3. The alleged appropriate unit :
The Petitioner seeks to sever a group of three automotive truck
mechanics who work primarily on trucks of the conventional type from
a unit which in addition to automotive truck mechanics includes heavy
duty mechanics and operators who work on heavy duty or off-the-road
trucks, caterpillar tractors, bucket loaders, motor patrols, dinky loco-
motives, and power shovels. Both the heavy duty automotive ma-
chinery and the conventional trucks are propelled by gasoline or Diesel
oil. The International Union of Operating Engineers, herein called
the Intervenor, and the Employer oppose the unit requests upon the
ground that both the automotive truck mechanics and the heavy duty
automotive mechanics are segments of the same craft.
The Employer is engaged in the distribution of sand, gravel, and
crushed rock, at St. Paul, Minnesota. Since 1945, the Intervenor and
*Reynolds , Murdock , and Gray.
80 N. L. R. B., No. 25.
119
120 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Employer have had written bargaining agreements covering the
Employer's mechanics, shovel operators, and shovel firemen, motor
patrol operators, caterpillar tractor operators, off-the-road truck oper-
ators, dinky locomotive operators and bucket loader operator and
oilers and their apprentices in a single unit. While the Employer's
production operations are closed during the winter, all the above-
named operators work with the mechanics in the repair of the heavy
duty machinery. The Employer's conventional truck drivers and
laborers are represented respectively by two other unions, who are
not involved in this proceeding.
Until about 2 years ago the repair work for all the Employer's auto-
motive machinery was done at its Snelling Avenue repair shop.
Because of a personal difficulty between the master mechanic and a
mechanic, the Employer set up another repair shop on Wynne Street,
approximately 1,000 feet from the Snelling Avenue repair shop and
transferred the mechanic to the Wynne Street shop along with another
mechanic. The Employer then assigned to them the repair of all
conventional type trucks. It is the Wynne Street shop mechanics that
the Petitioner seeks to represent. The mechanics at the Wynne Street
shop work primarily on the conventional type of trucks, but are avail-
able for work on heavy-duty automotive machinery and occasionally
work on such machinery from the Snelling Avenue shop when they
can be spared and when they are urgently needed. In the same
manner, the heavy duty mechanics at the Snelling Avenue shop may
repair trucks from the Wynne Street shop.
In view of the foregoing, we believe that the unit requested by the
Petitioner comprises only a segment of the mechanic's craft and is,
therefore, inappropriate for purposes of collective bargaining.'
As we have held that the bargaining unit sought by the Petitioner
is inappropriate for collective bargaining purposes, we find that 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 National Labor Relations Act. The
petition will, therefore, be dismissed.2
ORDER
Upon the basis of the entire record in this case , the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the petition herein be, and it
hereby is, dismissed.
1 Matter of Gulf Oil Corporation, 77 N. L. R. B. 308; Matter of St. Louis Public Service
Company, 75 N L. R. B. 693 and 71 N. L. R. B. 160, and Shell Oil Company, Incorporated,
79 N. L R B. 618.
2 In view of our dismissal of the petition on the ground that the unit sought by the Peti-
tioner is inappropriate , we find it unnecessary to resolve a contract bar issue raised by the
Intervenor.