NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
170 THIRD ANNUAL REPORT OF <strong>NATIONAL</strong> .<strong>LABOR</strong> <strong>RELATIONS</strong> <strong>BOARD</strong><br />
union, among the pattern makers, and among the employees in the foundries, to<br />
determine the desires of these men as to unit is unnecessary and would cause<br />
unwarranted confusion. Upon the showing made at the hearing, the result of<br />
such elections would be a foregone conclusion.<br />
As to two crafts, however, the Board found that a substantial number<br />
of employees had evinced a desire for separate representation, and<br />
consequently it directed the holding of separate elections for these<br />
groups.31<br />
Separate elections may also be denied where the circumstances do<br />
not present sufficient reasons for finding that the group in which such<br />
an election is requested could be aptly considered a separate unit. In<br />
Matter of American Hardware Corporation,32 where the Board directed<br />
the holding of separate elections as to one group of employees,<br />
it stated with regard to another group of employees:<br />
The I. A. M. also contended that the header department at the Corbin Screw<br />
plant constituted a separate unit. This department is composed of specialist<br />
machinists engaged in making the heads for screws. The, Corbin Screw plant<br />
is the only ooie of the fowr plants in New Britain that has such a department.<br />
There are, however<br />
'<br />
specialist machinists of many other types eligible to membership<br />
in the I. A. M. employed both at the Corbin Screw plant and at the<br />
other plants of the Company. The machinists in the header department are no<br />
more highly skilled than the other specialist machinists, and the I. A. M. made<br />
no contention that all specialist machinists constitute an appropriate unit. Further<br />
there is no history of collective bargaining by the header department as a<br />
separate unit, and no reason appears for separating those employees from the<br />
other specialist machinists who are to be included in the industrial unit. We<br />
therefore find that the header department does not constitute a separate unit<br />
for the purposes of collective bargaining and that the employees of that department<br />
are part of the industrial unit.'<br />
The Board has also held that where it is contended that certain<br />
skilled groups should be set aside from other workers in a plant because<br />
of the nature of their work, it will not permit a single election<br />
for all of the skilled employees on a semi-industrial basis. Thus, in<br />
Matter of Schick Dry 'Shaver Com,pany, 34 one union was organized<br />
on an industrial basis, and another union, which admitted as its members<br />
employees within a particular craft, had also been designated<br />
as bargaining representative by employees in two other crafts. The<br />
Board directed separate elections for each of the crafts, although the<br />
names of the same unions were placed on all of the ballots. The<br />
Board said:<br />
The fact that the carpenters and electricians in the maintenance department<br />
are also the most highly skilled ba their respective trade classification does not,<br />
a A similar result was reached in Matter of American Hardware Corporation and<br />
United Electrical and Radio Workers of America, 4 N. L. R. B. 412; and Matter of Shell<br />
Oil Company and International Association of Oil Field, Gas Well and Refinery Workers of<br />
America, 7 N. L. R. B. 417. In the first of these, the Board found that four plants<br />
constituted a single appropriate unit. Consequently, while a separate election was proper<br />
where a craft union had organized employees in all of the plants, such an election would<br />
would not be held where a craft union had not succeeded in more than one plant, and<br />
consequently represented only a negligible minority of the employees who were eligible to<br />
join it. In the second, four separate elections were directed, as agreed on by the parties.<br />
It was also claimed that the company's plumbers constituted a separate appropriate unit.<br />
There was doubt as to whether a unit for plumbers would number 341 employees or 645,<br />
as claimed by the industrial union involved. The Board stated that it was not necessary<br />
to decide this question since even if the smaller number was chosen, the craft union had<br />
shown that it had at most 40 members.<br />
=Matter of American Hardware Corporation and United Electrical and Radio Workers<br />
of America, 4 N. L. R.. B. 412.<br />
a See also Matter of Standard Oil Company of California and 0i/ Workers International<br />
Union, Local 299, 5 N. L. R. B. 750; and Matter of Consolidated Afreraft Corporation and<br />
International Union, United Automobile Workers of America, Local No. 508, C. I. 0., 7<br />
N. L. B. B. 1061.<br />
84 Matter of Schick Dry Shaver Company and Lodge No. 1557, International Association<br />
of Machinists, 4 N. L. R. B. 246.