Link-Belt Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 7, 1947

71 N.L.R.B. 1376 (N.L.R.B. 1947)

In the Matter of LINK-BELT COMPANY, PACIFIC DIVISION, EMPLOYER
and TECHNICAL ENGINEERS AND ARCHITECTS ASSOCIATION, LOCAL
No. 17, AFL, PETITIONER
Case No. 19-R-1967.-Decided January 7, 1947
Grosscup, Ambler, and Stephan, by Mr. Pendleton Miller, of
Seattle, Wash., for the Employer.
Mr. H. W. Nelson, of Seattle, Wash., for the Petitioner.
Mr. Leonard J. Mandl, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
Upon a petition duly filed, the National Labor Relations Board
,conducted a, prehearing election on October 5, 1946, among employees
of the Employer in the unit hereinafter found appropriate, to deter-
mine whether or not they desired to be represented by the Petitioner
for the purposes of collective bargaining.
At the close of the election a Tally of Ballots was furnished the
parties. The Tally shows that there were approximately three eligible
voters and that all cast ballots, of which two were for the Petitioner
and one was challenged.
Thereafter, a hearing was held at Seattle, Washington, on October
25, 1946, before Eugene M. Purver, hearing officer. The hearing
officer's rulings are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations
Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Link-Belt Company, Pacific Division, a California Corporation,
is engaged at its plant in Seattle, Washington, in the business of
manufacturing and distributing elevating, conveying, and power
transmission machinery. The Employer uses annually over $100,000,
worth of iron and steel, the greater part of which is shipped to its
71 N. L. R. B., No 220.
1376
LINK-BELT COMPANY 1377
Seattle plant from points outside the State of Washington. Its an-
nual gross sales total approximately $500,000, of which 10 to 20 per-
cent represents shipments from its Seattle plant to points outside the
State.
The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
IT. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Petitioner is a labor organization claiming to represent em-
ployees of the Employer.
III. TI-IE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
On or about August 2, 1946, the Petitioner requested of the Em-
ployer recognition as the exclusive bargaining representative of cer-
taiu of its employees. The Employer refused such recognition on the
grounds, among others, that the unit was inappropriate and that it
had no knowledge of the representative status of the Petitioner.
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation, of employees of the Employer, within the meaning
.of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Petitioner seeks a unit of all engineering employees of the
Employer employed in its Seattle, Washington, plant, the major
portion of whose duties consists of tracing, drafting, detailing, check-
ing and designing in connection with all branches of technical engi-
neering, including tooling, except for supervisory employees. The
Employer took no position at the hearing as to the appropriateness of
the requested unit.
The record discloses that there are approximately 30 employees
at the Seattle plant, and that two of them are engineers and comprise
the unit sought.' These two employees are located in a separate office
and are listed on a separate pay roll. Their work which appeal's to
be typical of their classification differs from that of all other em-
ployees and constitutes a separate and distinct phase of the plant
'Although the petition requested inclusion in the unit of all engineering employees in
the Employer's Seattle plants, it is clear that the Employer has only one plant in Seattle,
Washington, and that the election was held among the engineering employees at that
plant. The petition was accordingly amended at the hearing in that respect
2 At the hearing , it was agreed by the parties that employee Orth, whose ballot was
challenged at the election, was not in the alleged appropriate unit, and that the challenge
to his ballot should be sustained. Accordingly we shall sustain the challenge to this
ballot.
The Employer's production employees are presently represented by International Asso-
ciation of Machinists, Local 79, and its warehouse employees are represented by another
union. None of these unions claims to represent the engineers.
1378 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
operations. In view of the foregoing, we are of the opinion that
the engineers constitute a cohesive, homogeneous group of technical
employees who may function together for collective bargaining
purposes.
We therefore find that all engineering employees at the Seattle,.
Washington. plant of the Employer, excluding all supervisory em-
ployees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or
otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively
recommend such action, constitute a unit appropriate for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b)
of the Act.
V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
The results of the election held before the hearing show that the
Petitioner has secured all the valid votes cast. Under the circum-
stances, we shall certify the Petitioner as the collective bargaining
representative of the employees in the appropriate unit.
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that Technical Engineers and Architects
Association, Local No. 17, AFL, hasbeen designated and selected by
a majority of all engineering employees at the Seattle, Washington,
plant of Link-Belt Company, Pacific Division, Seattle, Washington,
excluding all supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote,
discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of em-
ployees, or effectively recommend such action, as their representative
for the purposes of collective bargaining and that, pursuant to Sec-
tion 9 (a) of the Act, the said organization is the exclusive represent-
ative of all such employees for the purposes of collective bargaining
with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other
conditions of employment.