American Cyanamid Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 15, 1953

107 N.L.R.B. 354 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

354 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
AMERICAN CYANAMID COMPANY and UNITED , GAS, COKE
& CHEMICAL WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, Petitioner.
Case No. 15 -RC-1025. December 15, 1953
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before John H. Immel,
Jr., hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the
hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby
affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning
of the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent
certain employees of the Employer.[
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the
representation of employees of the Employer within the
meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. In accordance with the agreement of the parties, we
find that all production and maintenance employees at the
Employer's Jefferson Parish, Louisiana, plant, including
warehouse employees, and shipping and receiving clerks,
but excluding office clerical employees, plant clerical em-
ployees, technical and professional employees, guards, and
supervisors, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes
of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b)
of the Act.
5. Construction of the Employer's plant started in March
1952. At the time of the hearing in October 1953 construction
of the units for the production of acrylonitrile, which is the
principal product the Employer will manufacture, had not
been completed. Other production units, however, are in
operation and are fully staffed.
At the time of the hearing the Employer had 38 employees.
By June 1954 the Employer expects to have 279 employees
working in all units. Tentative expansion plans contemplate
the hiring of 2 employees in October and 11 in December,
1953; 45 in January, 16 in February, 105 in March, 30 in
April, and 33 in June, 1954.
The Petitioner and the Intervenor urge that an immediate
election be held, contending that the Employer now has a
substantial number of employees in all general classifications,
and that any contemplated expansion will involve only an
increase in numbers rather than basic changes in the types
and skills of employees. The Employer takes no position as to
the time of the election, but leaves it to the discretion of the
Board.
'New Orleans Metal Trades Council, AFL, herein called the Intervenor, was permitted
to intervene at the hearing on the basis of a showing of interest.
107 NLRB No. 91.
TEXTRON INCORPORATED 355
We shall provide for an election to be held by March 31,
1954, or on such earlier date, to be selected by the Regional
Director, as it shall appear that a substantial and representative
number of employees are then employed.2 We believe that the
working force which will be employed when the election directed
herein is held, will be a substantial and representative segment
of the employees to be employed in the voting group for a
reasonable time in the future.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
2 Eligibility shall be determined by the payroll period immediately,; preceding the issuance
of a notice of election.
TEXTRON INCORPORATED and TEXTILE WORKERS UNION
OF AMERICA, CIO, Petitioner . Case No. 10 -RC-2538.
December 15, 1953
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Lloyd R.
Fraker, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made
at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby
affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent
certain employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the
representation of employees of the Employer within the
meaning of Section 9 (c) (l) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 1
4. The parties are in general agreement that a unit of
production and maintenance employees is appropriate. The
Petitioner, however, would exclude, among others, the clerk
in the preparation department and the clerk in the cloth
room; the standards man and the planning clerk, whose
interests, it contends, are different from the production
and maintenance employees; and the shipping clerk, the head
supply man, the head loom fixers, the head loom fixer in-
structors, and mechanic Bethel Duck, who, it alleges, are
supervisors.2 On the other hand, it would include the shop
mechanics who serve as part-time watchmen. Except for its
1Contrary to the Employer's contention, the fact of compliance by a labor organization
which is required to comply is a matter for administrative determination and is not litigable
by the parties. Sunbeam Corporation, 94 NLRB 844. Moreover, the Board is administratively
satisfied that the Petitioner is in compliance.
2 The parties are agreed that overseers and second hands are supervisors within the
meaning of the Act.
107 NLRB No. 89.