Indiana Limestone Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 15, 1951

92 N.L.R.B. 1337 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

In the Matter Of INDIANA LIMESTONE COMPANY, INC., EMPLOYER and'
RAY HASKETT, ET AL., PETITIONERS
Case No. 35-RD-20.-Decided January 15, 1951
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor-
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Seymour Goldstein, hearing-
officer. 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 Act, the Board'
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member-
panel [Members Houston, Reynolds, and Styles].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. ThP Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of_
the Act.
2. Petitioners, employees of the Employer, assert that Local 76;'
International Federation of Technical Engineers, Architects and_
Draftsmen's Unions, AFL, the certified representative hereinafter.
called the Intervenor, is no longer the representative within the mean-.
ing of Section 9 (a) of the Act of the employees designated in the,
petition.
3. The question concerning representation :
The Employer is an Indiana corporation engaged at its Bedford,.
Indiana, plant in the quarrying and fabrication of building stone.
The Intervenor, pursuant to a consent election, was certified on May-
18, 1948, as exclusive bargaining representative for the Employer's
draftsmen and apprentice draftsmen.
The latest collective bargaining contract between the Employer and
Intervenor became effective on February 16,1949, and will expire Feb-
ruary 15, 1951. This contract contains a provision whereby the Em-
ployer agrees to. employ only members of the Intervenor except when
such members are unavailable. The contract also provides that any-
section held unlawful by the court or by the Congress shall either be
eliminated or replaced by the parties. The Intervenor contends that
the contract is a bar to the instant petition. The Intervenor has never-
been authorized in an election under Section 9 (e) (1) of the Act to,
incorporate a union-security clause in a contract. Even such authori-_
zation, however, would not make lawful the provision involved herein,,
92 NLRB No. 194.
929979-51-vol. 92-86
1337
1338 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the clear effect of which is to require the Employer to give preferential
treatment in hiring to those who are members of the Intervenor, be-
yond that permitted by the Act." Nor is the instant contract made
lawful by the purported savings provision.2 In view of these facts, we
find that the contract is not a bar to the decertification petition.
We find therefore that a question affecting commerce exists concern-
ing the representation of employees of the Employer within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The appropriate unit :
The Petitioners seek a decertification election in the unit of drafts-
men and apprentice draftsmen currently represented by the, Intervenor.
The Intervenor contends that the draftsmen, as distinguished from
the apprentice draftsmen, are professional employees as defined in
Section .2 (12) of the Act and therefore constitute a separate appro-
-priate voting group. On the other hand, the Employer contends that
the above-mentioned combined unit is alone appropriate because both
-the draftsmen and the apprentice draftsmen are professional em-
ployees. There is no other dispute concerning the trait.
Of the 39 employees in the requested unit, 25 are journeymen drafts-
men. Six additional employees are recent college graduates who may
be considered as probationary journeymen. The remaining 8 em-
ployees are apprentice draftsmen, undergoing a formal 4-year work-
;study apprenticeship program prior to being certified as journeymen.
The duties of the apprentice draftsmen are an integral part of the
work performed in their department,. and, upon completion of the
training period, they will become journeymen draftsmen. We are sat-
isfied that the interest of the journeymen draftsmen and their_appren-
tices are sufficiently similar to warrant their inclusion in the same unit;
and in view of the predominant number of journeymen draftsmen in
the proposed unit, we would find a single combined unit to be appro-
priate even if the journeymen draftsmen were professional employees.3
For the purpose of this decision, it is, accordingly, unnecessary to
determine the professional status of the employees involved.
We find that the journeymen draftsmen and draftsmen apprentices,
excluding all other employees, watchmen, professional employees, and
supervisors as defined in the Act, in the Employer's Bedford, Indiana,
plant, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining within the meaning of Section 9 -(b) of the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted. from publication in this
volume.]
American Export Lines, Inc ., 81 NLRB 1370.
s Sperry Gyroscope Company, 88 NLRB 907.
Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Lamp Division, 80 NLRB 591.