Moloney Electric Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 7, 1961

130 N.L.R.B. 1253 (N.L.R.B. 1961)

MOLONEY ELECTRIC COMPANY 1 253
Act, and. has thereby engaged .in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above , occurring in con-
nection with the operations of the Respondent described in section I, above, have
a close, intimate , and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among
the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing com-
merce and the free flow thereof.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, I
shall recommend that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative ac-
tion designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact , and upon the entire record in the
case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Houston Newspaper Guild, Local 113, of American Newspaper Guild, AFL-
CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
2. All employees in the editorial department of the Respondent 's Houston , Texas,
newspaper operations , excluding all other employees , guards, and supervisors as
defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
3. At all times since March 11, 1960, the Union has been and continues to be the
exclusive bargaining representative of all the employees in the aforementioned unit
for the purpose of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the
Act.
4. By refusing , on and after March 21, 1960, to bargain collectively with the
Union as exclusive representative of its employees in the aforesaid unit, the Re-
spondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the mean-
ing of Section 8(a) (5) of the Act.
5. By the aforesaid refusal to bargain collectively, the Respondent has interfered
with, restrained , and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
in Section 7 of the Act, and thereby has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Moloney Electric Company and Local 1, International Brother-
hood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No.
14-RC-8780. March 7, 1961
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a. hearing and a further hearing on remand were held
before John W. Noble, Jr., hearing officer.' The hearing officer's
1 On July 8, 1960 , the Board Issued an unpublished decision and direction of election in
this proceeding , and on July 15, 1960, an order correcting that decision . Thereafter the
Petitioner filed a motion for clarification and the Intervenor filed a memorandum in oppo-
sition thereto . The Board , having duly considered these matters , on September 13, 1960,
issued an order in which it vacated its prior actions, denied the Petitioner 's motion to
clarify, and remanded the case to the Regional Director for further hearing
In Its original decision the Board had found , in essence , that there was a craft unit of
electricians that could appropriately be severed from the overall unit represented by the
Intervenor. The later actions of the parties indicated , in the opinion of the Board, that
130 NLRB No. 123.
1254 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
rulings made at the hearings 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 Rodgers. Jenkins, and Fanning].
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 Petitioner and Electrical Workers Independent Union, the
Intervenor herein, are labor organizations which claim to represent
certain employees 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 stated its unit request in the alternative : (1)
all electricians in the maintenance department of the Employer's
plants, excluding all other employees; or (2) all maintenance and
construction electricians and apprentices in the maintenance depart-
ment, excluding all other employees. The Employer and the Inter-
venor oppose the Petitioner's request on the principal grounds that
(1) the electricians are not craftsmen, (2) they are not a distinct
group but only a part of the maintenance department, (3) there is
a long history of plantwide bargaining which is also the pattern 'for
the industry, and (4) the integration of the Employer's operations
precludes . separate representation.
The electricians involved are part of the Employer's maintenance
department, which also includes several other classifications, under
two foremen, one of whom is an electrician. They are hired on the
basis of electrical training and experience, and those with lesser ability
work with more proficient employees until deemed qualified. Their
job duties include routine maintenance, troubleshooting, and some of
the construction work that arises in this highly electrified plant, using
numerous special tools and testing equipment, and conforming to the
standards required by the housing laws of the City of St. Louis. In
these circumstances we do not view either the absence of a formalized
apprenticeship program or the fact that the electricians in the main-
tenance department do a slight amount of nonelectrical work as con-
trolling. They do not interchange with production workers and they
exercise the full gamut of skills associated with their craft.
Moreover, these employees are the only ones in the plant who do
exercise those skills. At the reopened hearing evidence was submitted
with respect to the duties of certain employees in the testing depart-
there might be other additional employees exercising the skills of the electrician 's craft,
whose unit placement should be considered . The purpose of the remanded hearing was
to determine whether , in fact, there were such employees.
CERTIFIED GROCERS OF CALIFORNIA, LTD. 1255
ment,, the electrical assembly section, and the research laboratory.
The employees in testing and assembly are part of the production
process. The assembly employees install auxiliary equipment on the
transformers which are the Employer's product. The testers are en-
gaged in'performing different kinds of tests on transformers. While
in connection with their own equipment they may occasionally do
some. routine maintenance, their work does not require the exercise
of the skills of the electrician's craft. We conclude that neither the
testers nor assemblers should be included?
With respect to the two electricians in the research laboratory, the
record indicates that they are engaged principally in the fabrication
of specially designed machinery not otherwise available. They do
not exercise the full range of the electrician's skills, are separately
supervised, and they do not do electrical maintenance. We exclude
them. Accordingly, as, the Petitioner is a traditional representative
of the electrician's craft, we shall direct an election in the following
voting group :
All maintenance electricians of the Employer at its St. Louis, Mis-
souri, plants, excluding all other employees, guards, and supervisors
as defined in the Act.'
If a majority vote for the Petitioner they will be taken to have
indicated their desire to constitute a separate appropriate unit, and
the Regional Director conducting the election directed herein is in-
structed to issue a certification of representatives to the Petitioner for
this unit, which the Board, -under such circumstances, finds to be
appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining. In the event a
majority do not vote for the Petitioner, these employees shall remain
a part of the existing unit and the Regional Director shall issue a
certification of results of election to such effect.
[Text of Direction'of Election omitted from publication.]
2 Thompson Rome Wooldridge , Inc., 128 NLRB 236.
S The record does not support any unit description other than the above . We therefore
reject the Petitioner ' s alternative request.
Certified Grocers of California , Ltd. and Carlos V. Garcia. Case
No. 21-CA-4036. March 8, 1961
DECISION AND ORDER
On December 19, 1960, Trial Examiner Wallace E. Royster issued
his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent had not engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged
in the complaint and recommending that the complaint be dismissed
in its entirety, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report
130 NLRB No. 130.