The Ruberoid Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 21, 1954

109 N.L.R.B. 257 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

THE RUBEROID COMPANY 257
clerical and professional employees , guards, watchmen , porters, and all
supervisors as defined in the National Labor Relations Act.
THE BAKER & TAYLOR CO.,
Employer.
Dated---------------- By----------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be
altered , defaced, or covered by any other material.
THE RUBEROID COMPANY and UNITED CEMENT, LIME AND GYPSUM'
WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, AFL, PETITIONER
THE RUBEROID COMPANY and DISTRICT LODGE No. 96, LOCAL LODGE No.
23, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, AFL, PETITIONER.
Cases Nos. 10-RC-2773 and 10-RC-2776. July 21, 1954
Decision and Direction of Elections
Upon separate petitions duly filed- under Section 9 (c) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before
Philip B. Cordes, 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 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 em-
ployees of the Employer.2
3. Questions affecting commerce exist 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 Employer is engaged in the production of asphalt shingles
at various plants, of which only that at Savannah, Georgia, is involved
in this proceeding. IAM seeks to represent a unit of all the mainte-
nance employees at this plant. The other labor organizations and the
Employer contend that only a production and maintenance unit is ap-
propriate. There is no bargaining history at this plant.
The eight maintenance employees whom the IAM seeks to represent
are classified as lead mechanic,3 mechanic A and B, mechanic helper,
and oiler. The Employer's plant operates on two shifts and a me-
chanic and helper are assigned to each, with the duty of attending the
'The hearing officer referred to the Board the Employer 's and the Gypsum Workers'
motions to dismiss the IAM petition in Case No . 10-RC-2776 on the ground that the unit
there sought is inappropriate . For the reasons stated in paragraph numbered 4 the
motions are denied
"International Brotherhood of Pulp, Sulphite and Paper Mill Workers, AFL, herein
called the Intervenor, was permitted to intervene in Case No 10-RC-2773 at the hearing
on the basis of a proper showing of interest
3 All parties agree that this individual is not a supervisor within the meaning of the Act.
109 NLRB No. 51.
258 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
roofing machine, making such adjustments and minor repairs as may
be necessary. They and the others in the maintenance group also work
on the other equipment in the Employer's plant. It is conceded that
the members of the maintenance group are not craftsmen, and difficult
work is contracted out. Maintenance work is also done on weekends,
and in this work the mechanics are assisted by production employees.
Maintenance employees are not separately supervised and they have
the same benefits as production employees, with whom they often work.
.However, the Employer's operations are not so integrated as to de-
stroy the separate identity of the maintenance employees. Therefore,
in the absence of any bargaining history on a broader basis, we find
that the maintenance employees may constitute an appropriate unit.'
Accordingly, we shall direct elections in the following groups of em-
ployees at the Employer's Savannah, Georgia, plant:
(1) All maintenance employees, excluding all other employees and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
(2) All other employees, including laboratory teclinicians,' but ex-
cluding guards, watchmen, professional employees, and supervisors as
defined in the Act.
If a majority of the employees in voting group (1) select the union
seeking to represent them separately, those employees will be taken
to have indicated their desire to constitute a separate bargaining unit
and the Regional Director conducting the election is instructed to
issue a certification of representatives to that labor organization for
that unit. If, however, a majority of the employees in voting group
(1) do not vote for the union seeking to represent them in a separate
unit, that group will appropriately be included in the production and
maintenance unit and their votes shall be pooled with those in voting
group (2)," and the Regional Director conducting the election is in-
structed to issue a certification of representatives to the labor organi-
zation selected by a majority of the employees in the pooled group,
which the Board, in such circumstances, finds to be a single unit ap-
propriate for purposes of collective bargaining.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.]
MEMBER PETERSON took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Elections.
4 Shoreland Fr cowers, Inc, 108 NLRB 723
s The Employee would exclude from the unit these individuals, who perform routine
tests on both law materials and finished products, on the ground that they are manage-
ment employees we reject this contention.
e If the votes are pooled, they are to he tallied in the following manner : The votes
for the union seeking the separate unit shall be counted as valid votes, but neither for
nor against any union seeking the more comprehensive unit; all other votes are to be
accorded their face value whether for representation by a union seeking the comprehensive
unit or for no union American Potash & Chemtical Corporation, 107 NLRB 1418.