Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 20, 1956

115 N.L.R.B. 510 (N.L.R.B. 1956)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
4. The parties agree as to the appropriateness of the following unit
of employees which we find constitutes an appropriate unit for the
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9
(b) of the Act: All production and maintenance employees employed
at the Employer's Roanoke, Virginia, plant, including truckdrivers,
but excluding office clerical employees, head maintenance man, guards,
and all supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
MEMBER RoDOERS took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Election.
Montgomery Ward & Company, Incorporated i and Mail Order,
Retail Department Store, and Warehouse Employees Local
Union No. 149 , AFL-CIO,2 Petitioner . Case No. 18-RC-2662.
February 20,1956
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before L. C. Howg, hearing officer.
The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from preju-
dicial error and are hereby affirmed .3
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.
3. A 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.
4. The Petitioner seeks to, represent a unit of all the Employer's
maintenance employees in St. Paul, Minnesota, including the five
engineers in the boilerroom. The Intervenor, which was the con-
tractual representative of the foregoing unit from 1942 to 1954, now
desires to represent the engineers alone. Both the Employer and the
Petitioner contend that only the unit sought by the Petitioner is appro-
priate. In view of the history of collective bargaining and estab-
lished Board precedent, we find that a maintenance unit is appropriate.
The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing.
2 The AFL and CIO having merged after the hearing in the case , we are amending the
identification of the affiliation of the Unions.
8 The International (Union of Operating Engineers , Local No . 36, AFL-CIO, was per-
mitted to intervene on the basis of its showing of interest.
115 NLRB No. 81.
MONTGOMERY WARD & COMPANY, INCORPORATED 511
With respect to the Intervenor's request to represent the engineers
in a separate unit, the record shows that the engineers are licensed
under State law, do not interchange with the maintenance employees,
and work in the boilerroom which is in a separately located area.
Although the engineers perform such tasks as burning trash, the
record shows that they devote more than half the time to their prin-
cipal powerhouse function of operating and maintaining boilers and
checking gauges. While the engineers are under the supervision of
the building superintendent, who also directs the work of the main-
tenance employees, it is clear that the engineers constitute a func-
tionally distinct group with related duties and interests, and may be
represented separately for collective-bargaining purposes if the em-
ployees so desire. -
Accordingly, we shall direct elections among the following voting
groups of employees at the Employer's St. Paul, Minnesota, opera-
tion :
(1) All engineers in the boilerroom.
(2) All maintenance employees including painters, carpenters,
electricians, mechanics, office-machine repairmen, pipefitters, and
helpers, but excluding guards, managerial employees, all other em-
ployees, and supervisors as defined in the Act 4
If a majority of the employees in voting groups (1) and (2) vote
for the Intervenor and the Petitioner, respectively, the employees in
both groups will be taken to have indicated their desire to constitute
separate bargaining units, and the Regional Director conducting the
elections is directed to issue a certification of representatives to the
labor organization selected, respectively, by the employees in each
group for a separate unit, which the Board in such circumstances'finds
to be appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining. On the
other hand, if a majority of the employees in voting group (1) does
not vote for the Intervenor which is seeking to represent the engineers
in a separate unit, the votes of that group will be pooled with the votes
of the employees in voting group (2), and the Regional Director con-
ducting the election is instructed to issue a certification of representa-
tives to the Petitioner, the only labor organization seeking to represent
the pooled group,5 if it is selected by a majority of the employees
therein, which the Board in such circumstances finds to be a single
unit for purposes of collective bargaining c
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.]
4 As there is insufficient evidence in the record for a determination of the supervisory
status of the lead office-machine repairman , head carpenter , and chief electrician , we shall
permit them to vote subject to challenge
5In accordance with its wishes, the Intervenor, whose showing is restricted to the engi-
neers, has not been accorded a place on the ballot for group (2).
6 Amerioan Potash & Chemical Corporation , 107 NLRB 1418 , 1426-1427.
•+_ i^4^ ta.