Tinling and Powell

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 30, 1949

82 N.L.R.B. 526 (N.L.R.B. 1949)

In the Matter of HUGH B. TINLING AND MRS. F. B. TINLING, CO-PART-
NERS, D/B/A TINLING AND POWELL,1 EMPLOYER and INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL UNION 73, PETITIONER
Case No. 19-RC-105.-Decided March 30, 194.9
DECISION
AND
ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before a hearing officer
of the National Labor Relations Board. 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 National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-man panel.*
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. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union 73,
herein called the Petitioner, and International Association of Machin-
ists, Local 86, herein called the Intervenor, are labor organizations,
claiming to represent employees of the Employer.
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9
(c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act for the following reasons :
The Petitioner seeks, in effect, a unit confined to the electrical work-
ers employed by the Employer in its motor repair shop, excluding
machinists, professional employees, and supervisors 2 The Employer
contends that there is no warrant for establishing such a unit as that
proposed by the Petitioner because there is no special group of workers
in its motor repair shop whose duties are confined strictly to electrical
work. It further contends that all the employees in its motor repair
shop are covered by a currently existing contract with the Intervenor.
1 The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing.
*Reynolds , Murdock , and Houston.
2 The petition as amended at the hearing described the unit to include all leadmen,
journeymen , apprentices, helpers, and general shopmen covering work classifications as
armature winders , electric motor repair, and maintenance of electrical equipment.
82 N. L. R. B., No. 63.
526
TINLING AND POWELL 527
At its motor repair shop, the Employer is engaged in the business of
repairing and installing electrical and mechanical machinery and
equipment viz : engines, generators, transformers, Diesel engines,
pumps, and compressors. There are approximately 30 employees at-
tached to this shop, all of whom according to the Employer, are classi-
rfied as motor repairmen or mechanics. These employees are skilled
workers, some to a greater degree than others, and they perform their
duties under the direction of the shop foreman. It appears that each
piece of machinery and equipment brought to the Employer's shop for
,repairs is first inspected by the shop foreman or the superintendent in
order to determine the nature of the work required to restore it to
.operation. After this determination is made, the repair job is assigned
to a motor repairman who performs whatever work is necessary. The
Petitioner and the Intervenor contend that the employees in the motor
repair shop are members of either the electrical craft or machinists
craft and that the Employer observes craft lines in its allocation of
work assignments. Although the operations of the Employer's repair
shop require the use of some skills traditionally associated with both
the electrical and the machinists craft, insofar as the record shows the
Employer does not differentiate between its employees in its work
assignments. All the motor repairmen appear to be qualified to repair
electrical as well as mechanical equipment, some to a greater extent
than others, and in the performance of their duties, they do both ma-
chinist and electrical work. It further appears that for 10 years or
more the Employer has maintained a program for the purpose of train-
ing workers as motor repairmen. This training program is main-
tained because of the difficulty of recruiting workers with skills broad
,enough in range to perform the work required of them.
For at least 1 year, the employees in the Employer's repair shop have
bargained on a two-unit basis with the Petitioner and the Intervenor
each representing separate groups of workers. In 1946, these two
unions entered into separate contracts with the Employer, each of
which purported to cover the employees within the respective juris-
diction of the contracting union. The Petitioner's contract expired
in April 1947, and was not renewed, while the Intervenor's contract
was succeeded by another contract executed by the parties in April
1948.3 The latter contract is currently in effect until April 1949.4
I In the wage schedule sections of the contracts various classifications of employees
are listed together with their wage rates Thus, the Petitioner ' s contract which was
executed on a multiple -employer basis listed the following classifications : Journeymen
armature winder, electrical machinists , electrical welder, electrical shopmen and appren-
tices. Both the Intervenor 's contracts list the following classifications : toolmakers ;
journeymen , all classes ; specialists and helpers.
* This contract also provides for its automatic renewal in the absence of a 60 -day notice
by either party.
528 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Petitioner and the Intervenor contend that the Intervenor's cur-
rent contract with the Employer covers the Employer's machinists
and that the balance of the Employer's employees constitute the elec-
trical workers whom the Petitioner would represent. The Employer,
on the other hand, contends the afore-mentioned contract covers all
the employees in its motor repair shop since they are all required to
perform the duties of machinists as well as those of electrical workers.
We find it unnecessary to determine the scope of this contract's cover-
age because, on the basis of the record before us, there does not appear
to be a group of electrical workers in the Employer's motor repair shop
with skills sufficiently distinctive from those of other employees to
warrant establishing them in a separate unit. Under these circum-
stances, we are unable to find sufficient basis in the record for the
establishment of such a unit as that requested by the Petitioner.5 Ac-
cordingly, we shall dismiss the petition.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
MEMBER HOUSTON, dissenting :
My colleagues have dismissed the petition of the IBEW for a bar-
gaining unit composed of those work classifications in the Employer's
motor repair shop which are engaged in traditional electricians' tasks,
for the reason that "there does not appear to be a group of electrical
workers-with skill sufficiently distinctive from those of other employ-
ees to warrant establishing them in a separate unit." This is a most
puzzling rationale because no dispute is apparent in this record that
the IBEW represented, in this shop, under a contract which expired
in 1947, work classifications typically associated with the electricians'
craft. I should have thought that that contract and the bargaining
history flowing from it would be found quite adequate to support the
present petition. But my colleagues make only passing reference to
it, apparently attaching no significance to its impact on the issue before
us. Their decision thus casually disregards a factor-bargaining his-
tory under a valid collective agreement-which this Board has for
many years considered among the most persuasive elements in the exe-
5 In reaching this conclusion , we have taken into consideration the fact that for at least
1 year some of the Employer 's employees were represented by the Petitioner while others
were represented by the Machinists in their dealings with the Employer under the con-
tracts mentioned above. In effect, the Petitioner is seeking the establishment of a craft
unit of electricians ; the record shows that such a craft group among the Employer's
employees is impossible of identification Under these circumstances , we cannot agree with
the position taken by our dissenting colleague that the afore -mentioned bargaining history,
which was not predicated on a unit determination of the Board , should be given controlling
weight in resolving the unit issue.
TINLING AND POWELL 529
cution of its function to determine appropriate units for collective
bargaining purposes. That this novel departure should appear in a
case in which the Employer has given no cogent reason beyond a few
conclusionary statements as to a change in its operations remains for
me doubly puzzling. I must record an emphatic disagreement with
this disposition.