American Cyanamid Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 11, 1974

208 N.L.R.B. 1018 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

1018 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
American Cyan=id Co., Employer and Oil, Chemical
and Atomic Workers International Union, Local
3--499, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case 9-UC-86
February 11, 1974
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, KENNEDY, AND
PENELLO
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a
hearing was held before Hearing Officer Keenan.
Thereafter , the Acting Regional Director for Region
9 issued an order transferring the case to the Board
for decision,
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three -member panel.
The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's
rulings made at the hearing and finds that they are
free from prejudicial error. They 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. The Employer is engaged in the business of
manufacturing chemicals and allied products in its
plant located at Willow Island, West Virginia. At
that plant the Employer manufactures approximately
80 chemical products.
The Petitioner is the collective -bargaining repre-
sentative for a unit consisting of all employees at the
Willow Island plant employed on an hourly basis,
but excluding, among others, those employees
working on jobs which are classified as being in the
power department.' It has had successive collective-
bargaining agreements with the Employer since July
10, 1952.
The Intervenor 2 has been recognized as the
collective-bargaining representative of the power
plant employees and has had successive contracts
with the Employer covering those employees since
1950.
The Petitioner proposes to clarify the unit it
represents by including therein the newly created
1 The unit description is as follows : All employees of the American
Cyanamid Co., Willow Island, West Virginia, who are employed on an
hourly basis, but excluding all office and clerical workers, guards,
watchmen , professional employees , all supervisors as defined in Sec. 2(11)
of the National Labor Relations Act , as amended, and those employees
working on jobs which are classified as being in the power department
2 International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 589 , AFL-CIO.
classification of effluent operator. It claims the work
performed by employees, in this classification is
simply an extension of the work performed by an
employee it represents in connection with treatment
of waste (effluent) from the AFI department. Prior to
filing of the petition on June 19, 1973, the Employer
and the Intervenor consummated a collective-bar-
gaining agreement' on May 16, 1973, incorporating
therein the classification of effluent operator. They
claim the work performed by employees in this
classification is an extension of the work performed
by employees the Intervenor represents in connec-
tion with the treatment of waste from the entire
plant .3
The Employer was scheduled to start operation of
a new waste treatment facility shortly after the
hearing in this case. That facility will treat all of the
plant's waste. Effluent operators are to operate this
facility.
Previously all of the plant's liquid waste bypro-
ducts, with the exception of the waste byproducts of
the AFI department (discussed infra ), were dumped
without previous treatment into a settling lagoon
near the plant. Then, after some treatment, the liquid
waste, was released into Cow Creek, a branch of the
Ohio River to be carried out downstream.
Powerhouse employees represented by the Interve-
nor are responsible for the lagoon. They take samples
of the effluent in the lagoon and in the river both
above .and below the plant. They chlorinate and add
lime to the lagoon. They also police the lagoon being
concerned about such matters as oil slicks, putting
barriers at the rear and about the out fall, making
sure that the foam is knocked down and applying
antifoam as necessary. Powerhouse attendants
spend 10 to 15 percent of their time on these duties.
Employer has a powerhouse attendant on duty 7
days a week, 24 hours a day.
The AFI department makes a chemical known as
aueromycin, a live stock feed additive. The effluent
from this department has in the past undergone
separate and distinct purification prior to being
dumped into the lagoon. The AFI waste will now be
treated with all the other plant waste and the AFI
waste facility will no longer be used. The previous
special purification of the AFI waste was necessary
because of the organic nature of the effluent. The
operation of this special system was carried on by an
individual in the AFI department represented by the
Petitioner, although that individual was not specifi-
J Employer has moved to dismiss the proceeding contending that it
involves a work assignment dispute rather than a representation matter
citing Carey v. Westinghouse Corp., 375 U.S. 261. We find that what we are
concerned with here is essentially a unit placement issue arising from the
enlargement and extension of Employer's waste disposal facilities . McDon-
nell Co., 173 NLRB 225.
208 NLRB No. 139
AMERICAN CYANAMID CO. 1019
cally classified as an effluent operator. As part of the
operation of that system, the operator took care of
aerators, set up pumps , operated sludge pumps, and
gathered necessary samples. He did not have any
duties in connection with- the treatment of waste in
the lagoon or with the maintaining of the lagoon.
All plant waste, including the AFI waste, will now
be treated prior to being dumped into the lagoon.
The new system will treat approximately 18 to 20
times the 350,000 gallons treated by the AFI plant.
Although its basic purpose is to treat all plant waste
in a manner bearing some basic similarities to the
way the waste from the AFI was previously treated,
the equipment used for such treatment in the new
plant is much more sophisticated and its .operators
require special training . Unlike the AFI plant, which
was operated for only one shift 5 days a week, the
new plant will operate 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
Employer has had four effluent operators, all
formerly powerhouse employees, in training since
May 29, to perform the duties of operating the new
plant.
In our opinion the work of the effluent operator is
essentially an outgrowth of the work performed by
other Intervenor-represented employees in connec-
tion with the lagoon. Thus, the new system is
essentially an outgrowth of the old plantwide waste
treatment system. Previously, the vast majority of the
plant was treated only in the settling lagoon. Now the
Employer, instead of limiting the treatment to the
settling lagoon, has decided to treat all plant waste
through the use of the, large sophisticated waste
treatment facility prior to dumping it into the lagoon.
In our opinion , the new facility is more logically
viewed as an extension of the previous plant waste
treatment facility rather than of the waste treatment
facility operated in connection with the AFI depart-
ment. The AFI facility was a relatively small system
designed to take care of the production needs of a
particular department. We do not believe the fact
that this aspect of that department's work will now
be performed as part of a plantwide system indicates
that the plantwide system is an extension of the
smaller less sophisticated system or that the work
done in connection with the plantwide system
represents an extension of the work performed in
connection with the smaller system.
Since the present plantwide waste disposal facility
has been the primary responsibility of the power-
house employees represented by the Intervenor, and
the work performed in connection with the new
facility a logical extension of the work performed in
connection with that facility, it would be, in our view,
inappropriate to grant the Petitioner's request to
clarify the unit it represents to include the new
classification of effluent operator. Accordingly, we
shall dismiss the petition in this case.
ORDER
The petition is hereby dismissed.