TWENTY-SIXTH ANNUAL REPORT - National Labor Relations Board

60 Twenty-sixth Annual Report of the National Labor Relations Board
rate identity aie being affected by automation and technological
changes and other forms of industrial advancement"
Heretofore, it n as the Board's policy to reject party stipulations for
units confined to production employees in all industries except the
garment industry 7 During the past yeat, the Board reversed its past
practice of giving effect to such stipulations in the garment industry
where there was no history of bargaining 8 It held that there are no
special circumstances peculiar to that industry to warrant this exception,
and found a unit of production and maintenance employees alone
appropi late
e Dual Function Employees
With respect to the unit placement of an employee who performs
dual functions for an employer, a Board majority announced a new
test for all cases, namely, "whether an employee sought to be included
in a proposed unit is primarily engaged in, and spends the
major portion of his time, i e, more than 50 percent of his time,
performing tasks or duties alike or similar to the ones performed by
the other employees in the requested unit " 9 Under this rule, only
employees engaged more than 50 percent of their time in such like tasks
or duties will be included in the requested unit and eligible to vote in
an election conducted in such unit
f Individuals Excluded From Bargaining Unit by the Act
A. baigaining unit ma3 include only individuals ho ate "employees"
within the meaning of section 2(3) of the act The major
categories expressly excluded from the term "employee" are agricultural
laborers, independent contractors, and supervisors In addition,
thd statutory definition excludes domestic sell ants, or anyone
employed by his parent or spouse, or persons employed by an employer
subject to the Railway Labor Act or by any person who is not
an employer within the definition of section 2(2) 11
The statutory exclusions have continued to require determinations
as to whether the employment functions or relations of particular employees
precluded their inclusion in a pi oposed bargaining unit
4. See also Wal tier-Lamb ert Pharmaceutical Go, Inc OM NLRB No 171
'See Dove Mfg Go, 328 NLRB 778, and cases cited therein
a nut
Denver Color ado Springs-Pueblo Motor Way, 129 NLRB 1184, Mimber Finning dissent
big The Ocala Star Banner, 97 NLRB 384 (1951) and other cases permitting unit
inelusion of emploi ees spending less thin a major portion of their time in such tnsks
nere specifically overrulcd
io As to ioting eligibility see beloa, p 68
'I See above, p 22, footnote 1 See also, e g Geronnno Service Go, 129 NLRB 306,
a here the Board had occasion to cleteininie whether a pArticular compan y was an "em
plover" in few of the authorit y of an Army contracting officer to effect the dismissal of
employees, and Laundry, Dry Cleaning ce Dye House Workers' Intl Union Local 26, 129
NLRB 1446, a here the Boni(' found office cleric ils for a local union's a elfaie and pension
trusts to be emplo yees of the local union undei the circunistinces of the casts