Hollingsworth & Whitney Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 19, 1951

97 N.L.R.B. 599 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

HOLLINGSWORTH & WHITNEY CO. 599
leged illegality of such practice apart from the contract is not litigable
in 'a representation proceeding.6
As the union-security clause in the existing contract was effectively
suspended,7 we find that this contract is a bar to a determination of
representatives at this time. Accordingly, we shall dismiss the peti-
tion filed herein.
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition herein be, and it hereby is,
dismissed.
6 Pacific Metals Co., Ltd., et al ., 91 NLRB 696.
7In view of our determination that the union security clause was effectively suspended,
we do not pass upon the validity of that clause.
HOLLINGSWORTH & WHITNEY Co. and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
ELECTRICAL WORKERS, AFL, PETITIONER . Case No. 1-RC-2113.
December 19, 1951
Supplemental Decision and Second Direction of Election
On duly 13,1951, the Board issued a Decision and Direction of Elec-
tion in the above-captioned proceeding, wherein a specified voting
group was established. Thereafter, the Board granted the motion
of the Regional Director of the First Region to remand the case for
further hearing regarding the voting eligibility of certain employees.
Pursuant to the order, a hearing was held before a hearing officer of
the National Labor Relations Board. The hearing officer's rulings
made at the second hearing are free from prejudicial error and are
hereby affirmed.
The voting group, as described in the original' decision, includes all
electricians at the Employer's Winslow and Madison, Maine, plants,
and excludes, among others, switchboard operators. The eligibility
dispute among the parties, now to be resolved on the basis of both
hearings, relates to nine employees. Five of these are electricians,
whom the Employer and the Intervenor would exclude on the ground
that their assignment to electrical work is only temporary. The other
four are classified as electricians, but the Petitioner urges their exclu-
sion on the ground that in fact they do not perform clerical work.
1. The five assertedly temporary employees, currently assigned as
"temporary" Class C electricians, have held these positions for a long
time. As of the date of the second hearing, three had been electricians
more than 11/2 years, another for nearly that long, and the fifth for
97 NLRB No. 89.
600 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
almost a year . Some of them are part of the electrical crew working
directly on new construction, and two are filling vacancies created'by
the transfer of other electricians to construction work. All of them
were originally hired into departments other than the maintenance,
department, where they now work.
These employees are classified as "temporary" because they changed
jobs in connection with a plant expansion program at Winslow early
in 1950. At that time the Employer agreed with the Intervenor to
assign extra electricians for only 3 months. In April 1950 the agree-
ment was extended to cover certain itemized jobs. The record also
shows that the plant changed from a b- to a 6-day production week a
little over a year ago. The Employer was unable to indicate when
either the new construction or the longer workweek would terminate.
Its business manager testified that he thought the new construction will
continue for 90 days at least, but he would not venture a guess beyond
that point, saying that the decision was up to the Employer's board of
directors. He asserted generally that, although the duration of the
longer workweek depends on the Employer's future business level, the
extra electricians will not be needed when the new construction ceases.
However, he stated at another point that the job of one of these em-
ployees is due directly to the longer workweek.
In view of the continuing nature of the Employer's plant expansion
activities and the absence of any evidence that the Employer will
remove the electricians from their present jobs at any predictable time
in the near future, we find that they are as much a part of the bargain-
ing unit of electricians as other employees whose title does not include
the label "temporary." Accordingly, we find that they are eligible
to vote in the election.
2. The remaining employees whose eligibility is disputed are classi-
fied by the Employer as electricians and work at the Madison plant.
Contrary to the other parties, the Petitioner contends that they are
switchboard operators, rather than electricians, and therefore that
they fall into the class excluded in the unit description. The main
tasks of these employees are to keep a constant watch over the genera-
tors, water wheels, and switchboard room, and the water pumps nearby.
This involves taking hourly readings of the switchboard meters, and
inspecting, starting, and oiling the pumps. They also occasionally
assist a regular maintenance electrician who is on duty at the plant
during the day. Finally, they make minor electrical repairs, such as
changing fuses, placing circuit breakers, and trouble shooting on light
lines and motor circuits. All other electrical jobs fre considered
major and are left for the maintenance electrician. (All parties agree
that the sole maintenance electrician at the Madison plant is included
in the unit.) Such electrical work as is performed by the disputed
employees occupies only 10 percent of their time during the day shift
STATIONERS CORPORATION 601
and only 10 to 50 percent of their time on the other two shifts. The
latter estimates, however, include the time necessary for the main-
tenance of water pumps, which are electrically powered. One sub-
stitutes for the maintenance electrician at the Madison plant on the
latter's day off each week, and also serves as "utility man" 1 day each
week, doing both electrical and mechanical maintenance.
These employees are not covered by any apprenticeship program,
and it does not appear that they are required to possess any high degree
of electrical skill. Certainly, their duties do not require them to
exercise the gamut of skills usually required of maintenance electri-
cians. Moreover, most of their time is spent in nonelectrical work
of the type ordinarily performed by switchboard operators, who are
excluded from the voting group of skilled electrical craftsmen here
being considered. In view of the foregoing, we conclude that, de-
spite the job title applied to these employees by the Employer, their
duties do not warrant their inclusion in the voting group described in
the original decision. Accordingly, we find that they are not eligible
to vote in the election .1
[Text of Second Direction of Election omitted from publication in
this volume.]
MEMBERS MURDOCK and STYLES took no part in the consideration of
the above Supplemental Decision and Second Direction of Election.
1 Armstrong Cork Company, 89 NLRB 296 ; Bunker Hill and Sullivan Mining and Con-
centratting Company, 89 NLRB 243, 249 ; National Distillers Products Corporation, 84
NLRB 818.
STATIONERS CORPORATION and WAREHOUSE , PROCESSING & DISTRIBUTION
WORKERS UNION, LOCAL 26 , INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S &
WAREHOUSEMEN 'S UNION, PETITIONER . Case No . 31-RC--1375. De-
cember 19) 1951
Decision , Direction , and Order
On July 14, 1950, an election was conducted under the supervision
of the Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region of the National
Labor Relations Board pursuant to the provisions of a stipulation for
certification upon consent election, dated July 7, 1950. Following the
election, the parties were furnished a tally of ballots. The tally shows
that, of the 90 eligible voters, 38 cast ballots for the Petitioner, 41
cast ballots against the Petitioner, and 11 ballots were challenged.
As the challenged ballots were sufficient in number to affect the re-
sults of the election, the Regional Director, pursuant to the Board's
Rules and Regulations, conducted an investigation and, on September
15, 1950, issued and served upon the parties a report on challenged
97 NLRB No. 86.