Libbey Owens-Ford Glass Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 19, 1948

78 N.L.R.B. 1170 (N.L.R.B. 1948)

In the Matter of LIBBEY OWENS-FORD GLASS COMPANY , EMPLOYER and
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS , LOCAL 105, PETITIONER
Case No. 8-RC-91.-Decided August 19, 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 Members Houston, Reyn-
olds 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 involved claim to represent employees
of the Employer.
3. No 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, for the following reasons :
The Petitioner seeks to represent all maintenance employees at the
Employer's Plant No. 8, including machinists, machine repairmen,
electricians, carpenters, millwrights, template -makers, painters, oilers,
tinners, stencil maker, welders, group leaders, helpers, and appren-
tices, but excluding all other employees and all supervisors as defined
in the Act.
The Employer is engaged in the manufacture of flat glass products
and operates approximately eight plants. Since 1933, the Employer
and the Intervenor have bargained collectively for the production and
1 The request of the Employer and the Intervenor for oral argument is denied inasmuch
as the record , in our opinion , adequately presents the issues and positions of the parties.
78 N. L. R. B., No. 164.
1170
LIBBEY OWENS-FORD GLASS COMPANY 1171
maintenance employees, including the employees here in question, on
a multi-plant basis. Their most recent bargaining contract, as supple-
mented, expired on May 1, 1948. The Employer and the Intervenor
contend that the proposed unit is inappropriate in view of .this bar-
gaining history.
We find that the proposed unit is inappropriate (1) because it would
include employees of only one plant where there has been an effective
history of collective bargaining on a multi-plant basis,2 and (2) be-
cause it embraces, essentially, a multi-craft grouping of employees
with different skills.3 Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petition.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition herein be, and it hereby is,
dismissed.
Member REYNOLDS took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Order.
2 Matter of Robert Gair Company , Inc, 77 N L. R. B. 649; Matter of Spencer
Cardinal Corporation, 74 N L R. B. 528, 533, and cases cited herein.
B Matter of Pepsi Cola Company, 78 N. L. R. B . 790; Matter of Kimberly -Clark Corpora-
tion, 78 N L . R. B 478.