National Carbide Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 8, 1949

85 N.L.R.B. 103 (N.L.R.B. 1949)

In the Matter of NATIONAL CARBIDE CORPORATION, EMPLOYER and
ELECTRICAL WORKERS UNION LOCAL 369, INTERNATIONAL BROTHER-
HOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, A. F. L., PETITIONER
Case No. 9-RC-367.-Decided July 8, 1949
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing in this matter was held before
Harold V. Carey, hearing officer. At the close of the hearing the Em-
ployer moved to dismiss the petition upon various grounds stated
below. The hearing officer reserved ruling on the motion for the
.Board. For reasons stated hereinafter, the motion is denied.' The
hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial
error and are hereby affirmed.
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.
I The Employer bases its motion to dismiss upon the ground that the Petitioner in March,
1943 , renounced its representation of the Employer ' s production and maintenance employees
and agreed to their representation by Local 320 , International Brotherhood of Firemen and
Oilers, A. F . L., Intervenor herein. There is no evidence in the record that a contract
renouncing the representation of such employees exists ; even assuming there is a contract,
it would, under established Board policy , have long ceased before this date to constitute a
'bar to this proceeding . The Employer ' s contention is, therefore , rejected.
The Employer also asserts , in support of its motion to dismiss „ that since the Petitioner's
renouncement as representative of the production and maintenance employees it has been
"unduly harassed " by two unsuccessful petitions of the Petitioner . The first petition
seeking a craft unit of electricians was filed March 19, 1946, and later withdrawn by the
Petitioner upon the recommendation of the Field Examiner . The second petition seeking
the same unit of electricians was filed April 25, 19 47, and dismissed by the Board in its
Decision and Order dated May 3, 1948 ( 77 N. L. R. B. 454 ). From the facts in the record,
we do not believe that the Employer has been unduly harassed by the previous petitions.
Furthermore , the Act does not limit the number of petitions that may be filed concerning
the representation of a unit of employees , but only limits the number of elections which
may be held within the same bargaining unit or subdivision thereof within a period of 12
months. Accordingly , we find no merit in this contention of the Employer.
The further contention of the Employer in support of its motion to dismiss , that the unit
sought is inappropriate , is rejected for reasons stated in paragraph 4, infra.
85 N. L . R. B., No. 15.
103
104 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning representation
of employees of the Employer, within the meaning of the Act.
4. The Petitioner seeks certification as exclusive bargaining rep-
resentative of a unit of maintenance electricians at the Employer's
Louisville, Kentucky, plant, excluding office and clerical employees,
guards, professional employees, and supervisors as defined by the
Act. The Intervenor takes no position as to the appropriateness of
the unit sought. The Employer 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 group, and also upon the ground that the bar-
gaining history on a broader basis precludes the finding of a separate
unit for electricians.
The Employer's operations at its Louisville plant are divided into
4 main divisions referred to as coke drying and raw materials, fur-
nace, crushing and packing, and maintenance divisions. The main-
tenance division, which has about 59 employees, is under the general
supervision of the plant superintendent and consists of the mechanical
and electrical departments which have 49 and 10 employees, respec-
tively. Of the 10 employees in the electrical maintenance department,
7 are first-class maintenance men, 1 is a second-class maintenance man
and 2 are helpers. Each of the 2 maintenance departments is in a
separate room and under separate supervision. The mechanical main-
tenance department is under the supervision of a mechanical engi-
neer and the electrical maintenance department is under the super-
vision of an electrical engineer. Although the Employer has no
formal apprenticeship training program, 8 of the 10 employees in
the electrical department were hired with an electrical. background.
The normal advancement for the maintenance electrician is from
helper to second class and from there to first-class electrician.
The operations of the Employer are dependent upon electrical
power; it is the responsibilty of the electricians to maintain all elec-
trical equipment and make immediate repairs in case of break-downs.
They repair and maintain electrical lines, cranes, switches, motors,
and contacts. They also check causes for motor overloading, clean
generators, replace fuses, bend conduits, and do trouble shooting.
While it is true that some of their work, such as changing light bulbs
and turning on and off lights is routine in character, it is clear and
the Employer admits that a substantial portion of the electricians'
work requires the exercise of the skill and training which is tradi-
tionally associated with the electrical eraft.2
I The Petitioner contends that 90 percent of the work done by the electricians Is of a craft
nature and the Employer agrees that about 60 percent of such work has craft characteristics
NATIONAL CARBIDE CORPORATION 105
The Employer, however, argues that the electricians do not con-
stitute an appropriate unit because they perform some nonelectrical
work such as cutting weeds and pumping water out of manholes. It
appears that the only weeds cut by the electricians are the weeds at
a high voltage substation, which require a very few hours each year.
It also appears that the only manholes pumped by the electricians are
those which contain high voltage cables. This operation consumes
only a very small portion of their time. In both of the foregoing jobs
the electricians are subject to special occupational hazards from high-
voltage wires. We find, accordingly, that the present record reveals
a substantially different situation from that disclosed by the evidence
adduced in an earlier case, where we found that these electricians did
not have sufficient craft characteristics to warrant their severance from
a plant-wide unit.3
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
established on numerous occasions in separate craft units for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining where they so desired it, notwithstand-
ing their previous inclusion in a broader Unit .4
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 Louisville, Kentucky, plant, excluding office
and clerical employees, guards, professional employees, and super-
visors as defined in the Act. 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 bargaining unit.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION 5
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-
0
3 Matter of National Carbide Corporation, 77 N. L. R. B. 454. (1943)
4 Matter of Indiana Limestone Company Inc., 83 N. L. R. B., No. 157; Matter of Aluminum
Company of America, 83 N. L. R. B., No. 59 ; Matter of Hughes Aircraft Company, 81
N. L. It. B. 867; Matter of United States Rubber Company, 81 N. L. R. B. 17; Matter of
Todd Shipyards Corporation , 80 N. L. R. B. 382.
6 Any participant in the election directed herein may , upon its prompt resquest to, and
approval thereof by, the Regional Director, have its name removed from the ballot.
.106 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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 in the voting group found appropriate in paragraph
numbered 4, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period
immediately preceding the date of this Direction of Election , includ-
ing 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 date of the
election, and also excluding employees on strike who are not entitled
to reinstatement , to determine whether they desire to be represented,
for purposes of collective bargaining, by Electrical Workers Union
Local 369 , International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, A. F. L.,
or by the International Brotherhood of Firemen and Oilers, Local 320,
A. F. L., or by neither.
MEMBER HOUSTON took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Election.
0