Allied Laboratories, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 25, 1940

23 N.L.R.B. 184 (N.L.R.B. 1940)

In the Matter of ALLIED LABORATORIES, INC., (PITMAN-MOORE DI-
VISION) and INDIANAPOLIS SPECIALTY UNION #465, AFFILIATED
WITH THE INTERNATIONAL PRINTING PRESSMEN AND ASSISTANTS'
UNION AFFILIATED WITH AFL
In the Matter of ALLIED LABORATORIES, INC. (PITMAN-MOORE DI-
VISION) and PITMAN-MOORE EMPLOYEES' INDEPENDENT UNION
Cases Nos. R-1763 and R-174, respectively. Decided April 25, 1940
Pharmaceutical and Biological Products Manufacturing Industry-Investiga-
tion of Representatives : controversy concerning representation of employees :
rival organizations; controversy concerning appropriate unit; employer refuses
to recognize petitioning unions until certification by Board-Units Appropriate
for Collective Bargaining: controversy as to whether single or two-plant unit
of production employees, excluding supervisory and clerical employees, salesmen
and student salesmen, appropriate ; desires of employees to determine ; dispute
as to inclusion of shipping-department employees, chemists, watchmen and cer-
tain maintenance and clerical employees; shipping-department and maintenance
employees included ; chemists, watchmen and clerical employees excluded-Blec-
tions Ordered: two separate elections to determine appropriate unit or units
and representatives thereof.
Mr. Arthur R. Donovan, for the Board.
Mr. James A. Ross, of Indianapolis, Ind., for the Company.
Mr. Richard H. Oberreich, of Indianapolis, Ind., for the Inter-
national.
Mr. Howard M. Meyer, of Indianapolis, Ind., for the Independent.
Mr. Harold M. Weston, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On February 16, 1940, Indianapolis Specialty Union #465, affili-
ated with the International Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union,
herein called the International, filed with the Regional Director for
the Eleventh Region (Indianapolis, Indiana) a petition alleging that
a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation
of employees of Allied Laboratories, Inc., Indianapolis, Indiana, herein
23 N. L. It. B., No. 14.
184
ALLIED LABORATORIES, INC. 185
called the Company, and requesting an investigation and certification
of representatives pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. On February 23,
1940, Pitman-Moore Employees' Independent Union, herein called the
Independent, filed with the Regional Director for the Eleventh Region
a petition alleging that a question had arisen concerning representation
of employees at the Indianapolis and Zionsville, Indiana, plants of
the Company, and requesting an investigation and certification of
representatives pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the Act. On March 1,
1940, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board,
acting pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the Act and Article III, Section 3,
of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2,
as amended, ordered an investigation upon the petitions and author-
ized the Regional Director to conduct it and to provide for an appro-
priate hearing upon due notice, and, acting- pursuant to Article III,
Section 10 (c) (2) of the said Rules and Regulations, ordered that
the two cases be consolidated.
On March 7, 1940, the Regional Director issued a notice of hearing,
copies of which were duly served upon the Company, upon the Inter-
national, upon the Independent, upon the Regional Director of the
American Federation of Labor, and upon the Regional Director of the
Congress of Industrial Organizations.
Pursuant to the notice, a hearing was held on March 14 and 15, 1940,
at Indianapolis, Indiana, before John T. Lindsay, the Trial Examiner
duly designated by the Board. The Board, the Company, the Inter-
national, and the Independent were represented by counsel and par-
ticipated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine
and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the
issues was afforded all parties.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Allied Laboratories, Inc., a Delaware corporation , having its prin-
cipal office in Kansas City, Missouri , is engaged in the manufacture of
pharmaceutical and biological products at its plants in Zionsville and
Indianapolis , Indiana. The Company also maintains plants at Kansas
City, Missouri , Sioux City , Iowa, and Sioux Falls, South Dakota.
Only its Zionsville and Indianapolis plants are involved in the instant
proceedings.
The raw materials used by the Company at its Indiana plants con-
sist principally of crude drugs , chemicals, sugar , alcohol , and animals.
During the past fiscal period more than 50 per cent of such raw
186 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR . RELATIONS BOARD
materials were obtained from points outside the State of Indiana.
During the same period the Company's total output at its Indiana
plants amounted to approximately $2,000,000, of which 88 per cent
represented shipments to destinations outside the State of Indiana.
At the time of the hearing, the Company employed approximately
164 employees at its Indianapolis plant and about 95 employees at its
Zionsville plant.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Indianapolis Specialty Union #465 is a labor organization affili-
ated with the International Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union,
which, in turn, is affiliated with the American Federation of Labor,
and admits to membership employees of the Company.
Pitman-Moore Employees' Independent Union is an unaffiliated
labor' organization, admitting to membership all employees of the
Company's Indianapolis and Zionsville plants, "excepting those who,
by reason of their relationship to the employer are barred from mem-
bership by law or by any ruling of any Government Agency having
jurisdiction of such subject matter."
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
Although the Independent and the International have each re-
quested the Company for recognition as the exclusive collective bar-
gaining representative of its employees in units claimed by the
respective organizations to be appropriate for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining, the Company has insisted that it would accord
such recognition only to a union certified by the Board.
We find that a question has arisen concerning representation of
employees of the Company.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION UPON
COMMERCE
We find that the question concerning representation which has
arisen, occurring in connection with the operations of the Company
described in Section I above, has a close, intimate, and substantial
relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and
tends to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce
and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT OR UNITS
The International contends that the appropriate unit consists of
all production employees in the Company's Indianapolis plant, ex-
cluding supervisory, clerical, and shipping employees, and salesmen,
student salesmen , and research chemists.
ALLIED LABORATORIES,-INC. 187
It is the Independent's position that all production and mainte-11
nance employees of the Company's Zionsville and Indianapolis plants,
excluding supervisory and clerical employees, salesmen, and student
salesmen, constitute an appropriate unit.
It is apparent that the most important dispute between the two
unions is as to whether the two plants of the Company should be
deemed to constitute a single bargaining unit. The Indianapolis
and Zionsville plants are fifteen miles apart, manufacture different
products, and use different raw materials. At the Indianapolis
plant, pharmaceutical products are produced and the employees
work primarily with drugs and chemicals, whereas the employees at
the Zionsville plant manufacture biological products such as vac-
cines, serums and the like, and work with bacteria, viruses and
animals. There does not appear to be any appreciable interchange
of employees, raw materials, or semi-manufactured goods between
the plants.
Carl N. Angst, the Company's general manager, testified, how-
ever, that the operations of the Indianapolis and Zionsville plants
actually could be performed under one roof and that the sole reason
for maintaining separate plants was the difficulty of housing at
Indianapolis the approximately 2,000 animals used for experimental
and manufacturing purposes at Zionsville. While each plant has its
own superintendent or director, both are under the executive super-
vision of a general manager who controls their policies and labor
relations and whose office is at the Indianapolis plant. At meetings
attended by the general manager and the directors of the Indiana
plants, the conferees direct their consideration to the management
of both plants. The financial and office management, sales, adver-
tising, printing, and order departments, all located at Indianapolis,
serve both plants.' Finished products of both plants are shipped
by the Indianapolis shipping department. The Zionsville plant's
biological products are tested chemically at the Indianapolis plant
while certain of the pharmaceutical products of the latter plant
receive animal tests at Zionsville that are important in determining
the safety with which they may be used. There is no substantial
distinction between the wage rates prevailing at the two plants.'
It also appears that there is no history of collective bargaining on
behalf of employees of either the Indianapolis or the Zionsville
plants. The record does not reveal the precise extent to which the
' This is substantially true also of the receiving and purchasing departments , located In
Indianapolis.
2 The Independent also points to the fact that when in January 1940, the International
was beginning to organize , its Special Representative mailed notices to employees of both
the Indianapolis and Zionsville plants , inviting them to attend an organizational meeting
on January 13, 1940.
188 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
contesting labor organizations represent employees at each of the
plants in question. As far as the record shows the Independent may
have an overwhelming majority at the Zionsville plant, while the
International may have a similarly large majority at the Indian-
apolis plant.
From the foregoing it appears that the two plants might properly
be considered either as two separate bargaining units or as a single
unit. Under the circumstances we will be guided by the desires of
the employees themselves. Since the record is not sufficiently clear
as to the employees' wishes, elections are necessary to make this
determination. Thus, balloting shall be conducted among employees
of the Indianapolis plant to determine whether they desire to be
represented for purposes of collective bargaining by the Interna-
tional, by the Independent, or by neither union. Employees of the
Zionsville plant will express their wishes as to representation by the
Independent or by no union. If the Independent receives a major-
ity of the votes cast by employees of each of the plants, both plants
will constitute a single appropriate unit. If the International
receives a majority of the votes cast by employees in the Indianapolis
plant, it will constitute a separate appropriate unit.
There remains for consideration the question of whether certain
specific groups of employees in the Indianapolis plant should be
included in the unit or units. Although both unions are in accord
as to the inclusion of production workers, laborers, janitors and ele-
vator operators in the respective units which they seek, the Interna-
tional would exclude the shipping-department employees from its
proposed unit of employees at the Indianapolis plant. The Interna-
tional's position as to shipping-department employees is apparently
inconsistent with its claim that a broad industrial unit, including
laborers, janitors, and elevator operators, is appropriate. Shipping-
department employees on occasion have been solicited to join the
International. There is no substantial showing that the working
conditions or employment problems of shipping-department employ-
ees differ materially from those of other employees whom the Inter-
national would include in its proposed unit. We find no basis for
excluding shipping-department employees from any,unit of produc-
tion employees at the Indianapolis plant.
The International would also exclude watchmen at the Indianapolis
plant from its proposed unit. Since watchmen occupy a status dif-
fering somewhat from that of the other employees, have different
interests, and perform different functions, we will not here include
'them in a unit with production employees. The same considerations
apply, to a stronger degree, to the chemists at the Indianapolis plant,
ALLIED LABORATORIES, INC. 189
whom the International seeks to have excluded. We shall exclude
the chemists.-3
We shall also, in accordance with the International's wishes, exclude
Winifred Overman, who is a clerical employee in the Indianapolis
plant's manufacturing department. The Independent, which re-
quests Overman's inclusion within the unit, has introduced no evi-
dence to show wherein the nature of her work differs from that of the
other clerical workers who are excluded.
The unions did not agree upon the status of Rollin Bruner, listed
as a clerk in the office of the Indianapolis plant, although they have
agreed to exclude all other employees in that department. The rec-
ord reveals that Bruner is a salaried clerical employee with a desk in
the main office. We shall exclude him from the unit. '
Although the International agrees with the Independent that Han-
son Hogan, listed as a maintenance worker at the Indianapolis plant,
should be included in the bargaining unit or units, it seeks to exclude
Allen Hyatt, who also is listed as a maintenance worker at the Indi-
anapolis plant. We shall include Hyatt.
The Independent contends that supervisory and clerical employees
at the Zionsville plant should be excluded from its proposed unit and
on a Company pay roll introduced in evidence has specifically desig-
nated the desired exclusions.4 The Company has assumed no posi-
tion with respect to such employees. The Independent's designations
appear to be perfectly consistent and proper, and we shall, in accord-
ance with our usual practice, exclude such supervisory and clerical
employees from the bargaining unit or units.
VI. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
At the hearing, there were introduced in evidence statements of
the Board's Regional Director concerning the respective claims of
representation made by the Independent and by the International.
These statements reveal that the Company's pay roll of March 9,
1940, includes 40 employees whose names appear on the February
1940 membership roster and dues record of the International, and
123 employees who had signed application cards for membership in
the Independent. Under the circumstances, since each of the two
contesting labor organizations has proved substantial adherence
among the employees in the respective bargaining unit claimed to be
8 Unlike the employees included within the proposed bargaining units, all of whom are
paid on an hourly basis , the chemists receive salaries and are men and women of con-
siderable education or technical training.
* In addition to those employees listed on the pay roll as supervisory and clerical
workers , the Independent would exclude , apparently because of the supervisory nature of
their positions , D. S Steele , a veterinarian, and the following bacteriologists : Alfred H.
Brueckner , Paul Purwin , George S. Schilling , Lucile Wade and E . S. Yotter.
190 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
appropriate, the question of representation which has arisen can best
be resolved in elections by secret ballot. We shall accordingly direct
that such elections be held. All persons employed during the pay-roll
period immediately preceding the date of the Direction of Elections
herein, including employees who did not work during such pay-roll
period because they were ill or on vacation, and employees who were
then or shall have since been temporarily laid off, but excluding those
who shall have since quit or been discharged for cause, shall be eligible
to vote.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire
record in the case, the Board makes the following :
CON CLUSION OF LAW
A question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the representa-
tion of employees of Allied Laboratories, Inc., at its Indianapolis;
Indiana, and Zionsville, Indiana, plants, within the meaning of Sec-
tion 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations
Act.
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National
Labor Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, 49 Stat. 449, and pursuant to Article III, Section 8, of
National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2,
as amended, it is hereby
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation ordered by the Board
to ascertain representatives for the purpose of collective bargaining
with Allied Laboratories, Inc., elections by secret ballot shall be
conducted as early as possible but not later than thirty (30) days
from the date of this Direction, under the direction and supervision
of the Regional Director for the Eleventh Region, acting in this
matter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject
to Article III, Section 9, of said Rules and Regulations, among the
employees of Allied Laboratories, Inc., within the two groups de-
scribed below who were employed during the pay-roll period immedi-
ately preceding the date of this Direction, including employees who
did not work during such pay-roll period because they were ill or on
vacation, and employees who were then or shall have since been tempo-,
rarily laid off, but excluding supervisory and clerical employees, and
employees who shall have since quit or been discharged for cause :
(a) All production and maintenance employees in the Indianapolis
plant, excluding salesmen, student salesmen, watchmen, and chemists,
to determine whether they desire to be represented for the purposes
ALLIED LABORATORIES, INC. 191
of collective bargaining by Indianapolis Specialty Union #465, affili-
ated with the International Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Union,
by Pitman-Moore Employees' Independent Union, or by neither;
(b) All production and maintenance employees in the Zionsville
plant, to determine whether or not they desire to be represented for
the purposes of collective bargaining by Pitman-Moore Employees'
Independent Union.
MR. EDWIN S. SMITH, dissenting:
I dissent from the decision of the majority.
The facts in this case show a close relationship between the two
plants. The general management, policies, and labor relations of
both are subject to the same executive control. Departments located
at the Indianapolis plant serve both plants with respect to financial
and office management, sales, advertising, printing, marketing, ship-
ping, receiving, and purchasing. Each plant is dependent upon the
other for the tests that are necessary to determine the safety-and
thus the marketability-of the finished products. Practically the same
wage rates prevail at both plants.' The Independent organized the
Company's Indianapolis and Zionsville employees on a two-plant basis
and the International itself, when first commencing its organizational
activities, invited employees of both plants to attend an organizational
meeting. No reason appears why collective bargaining in behalf of
employees of both plants , should not proceed upon the basis of the
single unit proposed by the Independent. I believe such a unit is
better adapted than two separate units to secure to the employees
equality of bargaining power with the Company.6
5 See my dissenting opinion in Matter of Colorado Builders ' Supply Company and Inter-
national Association of Biidge, Stiuctural and Oinamental Icon Workers , Shopinen's
Local Union No 507 , 18 N L R B 29
6 See my dissenting opinion in Matter of United States Rubber Company and Rubber
Workers Federal Labor Union , Local #220L, affiliated with the American Federation of
Labor, et at, 20 N L R B 473