VII. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED 83or other factors, have changed in the interval between the twodecisions."Following its policy of not placing a company-dominated union onthe ballot," the <strong>Board</strong>, in the determination of an appropriate bargainingunit, will not consider the preferences of a union which it hasfound to have been dominated or aided by an employer."2. SCOPE OF THE UNIT; INDUSTRIAL, CRAFT OR DEPARTMENTALThe <strong>Board</strong> must determine frequently whether the unit or unitsshall be industrial, including practically all the employees in the plant,semiindustrial, including a majority of the employees, multicraft, includingseveral groups of skilled workers, craft, including one groupof skilled workers, or some other unit, including only part of theemployees.When all the unions involved in the proceeding agree upon theappropriate unit or units or when there is only one bona fide labororganization involved, the <strong>Board</strong> examines the unit or units proposedby the union or unions in the light of the following factors : (1) thehistory, extent, and type of organization of the employees in the plant;(2) the history of their collective bargaining, including any contractswith their employer; (3) the history, extent, and type of organization,and the collective bargaining, of employees in other plant§, of the sameemployer, or of other employers in the same industry ,'(4) the skill,wages, work and working conditions of the employees ; (5) the desiresof the employees; (6)Vthe eligibility of the employees for membershipin the union or unions involved in the proceeding and in other labororganizations ; and (7)61the relationship between the unit or unitsproposed and the employer's organization, management and operationof the plant. Where the unit or units proposed are in accord withall or several of the above factors, or where there is no sharp conflictbetween the proposed unit or units and one or more of these factors,the <strong>Board</strong> usually finds such unit or units appropriate.This principle has been applied where the employer desires a plantwideunit and the union or unions a craft or other type of smallerunit. Thus the <strong>Board</strong> has found, as the union contended, that acraft unit of 33 of the 125 employees in the plant was appropriate,44 Matter of Froffman Beverane Co. and Int. Brotherhood of Firemen and Oilers, LocalNo. .75, 8 N. L. R. B. 1367 (all labor organizations involved, as well as employees, requesteddi fferent appropriate units) : Matter of Pacific Greyhound Lines and Amal. Asten of Street,Electric Railway and Motor Coach Employees of Amer., 9 N. L. R. B. 557 (prior decisionconccrnin g unit based solely on desires of employees : evidence indicated these desiressubsequently changed) ; Matter of R. C. A. Communications. Inc. and Amer. Radio TelegraplaRtg.458'n, 9 N. L. R. B. 915 (in prior decision <strong>Board</strong> stated that different unit mi ght beappropriate if wishes or extent of organization of unions subsequently changed, and suchchan ges occurred).SPP, for example, Matter of Metropolitan Engineering Co. and Local No. 1224 of UnitedElectrical. Radio and Machine Workers' of Amer., 8 N. L. R. B. 670.46 of The Pure Oil Co. and Oil Workers Int. Union, Local 265, 8 N. L. R. B. 207,216. In this case the <strong>Board</strong> said :'Since we have found that the respondent dominated and interfered with the formationand administration of the Federation and contributed support thereto, the experience ofthe Federation in collective bar gainin g is not significant and cannot be accorded wei ght asindicative of the employees' own desires concerning the definition of a unit appropriate forthe nmmoo po of collective bargaining."Matter of Citizens-News Co. and Los Angeles Typographical Union, Local No. 114, 8 N. L.R. B. 997; If after of Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. and Federation of Flat Glass Workers ofAmer., 10 N. L. R. B. 1111, 15 N. L. R. B.. No. 58: Matter of Kansas City Power d LightCo. and Local Union 5-412, Int. Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. 12 N. L. R. B. 1461.Cf. Matter of The Rerrick Corp. and Int. Union. United Automobile Workers of Amer., LocalNo. 459. Fi N. L. R. B. 621; Matter of The Western Union Co.. Inc. and The CommercialTelegraphers' Union, 11 N. L. R. B. 1154; Matter of Wisconsin Telephone Co. and TelephoneOperators Union, Local ns-A, 12 N. L. R. B. 375.
84 FOURTH ANNUAL REPORT OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARDwhere the only union at the plant had organized, bargained collectivelyand obtained contracts for only these 33 employees, who Werein a separate department and by reason of their skill constituted adefinite craft, and were the only employees in the plant eligible formembership in the union, the other employees being eligible for membershipin other labor organizations. 47 Similarly, the <strong>Board</strong> has heldthat a unit of employees in the spinning mill, excluding employeesin the hosiery mill, of a plant was an appropriate one, as the unioncontended, where the evidence established that the two groups ofemployees did entirely different work, that the only union at theplant had organized, and admitted to membership, spinners only,and that the hosiery workers were eligible for membership in anotherlabor organization. 48 To deny the appropriateness of the unitssought by the unions in the above situations would be to deny to theorganized employees in the plant the benefits of the act simply becauseother employees had not yet organized. .The <strong>Board</strong> in several cases, in accordance with_ the desires of theonly labor organization involved and despite the opposition of thecompany, has excluded from an otherwise, plant-wide unit a smallgroup of employees who by reason of their skill or work constitutean established craft, either ineligible for membership in the petitioningunion, or eligible for membership in another union whose Jurisdictionover these employees is conceded by the petitioning union."Despite the contention of the employer that the employees in eachdepartment constitute separate units, the <strong>Board</strong>, in accordance with41 Matter of Horace G. Prettyman and Int. Typographical Union, 12 N. L. R. B. 640. Cf.Matter of Clippies Co. and Matchworkers' Federal <strong>Labor</strong> Union No. 20927, 10 N. L. R. B. 168.Here the <strong>Board</strong> found that a unit including the employees in one department only wasappropriate where such employees by reason of their work constituted a separate crimp andwere the sole employees organized by the only bona fide union at the plant and eligible formembership in it.48 Matter of Richmond Hosiery Mills and Textile Workers Organ. Comm., 8 N. L. R. B.1073.49 In Matter of General Electric Co. and United Electrical. Radio & Machine Workers orAmor.. 9 N. L. R. B. 1213, the <strong>Board</strong> excluded from an industrial unit truck drivers whodesired to be included in the unit and who were eli gible for membershi p in the industrialunion which had at first tried to enroll them as members and in its ori ginal petition hadsought to include them in the unit. The <strong>Board</strong> pointed out that the industrial union hadan agreement with a craft union that it would urge .truck. drivers to join the craft union,and that in a recent strike of truck drivers among other companies the trucks of the companyhad been barred from certain areas because they had not been driven by driversbelonging to the craft union. The <strong>Board</strong> said :"• • * it is apparent not only that little community of interest exists between theCompany's * • • workers and its truck drivers, but also that the United's interest. asembodied in its a greement with the Brotherhood, in attempting to avoid the possibility ofdisharmony within labor's own ranks, deserves recognition."In Matter of Century Biscuit Co. and United Bakin g Workers, 9 N. L. R. B. 1237. the <strong>Board</strong>excluded truck drivers from an industrial unit, althou gh the industrial union in the pasthad bargained for them and obtained a contract covering them. The <strong>Board</strong> pointed outthat at present none of them were members of the industrial union, toward which all hadshown hostility ; that their work differed from that of the other employees; and that theywere eli gible for membership in another union whose jurisdiction over them was acknowledgedby the industrial unim. Other similar cases are : Matter of Clinton Garment Co.and Int. Ladies Garment Workers Union, 8 N. L. R. B. 775 (machinists excluded, ineligiblefor members h ip) ; Matter of Southport Petroleum Co. and Oil Workers Int. Union, Local No.227, 8 N. L. R. B. 792 (truck drivers excluded, ineligible for membership) : Matter of B. F.Sturtevant Co. and United Electrical and Radio Workers Local Industrial Union No. 248,8 N. L. R. B. 835 (pattern makers excluded, eli g ible for membership in other, craft, union) ,•Matter of Armour cf Co. and Packing House 'Workers Organ. Comm.. 8 N. L. R. B. 1100( garage mec'anics and helpers, and street cleaners excluded, eligible for membership Inot h er unions) : Matter of Inland Steel Co. and Steel Workers Organ. Comm., 9 N. L. R. B.783 (truck drivers and bricklayers excluded, eligible for membershi p in other, craft, unions)Matter of Illinois Knitting Co. and Federal <strong>Labor</strong> Union No. 21025, 11 N. L. R. B. 48(machine fixers excluded where petitioning union had acknowled ged jurisdiction of recognizedcraft union over them, which they were eligible to loin) ; Matter of Seotnerr PackingCo. and Antal. Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of N. Amer., Local No. Pe, 12 N. L. R. B.1098 (truck drivers excluded, eligible for membership in another labor organization) •,Matter of McAdoo Sportswear Co., Inc. and Int. Ladies' Garment Workers Union, 12N. L. R. B. 1199 (machinists excluded from unit of production employees in ladies' garmentindustry where machinists ineligible for membership in union and traditionally notorganized along with production employees in ladies' garment trades).