VII. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED 87to determine whether or not the commercial employees of a newspapershould constitute a separate bargaining unit as contended byone union which had organized them or should be grouped togetherwith editorial employees in a single bargaining unit, as contendedby another union which had thus organized employees of other newspapers.Here there existed an inter-relationship among the commercialemployees due to the similar nature of their work so thatthey constituted a definite functional group, and at the same timetheir work and interests, though not entirely similar, were closelyrelated to those of the editorial employees.59In certain situations the <strong>Board</strong> has refused to find a craft unitappropriate, as requested by a union, or to order a separate electionamong the craft employees." Thus, following its principle that thedesires of the employees should be decisive, the <strong>Board</strong> has found itunnecessary to direct a separate election to ascertain these desires, ifthe craft union has no members among the employees claimed to constitutea separate bargaining unit and has never attempted to organizeor bargain for them, and if the industrial union has organized themand has members among them. Under these circumstances, the <strong>Board</strong>has found the industrial unit to be appropriate. 91 The <strong>Board</strong> has alsotheir votes should then be counted for the determination of representatives for theindustrial unit as between these two unions. In the Pacific Greyhound case, 10 N. L. R. B.659. supra. b-th unions involved agreed that the bus drivers of the company could constitutea separate bargaining unit, but one union desired that the bus drivers be includedin a unit with other employees of the company. The <strong>Board</strong> ordered that if the latter'union obtained a trajo • ity both in the election held among the bus drivers and in theelection held among the residual employees, both groups should constitute one bargainingunit, but that if this union ob tained a majority, only among the bus drivers, the driversalone should constitute a blr gaining unit.59 Matter of Milwaukee PubIsh'ng Co. and Milwaukee Newspaper Guild, 10 N. L. R. B.389. In Matter of Boston Daily Record and Newspaper Guild of Boston, 8 N. L. R. B. 694,the <strong>Board</strong> ordered an election among the editorial employees of a newspaper to determinewhether these employees should constitute a separate bargaining unit, as contended byone union, or should be included in a bar gaining unit with certain other miscellaneousemployees of the newspaper, as contended by another union. Cf. Matter of MobileSteamship Ass'n and Int. Longshoremen and Warehousemen's Union, 8 N. L. R. B. 1297;Matter of Aluminum Line and Int. Longshoremen and Warehousemen's Union, S N. L.R. B. 1325. In these cases the <strong>Board</strong> ordered elections held among clerks and checkers,whose work was closely related to that of longshoremen, to determine whether or notthe clerks and checkers should be included in a bargaining unit of longshoremen. Cf. alsocases cited in footnote 54. 80p7a.co In connection with this question certain cases decided subsequent to the fiscal periodcovered by this report should be noted : (1) Matter of Amer. Can Co. and EngineersLocal No. 30, Firemen cf Oilers Local No. 56, 13 N. L. R. B., No. 126, decided July 29, 1939.In this case, a majority of the <strong>Board</strong> held that an industrial unit was appropriate, despitetile opposition of three craft unions, which had members among employees working attheir respective craft s in the plant involved, where the industrial union had entered intoan agreement in 1937 with the company recognizing it as the exclusive bargainingagency of all employees, including those in the crafts. <strong>Board</strong> Member Edwin S. Smithconcurred f r reasons stated in his dissentin g opinion in Matter of Allis-Chalmers ManufacturingCo. and Int. Union, United Automobile Workers of Amer., Local 2.43, 4 N. L. R. B.159. 175. Chairman Madden dissented on the ground that the desires of the craft employeesshould determine their bargaining unit. See also Matter of Milton Bradley Co.and Int. Printing Pr^ssmen and Assistants Union of N. Amer., 15 N. L. R. B.. No. 105,de-ided October 6, 1939. (2) Matter of Bendix Products Corp. and Patt. Mkrs. Assn.,15 N. L. R. B.. No. 1 07. decided 0 ,-tober 7, 1939. In this case a majority of the <strong>Board</strong>held that where the <strong>Board</strong> had certified an industrial union as exclusive representative ofemployees in an appropriate bargaining unit which included craft employees, and theIndustrial union both before and after this certification had bargained collectively for thecraft employees, a separate unit was not an appropriate one for such craft employees forwhom the craft union. which had not claimed that these employees constituted an appropriate un't in the prior hearing, had never bargained. Chairman Madden dissentedon the ground that the desires of the craft employees should determine their bargainin g unit.ot Matter of The Pure Oil Co. and Oil Workers Int. Union Local 265, 8 N. L. R. B. 207(industrial union had organized employees since 1933 on an industrial basis and neithercraft union of boilermakers nor craft union of machinists introduced evidence showingany substantial membe: ship among employees they claimed fell within their jurisdiction,nor had either craft union ever bargained for, or attempted to organize, these employees)Matter of Times Publishing Co. and The Newspaper Guild of Detroit, 8 N. L. .R. B.1170 (craft union refused to admit five of six employees, whom it had never bargained for,to membership, but wished inclusion in separate unit of these six employees three ofWhom belonged to industrial union) ; Matter of Indianapolis Times Publishing Co. and
88 FOURTH ANNUAL REPORT OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARDupheld an industrial unit despite the opposition of a craft union,where the unit proposed by the craft union had never historicallybeen considered a separate craft group, and did not by reason of thework of the employees constitute a functional group with differentinterests from those of other em ployees. 62 Another situation in whichthe <strong>Board</strong> has refused to designate a craft unit is where the craft unionThe Indianapolis Newspaper Guild, 8 N. L. R. B. 1256 (three employees claimed by craftunion were not members of it, had not designated it to represent them, and were notcovered by contract between company and craft union) ; Matter of Shell Petroleum Corp.and O./ tVo1 kers Int. Union, Local-No. Mit, 9 N. L. R. B. 831 (craft union, intervened athearing but introduced no evidence ; craft union had no members among craft employeesand had never bargained for, or attempted to organize, them) ; Matter of New York EveningJournal, Inc. and Newspaper Guild 0, New Fmk, 10 N. L. R. B. 197 (1. Craft union forcommercial artists did not appear at hearing and none of craft employees opposed inclusionin industrial unit ; evidence indicated craft unon had been absorbed by industrial union.2. Craft union had no members ainong craft employees; half of whom belonged to industrialunion, and craft union's contract with company excluded such employees. S. Twocraft unions had n members among craft employees and contract between them andcompany did not include craft employees, and third craft union had one member butadmitted that it had never tried to bargain for craft employees and that contract betweenit and
Change language