Clayton and Lambert Manufacturing Co., 107 (1962)

The Petitioner contends that, as the three forging inspectors on the belt machines work in a manner similar to the polishers, they should be added to the Petitioner's present unit. The Employer contends that all nine forging inspectors should be placed in the same unit .9

The Intervenor contends that the group sought to be included in the Petitioner's unit is inappropriate and that any single unit of inspectors would also be inappropriate 10

As the three forging inspectors sought by the Petitioner constitute only an arbitrary segment of a group of employees performing the same type of work, we find that a unit limited to them is inappropriate.' Because it appears that the requested unit is inappropriate upon a craft or other basis and because the record affords no j ustification for directing a self-determination election for either final inspectors or forging inspectors,- we shall dismiss the petition.

Order IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition be, and it hereby is, dismissed.

9In the alternative, the Employer asks for one unit, encompassing all inspectors.

It should be noted that the Intervenor appears to have made a demand on the Employer to recognize it as the bargaining representative for all nine forging inspectors.

U Gunnison Homes, Inc., 98 NLRB 1049; D. B. Thornton Co., 94 NLRB 1188.

3' Although a separate election for all forging inspectors is not precluded by a broader bargaining history, the Intervenor has submitted no showing of interest as a basis for holding an election in this group. Moreover, we will not establish a separate unit of all forging inspectors, as neither the Petitioner nor the Intervenor seeks such a unit.

CLAYTON AND LAMBERT MANUFACTURING COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, AFL,' PETITIONER CLAYTON AND LAMBERT MANUFACTURING COMPANY and LODGE 681,

DISTRICT LODGE 27, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS,

AFL,2 PETITIONER CLAYTON AND LAMBERT MANUFACTURING COMPANY and ELECTRICAL WORKERS UNION LOCAL 9369, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, AFL,3 PETITIONER. Cases Nos. 9-RC-1680, 9-RC1695, and 9-RC-1697. October 28,195'°L Decision, Order, and Direction of Election Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before Richard C.

1 Hereinafter referred to as IAM.

z Hereinafter referred to as Lodge 681.

Hereinafter referred to as IBEW.

101 NLRB No. 32.

Curry, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed' Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Members Houston, Murdock, and Styles].

Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :

  1. The Employer is engaged in commerce...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT