American Cyanamid & Chemical Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsAug 7, 1946

69 N.L.R.B. 1275 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

In the Matter of AMERICAN CYANAMID & CHEMICAL CORPORATION, BRIDGEviLLE PLANT, EMPLOYER and UNITED FOREMEN OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER Case No. 6-R-1394.-Decided August 7, 1946 Mr. Henry C. Little, of New York City, for the Employer. Messrs. Philip M. C2.urran. and A. J. Federoff, both of Pittsburgh, Pa., for the Petitioner. Mr. Emil C. Farkas, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Pitts- Lurgh, Pennsylvania, on June 11, 1946, before Henry Shore, Trial Examiner. The Trial Examiner's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. At the hearing, the Employer moved to dismiss the petition on various grounds. The Trial Examiner referred this motion to the Board. For reasons hereinafter stated, the motion is hereby denied. Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations Board makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER American Cyanamid & Chemical Corporation, Bridgeville Plant, is a Delaware corporation engaged in the manufacture of chemical products. The Employer operates several plants throughout the United States, but only the Bridgeville, Pennsylvania, plant is in- volved in this proceeding. During the past 12 months, the Employer purchased raw materials for use at its Bridgeville plant, valued at more than $100,000. of which approximately 35 percent was obtained from points outside the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. During the same period, the Employer manufactured finished products at this plant valued in excess of $1,000,000, of which approximately 50 69 N. L. R. B., No. 153. 1275 1276 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD percent was shipped to points outside the Commonwealth of Penn- sylvania. The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. IT. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, claiming to represent employees of the Employer.' III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION The Employer refuses to recognize the Petitioner as the exclusive bargaining representative of employees of the Employer until the Petitioner has been certified by the Board in an appropriate unit. The Employer moved to dismiss the petition on the ground, inter alia, that supervisory employees are not employees within the mean- ing of the Act. The status of supervisory personnel has been con- sidered in a number of cases. Both the Board 2 and the courts 3 have held that, in relation to their employer, supervisors are employees within the meaning of the Act. Accordingly, we find that the super- visors involved in this proceeding are employees within the meaning of the Act. We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the representation of employees of the Employer, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT The Petitioner seeks a unit of head workmen and assistant foremen, including assistant mechanical foreman and assistant shipping super- visor, but excluding manager, assistant manager, production manager, general shift foreman, assistant general shift foreman, general 1 The Petitioner admits only supervisory employees into membership. In its motion to dismiss the petition, the Employer contends that the Petitioner is not a labor organization within the meaning of the Act. The term "labor organization" under the provisions of Section 2 (5) of the Act, means "any organization of any kind, or any agency or employee representation committee or plan ,, in which employees participate and which exists for the purpose, in whole or in part, of dealing with employers concerning grievances, labor disputes , wages, rates of pay , hours of employment , or conditions of work." The Petitioner Is clearly a labor organization within the meaning of this definition. 2 Matter of Soss Manufacturing Company, et at., 56 N. L. R. B. 348 ; Matter of Packard Motor Car Company, 61 N. L. R. B. 4, and 64 N. L. R. B. 1212 ; Matter of L. A. Young Spring & Wire Corporation, 65 N. L. R. B. 298 ; Matter of The Midland Steel Products Company, 61 N. L. R. B. 997 ; Matter of Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation , Vesta -Shannopin Coal Divi- sion, 66 N. L. R. B. 386 ; Matter of American Locomotive Company, 65 N. L. R. B. 1123. 3N. L. R. B. v. Armour & Co., 154 F. (2d) 570 (C. C. A. 10) ; Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation v. N. L. R. B., 146 F. (2d) 833 (Cl. C. A. 5) ; N. L. R. B. v. Skinner & Kennedy Stationery Company, 113 F. (2d) 667 (C. C. A. 8). AMERICAN CYANAMID & CHEMICAL CORPORATION 1277 mechanical foreman, machine shop foreman, and all other employees. The Employer does not,disagree with the composition of the proposed unit but contends that no unit of supervisors may for purposes of collective bargaining constitute an appropriate unit within the mean- ing of the Act, and that the Petitioner, an an affiliate of a labor organization which represents rank 'and file employees, should not be permitted to act for the supervisory personnel involved herein .4 The Employer's Bridgeville plant, with which we are herein con- cerned, is under the supervision of a plant manager who is in. charge of the over-all operations of the plant. Under the supervision of the manager are the department heads, variously classified as "super- visors," 5 general mechanical foreman, machine shop foreman, general shift-forelnan , assistant general shift foreman, and stores and shipping supervisor. This constitutes the second level of supervision and con- sists of nine persons, all of whom are salaried. For the most part, these are professional employees such as chemists and chemical engi- neers. Below , this second level of supervision, and in immediate charge of the rank and file employees are the employees involved in this proceeding. The record discloses that all these bottom level super- visors are hourly rated employees, do no manual work, and are non- professional in character. They have the power to make effective recommendations with respect to the hiring, discharging, and dis- ciplining of employees under their supervision, and they participate as an Employer representative in the first step of the grievance procedure established for the rank and file employees. However, they neither formulate nor take part in the determination of general policies estab- lished by the Employer. III previous cases involving supervisors comparable to those who are the subject of the present proceeding, we have considered and rejected as untenable the arguments that no unit of supervisors may be appropriate a and that all affiliate of a rank and file union may not represent supervisory employees.' In accordance with those decisions,, we find the similar arguments advanced by the Employer in this. present proceeding to be without merit. 4 The Employer has a contract with District 50, United Mine Workers of America, af- filiated with the American Federation of Labor, covering rank and file production, main- tenance, and shipping and stores employees . The contract between the Employer and District 50 excludes from its coverage the employees in the unit petitioned for in this proceeding. 5 The term "supervisors" is used here as generally used i n the chemical industry, and is the equivalent of a department or area superintendent in other industries . It refers to a direct title and not to a description of duties. Matter of L. A. Young Spring & Wire Corporation, 65 N. L. R . B. 298; Matter of The B. F. Goodrich Oompang, 65 N. L. R. B. 294; Matter of Westinghouse Electric Corporation (East Springfield Works), 66 N. L. It. B. 1297. 7 Matter of Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation, Vesta:Shannopin Coal Division, 66 N. L. It. 11.:86; Hatter of American Locomotive Company , 67 N. L, R. B. 1123. 1278 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD We find that all head workmen and assistant foremen employed by the employer at its Bridgeville plant, including assistant mechanical foreman and assistant shipping supervisor , but excluding manager, assistant manager, production manager, general shift foreman , assist- ant general shift foreman , general mechanical foreman, machine shop foreman, and all other employees , constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. DIRECTION OF ELECTION As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining with American Cyanamid & Chemi- cal Corporation , Bridgeville plant, Bridgeville , Pennsylvania, an election 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 Sixth Region, acting in this matter as agent for the National Labor Rela- tions Board , and subject to Article III, Sections 10 and 11, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3, as amended, among the employees in the unit found appropriate in Section IV, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of this Direction , including employees who did not work during said pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation or temporarily laid off, and including employees in the armed forces of the United States who present themselves in person at the polls, but excluding those employees who have since quit or been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or reinstated prior to the date of the election, to determine whether or not they desire to be represented by United Foremen of America, CIO , for the purposes of collective bargaining. MR. GERARD D. REiLLY, dissenting : For the reasons stated in my dissenting opinions in Matter of Packard Motor Car Company, 61 N. L. R. B. 4, and Matter of Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation, Vesta-Shannopin Coal D'iv'ision,, 66 N. L. R. B . 386, I am compelled to dissent from the majority opinion herein.