J. - National Labor Relations Board

VII. PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED 89has been aided by practices of the company which the Board has foundto constitute unfair labor practices within the meaning of the act."Finally, where there is only one employee in a unit claimed to be appropriateby the craft - imion, the Board, applying its doctrine that it willnot certify a collective bargaining representative for a single employee,"has decided that it will not permit . this employee to determinehis exclusion or inclusion but that it will include him hi the industrialunit.65As in the case of conflicts between industrial and craft unions,"where two industrial unions disagree, the Board has ordered a groupof employees included in an industrial unit if the industrial unionproposing their exclusion fails to show that the group constitutesa separate craft by reason of skill or function, or has diverse interestsfrom the employees it wishes to include." If such employees constitutea group ineligible for membership in an industrial union andby reason of their work and skill are eligible for membership in acraft union, the Board, at the request of an industrial union, willexclude them from an industrial unit, despite the opposition ofanother industrial union."3. MULTIPLE-PLANT AND SYSTEM UNITSIn determining whether the employees of one, several, or all plantsof an employer, or the employees in all or only a part of a system ofcommunications, transportation, or public utilities, constitute anappropriate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining, the Board0 Matter of The Serrick Corp. and Int. Union, United Automob ge Workers of Amer.,Local No. 459. 8 N. L. R. B. 621. An additional reason for the Board's finding in thisdecision was the fact that the ''craft" union had attempted to organize all the employees ofthe company, forming one local for the craft employees and another local for the remainderof the employees. The Board pointed out that this division of the employees into twolocals for organizational purposes was artificial and that the "craft" un i on had reallyorganized on an industrial basis and therefore could not be heard to maintain that thecraft unit was appropriate. Chairman Madden did not concur in this ground of thedecision.04 Matter of Lu,kenbach Steamship Co.. Inc. and Gatemen, Watchmen and MiscellaneousWaterfront Workers Union. Local 38-124, 2 N. L. R. B. 181.es Matter of Joseph S. Finch & Co.. Inc. and United Distillery Workers Union, LocalNo. 3. 10 N. L. R. B. 896. Chairman Madden dissented." See cases ci ted in footnote 62. repro.51 Matter of Terminal Flour Mills Co. and Int. Longshoremen's and Warehousemen'sUnion, Local 1-28, 8 N. L. R. B. 381 (Board found inappropriate unit sou ght by oneindustrial union and opposed by another industrial union, where union seeking unit ofwarehouse employees only had previously sought unsuccessfully to represent all employeesin plant, had sought plant-wide units amon g employees of other employers in sameindustry, and failed to show any difference between work of warehousemen and that ofother employees it would exclude; Board found prior bargaining history of employeesof plant s(parating them into two units indecisive where based on jurisdictional disputes)Matter of United Fruit Co. and Industrial Union of Marine & Shipbuilding Workers ofAmer., Local 22. 9 N. L. R. B. 591 (claim of one industrial union for unit composed ofship repair and maintenan^e workers, excluding employees working on maintenance andrepair of piers, rejected. w'e re evidence showed that both classes of employees hadsame wages, hours of work tied working conditions and did similar work, and that neithergroup constituted a craft) ; Matter of Hat Corp. of Amer. and United Hatters, Cap andMillin,ry Workers Int. Union, 11 N. L. R. B. 1206 (claim of one industrial union for unitof only part of employees in one department rejected. wbere evidence showed such employeesdid not constitute a craft and that their work was similar to that of excludedemployees ; and where another union desired an industrial unit' the Board pointed outthat the claims of the one union were based upon the extent of its or ganization, whichincluded only part of the employees in the plant, and that the extent of its organizationcould not determine the bargaining unit where the opposing union had organized on aplant-wide basis).68 Matter of Armour & Co. and Amal. Meat Cutters and Butcher Worlanen of N. Amer.,Local No. 235, 10 N. L. R. B. 912 (truck drivers excluded, ineligible for membership)Hatter of F. E. Booth & Co. and Monterey Bay Area Fish Workers Union No. 23, 10N. L. R. B. 1491 (teamsters excluded, eligible for membership in other, craft. union)Matter of Swift & Co. and Comm. for Industrial Organization, 11 N. L. R. B. 950 (truckdrivers excluded, eligible for membership in other, craft. union).