Micamold Radio Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 14, 1951

94 N.L.R.B. 1193 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

MICAMOLD RADIO CORP. 1193
defined in the Act, to be appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Acts
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
8 The unit was agreed to by all the parties to this proceeding.
MICAMOLD RADIO CORP. and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF ELECTRICAL,
RADIO AND MACHINE WORKERS, CIO, PETITIONER. Case No. 9-RU.-
3592.5. June 14, 1951
Decision and Direction of Elections
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9. (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before James V. Altieri, 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 Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Reynolds and Murdock].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organizations. involved claim to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
3. The Employer and the UE executed a contract on December 21,
1949. The contract was to be in effect until July 1, 1951, and provided
for an automatic yearly renewal subject to a 30-day written notice
of a desire to modify or terminate. The petition in the present pro-
ceeding was filed on April 3, 1951. As the petition was filed less than
2 months prior to the Mill B date,2 we find that the contract between
the Employer and the UE is not a bar to the present proceeding.
We find that a 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 Act.
4. The Petitioner seeks a unit composed of "all of the employees
of the Employer engaged in production, in the machine shop, in the
boiler room, in the receiving and shipping departments, inspectors
and porters excepting the heads of the stock room, receiving and ship-
' Permission to intervene was granted to Local 430 , United Electrical , Radio and
Machine Workers of America , hereafter called the UE, and to Local 30-A, International
Union of Operating Engineers , AFL, hereafter , called Local 30-A, upon their showing
of a sufficient interest in the proceeding.
2International Harvester Company, Harvester Division, East Moline Works , 90 NLRB
1906.
94 NLRB No. 197.
1194 DECISIONS OF -NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ping departments and any clerks employed therein." For the past.'
14 years the Employer has bargained with successive labor organiza
tions for a unit which is the same as that sought by the present
Petitioner. The UE and the Employer agree that this unit is ap-
propriate.
Local 30-A seek to represent the boiler room employees who, it
claims, constitute a unit severable from the production and mainte-
nance unit.3 The other parties to the proceeding contend that these
employees, in the light of collective bargaining history and in the ab-
sence of a sufficient showing of separate interest and working condi-
tions, should not be severed.
The so-called boiler room employees sought by Local 30-A consist
of two stationary engineers 4 and five maintenance employees all of
whom are under the supervision of the chief engineer. The five main-
tenance employees report to the chief engineer and generally receive
all assignments from him. Although the work of the maintenance
employees relates to general plant maintenance. and repairs, it con-
sists largely of keeping in good repair the steam and water lines which
,come from the boiler room. Moreover while they work throughout
the plant, with one or two infrequent exceptions, they do not share
their work nor are they interchanged with any of the other employees.
We find that all boiler room employees, including the maintenance em-
ployees discussed above, represent a distinct, homogeneous, and,
functionally coherent group, and may, if they so desire, constitute
a separate bargaining unit, despite the past bargaining history on a
broader basis 8 Accordingly, we shall direct an election in the follow-
ing voting groups :
1. All boiler room employees, including stationary engineers and
maintenance men at the Employer's Brooklyn, New York, plant, but
-excluding all other employees and supervisors as defined in the Act.
2. All the employees of the Employer at its Brooklyn, New York,
plant engaged in production, in the machine shop, in the shipping
and receiving departments, inspectors, and porters, but excluding the
employees in the boiler room and all guards, professional employees,
and supervisors within the meaning of the Act.
However, we shall make no final determination at this time, but
shall first ascertain the desires of these employees as expressed in the
,elections hereinafter directed. If a majority of the boiler room em-
ployees vote for Local 30-A, International Union of Operating Engi-
8 If the Board determines this unit to 'be nonseverable, Local 30-A seeks, in the
alternative , to sever two operating engineers.
C There is a third stationary engineer , called the chief engineer , who is conceded to
The a supervisor by Local 30-A.
6International Shoe Company; 92 NLRB No. 37; Bloomingdale Brothers, Inc., 81
NLR InmanB
PAPPAS AND COMPANY 1195
neers, AFL, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to
constitute a separate appropriate bargaining unit.
:[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication in this
volume.]
PAPPAS AND COMPANY and UNITED FRESH FRUIT AND VEGETABLE
WORKERS LOCAL INDUSTRIAL UNION 78, CIO
FRESH FRUIT AND VEGETABLE WORKERS UNION, LOCAL 78, AND FOOD,
TOBACCO, AGRICULTURAL AND ALLIED WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA
and UNITED FRESH FRUIT AND VEGETABLE WORKERS LOCAL INDUS-
TRIAL UNION 78, CIO. Cases Nos. 20-CA-493 and dO-CB-159.
June 15, 1951
Decision and Order
On March 5, 1951, Trial Examiner William E. Spencer issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent Union had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair
labor practices in violation of Section 8 (b) (2) and 8 (b) (1) (A)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and recommending
that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action,
as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto.
The Trial Examiner, however, recommended that the complaint be
dismissed as to the Respondent Company. Thereafter, the General
Counsel filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting
brief.'
The Board 2 has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner at the
hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in
the case, and hereby adopts the Trial Examiner's findings, conclu-
sions, and recommendations with the following modifications and
additions::
The Trial Examiner recommended dismissal of the complaint inso-
far as it alleged that the Respondent Company had discriminated with
regard to the hire and tenure of Ramey in violation of Section 8 (a)
(3) and (1) of the Act. While finding that Ramey had involuntarily
The General Counsel excepted only to that portion of the intermediate Report relating
to the dismissal of the complaint as to the Respondent Company. As no timely excep-
tions were filed to the findings and recommendations of the Trial Examiner with respect
to the Respondent Union, such findings and recommendations are hereby affirmed.
2 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 Houston, Reynolds, and Styles].
94 NLRB No. 189.