Southbridge Finishing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 25, 1954

108 N.L.R.B. 54 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

54 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Employer also contends that the watch engineers are
supervisors within the meaning of the Act. The watch engineers
work in the Employer's powerhouses at East Hartford, Willgoos
Laboratory, D. E. Laboratory, and Southington and are in
charge of crews consisting of from 4 to 9 employees. The
powerhouses operate on a 3-shift schedule, and the watch
engineers take turns on each shift. Although there is a fore-
man in charge of each powerhouse during the day shift, a
watch engineer is in complete charge in each powerhouse
during the other 2 shifts. They also have complete charge of
the assignment and direction of the work of the employees
under them and maintain discipline among their crews. At
times the foremen seek the watch engineers' opinions about
the work of employees in their crews and give great weight
to these opinions when rating employees. In view of these
facts and on the record as a whole, we find that the watch
engineers are supervisors within the meaning of the Act.5
We shall, therefore, amend our certifications of representa-
tives issued in Cases Nos. 1-R-2194, 1-RC-626, 1-RC-1531,
and 1-RC-2173 in accordance with these findings.6
[The Board ordered the certifications of representatives
issued in Cases Nos. 1-R-2194, 1-RC-626, 1-RC-1531, and
1-RC-2173 amended so that the units for which the Interna-
tional Association of Machinists, AFL, was certified shall
exclude the classification of all watch engineers,' and dismissed
the petitions filed in this consolidated case.]
Member Beeson took no part in the consideration of the
above Decision and Order.
5 Tide Water Associated Oil Company, supra
6 There are no watch engineers at the Meriden or Portland plant.
7This is not to be construed as a recertification.
SOUTHBRIDGE FINISHING COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL
UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, LOCAL UNION NO.
86, A.F.L., Petitioner and TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF
AMERICA, CIO. Cases Nos. 1-RC-3326, 1-RC-3327, 1-RC-
3328, 1-RC-3329, and 1-RC-3331. March 25, 1954
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon separate petitions filed under Section 9 ( c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was
held before Leo J . Harroran , hearing officer . The hearing
officer ' s rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial
error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in these cases, the Board finds:
108 NLRB No. 13.
SOUTHBRIDGE FINISHING COMPANY 55
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing of the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent
certain employees of the Employer.
3. The Operating Engineers , which traditionally organizes
and represents powerplant maintenance employees, seeks to
sever 1 production division, the plastics division, from the
present maintenance and combined production divisions unit
and to sever 4 alleged craft units in the multicraft maintenance
department, preferring to sever the entire maintenance de-
partment. The Employer is neutral "except for the splitting
off of certain crafts and designating the specific work of these
people . . . they are one group in itself." The Intervenor op-
poses any severance, contending that the plastics division and
production employees are not distinct from the textile division
employees and that the Petitioner is wrongly transgressing
its jurisdictional limits as defined by its parent organization,
the AFL.
In American Potash & Chemical Corporation, 107 NLRB
1418, the Board has stated the restricted circumstances under
which it will permit severance of employees in a "craft unit"
or in a "department unit." Neither can be appropriate as units
for severance unless sought by a union which traditionally
represents employees within such units. In addition, a craft
unit must consist of a distinct and homogeneous group of skilled
journeymen craftsmen working as such. Assuming, without
deciding, that the requested craft units meet this latter test,
we find that here the craft requests are for inappropriate units
because the Petitioner is not a union which traditionally repre-
sents such craftsmen. On the other hand, a department unit
must be, at least, a functionally distinct and separate group of
skilled employees who have traditionally been accorded separate
representation. As the Petitioner is not a union which tradi-
tionally represents such departments, we find both the multi-
craft maintenance department and 1 of 2 production departments
to be inappropriate. Moreover, 1 production department cannot
even constitute a "department unit" within the meaning of the
Potash rule, stated above.
[The Board dismissed the petitions.]
Member Beeson took no part in the consideration of the
above Decision and Order.