Beaunit Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 30, 1965

153 N.L.R.B. 987 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

BEAUNIT FIBERS, INC. A DIVISION OF BEAUNIT CORP. 987
from truth that the elections must be set aside. Further, as the other
companies were named, the employees might well have had a basis for
evaluating the information .3
At most the Petitioner's statements involved "puffing." The Board
is not the censor of excessive campaign language, except to the extent
that the Hollywood Ceramics holding seeks to prevent substantial mis-
representation or other similar campaign trickery which may reason-
ably be expected to have a significant impact on the election. That deci-
sion is inapplicable here. Accordingly, I would affirm the Regional
Director and would certify the Petitioner.
3 Cf. Hollywood Ceramics Company, Inc ., eupra, at 225.
Beaunit Fibers , Inc. a Division of Beaunit Corporation and United
Textile Workers of America & Local Union , Watauga Rayon
Workers Union Local 2207, Petitioner . Case No. 10-UC-2.
June 30, 1965
DECISION AND ORDER DENYING PETITION TO AMEND
AND CLARIFY CERTIFICATION
On August 11, 1952, the National Labor Relations Board certified
United Textile Workers of America as the bargaining representative
of "all production and maintenance employees, excluding supervisory
employees, clerical and professional employees and guards as defined
by the National Labor Relations Act, as amended." 1 On January 14,
1965, the Petitioner filed a petition to amend and clarify certification
of the above unit to include certain employees. On February 2, 1965,
the Petitioner filed an amendment to the petition. On February 10 and
11, a hearing was held before Hearing Officer Clara A. Whitesides
for the purpose of taking testimony with respect to issues raised by the
petition. All parties appeared and participated at the hearing. The
Hearing Officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial
error and are hereby affirmed. On March 2, 1965, the Regional Direc-
tor issued a notice to show cause why the petition should not be dis-
missed. The Petitioner filed a brief in support of its petition. The
Employer filed a brief requesting that the petition be dismissed. Both
parties also filed responses to the notice. On March 19, 1965, the Act-
ing Regional Director issued an order transferring this case to the
Board.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the Board has delegated its powers in con-
'Case No. 10-RC-1969.
153 NLRB No. 62.
988 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
nection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch
and Members Fanning and Brown].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
The Employer is a Delaware corporation engaged in the manufac-
ture of synthetic fibers at Elizabethton, Tennessee. Although the Peti-
tioner is the certified representative for all production and maintenance
employees, it has contractually represented only hourly paid nonsuper-
visory employees. The Petitioner contends that one employee, Mark
Scalp, who works on the automatic bobbin sanding machine, and three
employees, Clarence Whitehead, Wayne Whitehead, and Autre Peters,
who work on the copper recovery process, should be included in the
unit even though all four are salaried employees. The Employer con-
tends that the function performed by these employees existed at the
time of certification in 1952 and that the inclusion of these employees
13 years after the election should be only through a Board-conducted
self-determination election.2 The Employer also contends that the
petition should be dismissed in view of a pending grievance filed by the
Union on January 21,1964 .3
There are four salaried employees whose positions are being ques-
tioned. In 1948 the Employer installed a bobbin sanding machine in
the sandhouse. The hourly paid employees who had been performing
the job by hand were laid off and Mark Scalp, who had been a super-
visor, became the operator of the sanding machine while still remaining
a salaried employee. Hubert Bowers, an hourly paid employee, acts
as a relief for Scalp on the sanding machine and also performs this
work on another shift. Scalp also cleans bobbins as does Bowers.
Scalp receives his work from hourly paid employees in the sanding
department.
The Whiteheads and Peters work on the copper recovery process.
When this work was introduced in 1945, the job was done by two former
supervisors who were in turn replaced by three former supervisors.
These were followed by two salaried employees. The Whiteheads
came on the job iii April 1964 and later Autre Peters joined them. The
duties of these employees consists of opening and closing valves, carry-
ing samples to the laboratory for testing, adding various types of met-
als to the tank, washing the tanks, and watching the presses. There
are other employees who are in the unit performing identical or similar
tasks. Although, as the record indicates, these four salaried employ-
ees work in and around the production area, are in daily contact with
unit employees, and have many of the same terms and conditions of
2The Employer contends that Section 3(b) of the Act is unconstitutional. As the
Board must assume the constitutionality of the Act which it is required to administer, in
the absence of a binding court order to the contrary , we reject this contention.
a The grievance is not that these employees are covered by the contract but that hourly
employees who are covered by the contract should be performing the copper recovery work.
J. W. ROBINSON CO . 989
employment, we find that in the circumstances of this case they are
entitled to a self-determination election before being added to the
existing bargaining unit.
We base this conclusion on the following factors : The functions of
cleaning and sanding bobbins and of copper dissolving, deironing, and
filtration were in existence at the time of the Board certification in
1952. At that time these functions were being performed by former
supervisors who had become production employees. After the certifi-
cation until the present time, this work had been performed by salaried
production employees. The Petitioner made no effort to represent
these employees until 14 years after the Board certification. Neither
the contract executed pursuant to the certification nor any subsequently
executed contracts include salaried production employees. In fact, the
Petitioner has in the past specifically demanded the work be performed
by hourly employees rather than seeking to represent the employees
doing the work.
In view of the foregoing, and upon the entire record, we find that
the petition for clarification raises a question concerning representa-
tion which may not be resolved through a clarification of the existing
unit. The proper procedure is a petition pursuant to Section 9 (c) of
the Act seeking, an election. We shall therefore grant the Employer's
request that the Petitioner's petition be denied.4
[The Board denied the petition to amend and clarify certification.]
' Sterilon Corporation , 147 NLRB 219.
Associated Dry Goods Corporation d/b/a J. W. Robinson Co.'
and New Furniture & Appliance Drivers, Warehousemen &
Helpers, Local 196, affiliated with the International Brother-
hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of
America, Petitioner. Case No. P21-RC-8508. June 30,1965
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, a hearing was held before Hearing Officer
Barton W. Robertson. The Hearing Officer's rulings made at the
hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to Section 3(b) of the Act, the National Labor Relations
Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Brown and
Jenkins].
1 The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing.
153 NLRB No. 117.