Amercian Cyanamid Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 1, 1963

142 N.L.R.B. 433 (N.L.R.B. 1963)

FORMICA CORP., SUBSIDIARY AMERICAN CYANAMID CO. 433
Accordingly, the parties are hereby notified that, based upon the
considerations expressed herein, the Board will defer action on the
8(a) (3) allegations in the complaint pending completion of the arbi-
tration directed by the district court, and notification thereof to the
Board.
The parties are further notified that the Board will not, however,
hold in abeyance its action on the 8 (a) (1) and 8 (a) (5) allegations of
the complaint, but will instead review the Trial Examiner's findings
thereon and will issue its Decision with respect thereto forthwith.
MEMBERS FANNING and BROWN took no part in the consideration of
the above Notice.
Formica Corporation , Subsidiary of American Cyanamid Co.'
and Local 757, International Union of Electrical , Radio and
Machine Workers, AFL-CIO. Case No. 9-R31-46. May 1, 1963
DECISION AND ORDER CLARIFYING CERTIFICATION
On April 12,1950, the Board issued a certification of representatives
in the above-entitled proceeding, certifying the Union as the bar-
gaining representative of "all production and maintenance employees
at the Hamilton County, Ohio, plant or plants of the Employer, in-
cluding employees in the machine shop, toolroom, and shop clerks,
but excluding office clerical employees, nurses, professional employees,
all guards and supervisors as defined in the Act."
On December 12, 1962, the Union filed a motion to clarify certifica-
tion, in which it seeks to have included within the certified unit all
gravure services department employees who do not come within the
specific exclusions set forth in the unit description. The Employer
filed a motion to dismiss, alleging that the employees in the gravure
services department, who had been transferred from classifications
within the bargaining unit, are engaged in work which is properly
outside the unit. On January 29, 1963, the Board issued an order
referring the proceeding to the Regional Director for the Ninth Region
for the purpose of conducting a hearing on the issues raised by the
parties. Thereafter, on February 21, 1963, a hearing was held before
Mark Fox, 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 herein to a three-member panel [Chairman
McCulloch and Members Rodgers and Leedom].
I The name of the Employer at the time of the Union's certification was The
Formica Co.
142 NLRB No. 51.
-434 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Employer manufactures laminated plastic. The current bar-
gaining agreement between the Employer and the Union describes
the unit, in the terms of the certification, as all production and main-
tenance employees with certain specific inclusions and exclusions which
are not relevant in this proceeding. The issue raised by the motion
to clarify the certification arises from the Employer's transfer of
three employees from process engineering to gravure services, and
its contention that the work they now perform requires their exclusion
from the certified unit as technical or creative employees.
Gravure services was newly established in March 1960. It consists
at present of two supervisors, Yoder and Gene Emily, and the three
nonsupervisory employees, Schwier, Reynolds, and Peters who were
classified, before their transfer, as laboratory assistants in process
,engineering, within the coverage of the unit .2 Among the functions
assigned to gravure services is the production of laminated plastic
samples for the sales department which match, in color, material sub
mitted by customers. This work is performed by Schwier, Reynolds,
and Peters, and consists in mixing pigments, extenders, and solvents to
produce printing inks which match the colors of the pattern being
duplicated. - They use the inks to print impressions on paper which is
then laminated to a plastic sheet. With one difference, the work now
done in the color-matching section of gravure services was done by
these same individuals when they worked in process engineering.
Previously, Reynolds and Peters were given explicit instructions as
to how the inks were to be formulated, whereas in their present jobs
they decide for themselves how to achieve a suitable color match.
Schwier, however, had apparently been permitted to exercise such
discretion even before his transfer to gravure services. According to
the Employer, it is the responsibility of mixing inks without close
supervision that removes the work of these three employees from the
bargaining unit.
The employees have not taken any academic or technical courses to
qualify them for this new responsibility of mixing inks and matching
colors. Their skills have been obtained on the job through experience,
observation, and the advice of supervisors. The work is performed
in the same general area of the plant where they formerly worked
and they continue to use some equipment located in the process en-
gineering department. They were formerly compensated on an hourly
basis, but since their transfer, are paid a monthly salary, earning about
$10 more per week than they did at their old rates.
' Schwier was unilaterally removed from the unit by the Employer when it assigned
him in August 1960 to gravure services . The Union raised no objection at that time
because it considered him to be a supervisor . Reynolds and Peters were transferred in
July 1962 , at which time the Union protested their removal from the unit. At the
hearing, the Employer stated that Schwier was not a supervisor, that he had the same
duties and responsibilities as Reynolds and Peters , and that there are no reasons for
treating him differently from the other employees in gravure services.
MATTHEWS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 435
We agree with the Union that the changes in the duties and re-
sponsibilities of these three employees do not warrant their removal
from the unit. Matching colors requires only visual acuity, while mix-
ing inks to obtain a satisfactory match does not, in our opinion, re-
quire the kind of judgment and specialized training which qualifies
one as a technical employee.' In fact, under the circumstances present
here, we are convinced that their interests and working conditions
have not been changed substantially in the jobs they now have. Other
arguments made by the Employer for their exclusion, namely, that
their work is creative or that they fulfill a management responsibility
in achieving color matches, are without merit. We, therefore, find
that work of the nature now performed by Schwier, Reynolds, and
Peters in the gravure services department is within the certified unit.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Union's motion to clarify its certifica-
tion in Case No. 9-RM-46 be granted so as to include within the produc-
tion and maintenance unit the color matching and ink formulation
work of the gravure services department.
s Litton Industries of Maryland, Incorporated, 125 NLRB 722.
Robert M. Matthews, d/b/a Matthews Construction Company
and Eastern Iowa District Council of Carpenters of the United
Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America . Case No.
A 0-56. May 2, 1963
ADVISORY OPINION
This is a petition filed on behalf of the Eastern Iowa District
Council of Carpenters of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and
Joiners of America, herein called the Petitioner, by Ellis Howern,
Petitioner's business agent, for an Advisory Opinion in conformity
with Section 102.98 and 102.99 of the Board's Rules and Regulations,
Series 8, as amended. Thereafter, on April 11, 1963, Robert Matthews,
d/b/a Matthews Construction Company, herein called the Employer
or primary employer, filed a response to petition for Advisory Opinion.
In pertinent part, the petition, response, and attachments thereto
allege as follows :
1. The Petitioner is a party defendant to an injunction proceeding
in the Twentieth Judicial District Court of Iowa, Des Moines County,
Burlington, Iowa, Docket No. 13761 filed by the Employer seeking
to enjoin the Petitioner from picketing the construction site where the
142 NLRB No. 53.
712-548-G4-vol. 142-29