NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

VII. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED 171
In itself, warrant their being placed, for purposes of collective bargaining, in a
single unit with the tool makers and machinists. Even if each of the smaller
groups were to choose Lodge No. 1557 to represent them, they are to be considered
as distinct units, and not as a semi-industrial unit as claimed by
Lodge No. 1557.
The selection of Lodge No. 1557 as the common representative would not, of
course, indicate a desire to abandon the craft form of organization. On the
other hand, the selection of the Schick Local, which is organizing on an industrial
basis, would indicate a choice to become a part of a plant-wide unit. As
indicated below, therefore, the determination of the unit will depend on the
outcome of the ballot.35
In the same case, the question arose as to whether or not the only
painter employed by the company should be included within the plant
unit. The Board said :
The Board has held that the principle of collective bargaining presupposes
that there is more than one eligible person who desires to bargain, and that the
act does not empower the Board to certify where only one employee is involved.s8
The painter, therefore, cannot be considered as a bargaining unit. Nevertheless,
he shall be given an opportunity to indicate whether he desires to be part of
the industrial unit, and if he so chooses, he shall be permitted to vote in the
election held among the production employees.
The practice of determining the appropriate unit or units upon the
basis of separate elections, established in the Globe case, has not been
limited to situations involving disputes between unions organized on
craft and industrial lines. In Matter of Pacific Gas and Electric
Company, 37 the question arose as to whether employees engaged in the •
operation of the street car and bus system of a gas and electric utility
company should be included in the same unit with the company's outside
or physical workers. The Board found that a separate election
was warranted for the street car and bus employees, since they had
bargained separately in the past and were engaged in a distinct line
of work. In Hatter of Wilnyingtcni, Transportation Company," the
question was whether the unlicensed personnel on the company's tugs
and barges should be included in one unit with the unlicensed deck
personnel on its passenger and freight ships. The Board found that
the factors which supported each contention were sufficient to justify
a finding either way. The fact that a majority of the men on the
tugs and barges preferred the union which was organized on a more
limited basis was therefore considered decisive in favor of the smaller
unit.
As may be seen from the discussion above, the Board makes no
final decision as to the scope of the appropriate unit or units in situations
where it considers that the doctrine of the Globe case is applicable,
until it ascertains the preference of a majority of the employees
whose inclusion in a unit is at issue. Where the record sufficiently
shows the preference of the employees so that a separate election is
unnecessary, a final determination can be made at once. In other
cases the Board directs the holding of elections without a prior finding
35 See also the discussion of Matter of Great Lakes Engineering Works and Detroit
Metal Trades Council, 3 N. L. R. B. 825, in section G 3 (C) below, and cases cited in
footnote 76.
Ze Citing Matter of Luckenbach Steamship Company, Inc., et al. and Gatemen, Watchmen
and Miscellaneous Waterfront Workers Union, Local S8-124; International Longshoremen's
Association, 2 N. L. R. B. 181.
87 Matter of Pacific Gas and Electric Company and United Electrical d Radio Workers
of America, 3 N. L. R. B. 835.
33 Matter of Wilmington Transportation Company and Inland Boatmen's Union of the
Pacific, San Pedro Division, 4 N. L. R. B. 750.
108817-38-12