E. I. DuPont de Nemours and Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsDec 28, 1966

162 N.L.R.B. 413 (N.L.R.B. 1966)

E. I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS & CO. 413 the history of bargaining at the Employer's plant is one of the fac tors to be considered under Mallinckrodt and does militate against the granting of severance herein, it is but one of the factors to be con- sidered. And, in my view of the record, virtually all of the other factors dictate a result contrary to that reached by my colleagues. Thus, as found by the Regional Director, the tool-and-die makers are a distinct group of highly skilled craftsmen who perform the func- tions of their craft more than 80 percent of the time, and whose sep- arate identity has been maintained in spite of their inclusion to date in the broader unit. Additionally, as shown above, their occasional work in the pressroom has not detracted from their high level of skills or their separate identity.12 To me, these factors are more than ample to warrant a conclusion that these employees are entitled to the separate representation they seek. On the other hand, little in the present record, other than the mere length of the bargaining history, supports the conclusion of the majority herein. And, for the reasons set forth at some length in my dissenting opinion in Mallinckrodt, that factor may not be given controlling weight. I would, for the reasons set forth above and in the decision of the Regional Director, grant the petition. 12 The record does not indicate the nature or extent of integration of the Employer's production processes. E. I. DuPont de Nemours and Company' (May Plant, Camden, South Carolina ) and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 382, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case 11-RC-1999. December 28,1966 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 Thomas C. Bradley, Jr. The Hearing Officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.2 Following the hearing and pursuant to Section 102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations and Statements of Procedure, Series 8, as amended, and by direction of 1 The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing. During the course of the hearing , the Employer appealed a ruling of the Hearing Officer, excluding certain expert testimony comparing the manufacturing process at the Employer ' s plant involved herein and those in the steel, aluminum , lumber, and wet-milling industries . On August 18, the Board by telegraphic order granted the Employer 's appeal and reversed the ruling of the Hearing Officer in that regard. 162 NLRB No. 49. 414 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the Regional Director for Region 11, this case was transferred to the National Labor Relations Board for decision . Briefs have been filed by the Employer and the Petitioner.3 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 representa- tion of the employees of the Employer within the meaning of Sec- tions 9 ( c) (1) and 2 ( 6) and (7) of the Act. 4. There is no history of bargaining at the e'mployer's May plant at Camden, South Carolina , where it is engaged in the manufacture of its acrylic fiber, "Orlon." The Employer 's Operations The Employer manufactures Orlon acrylic fiber at its May plant in Camden, South Carolina. The facility consists of two long buildings, plant I and plant II, surrounded by power stations , shops, a tank farm , distillation columns, and cooling towers. Acrylonitrile , a liquid chemical monomer, is delivered by rail to the tank farm where it is stored in storage tanks. From there the chemi- cal is pumped to a reactor where it is mixed with other chemicals under carefully controlled conditions. This process results in polym- erization. The polymer is then washed to remove foreign chemi- cals and solvents, separated , extruded into a solid state , and dried. Dried polymer pellets are blended-or mixed with other batches to insure uniformity-and transferred to a special ., deenergized storage tank. From there the dried polymer is delivered to a mixing opera- tion, where a solvent and other chemicals are added to form a semi- solution . This semisolution is heated , filtered, and delivered to the spinning machines. Special electrically operated pumps meter the solution into the spinning machines. The spinning machines turn the semisolution into fine filaments which are brought together to form a thread, and the threads are brought together to form a rope. This rope is then processed through a drawing operation where it is drawn or stretched under controlled temperature conditions and then crimped. Then the rope is dried and packaged as a tow , or cut , dried, and baled as cut staple . The finished product, in tow or cut staple form, is shipped to textile knitters and processors I in the textile "outerwear" trade. 3 The Employer 's request for oral argument is hereby denied , as the record and briefs adequately present the issues and positions of the parties. E. I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS & CO. 415 The plant is in full operation 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. All of the equipment in the plant is specially designed and constructed for Orlon manufacture. The manufacturing process is a continuous one, as opposed to the "batch" method, and is a closed system under which the chemical ingredients remain enclosed and unexposed throughout the process. Thus, employees do not personally process the raw or fin- ished product at any time-they only operate, maintain, and repair the machinery, equipment, and various controls used in the manu- facturing process. The work must be done in such a manner as to keep the production process operating constantly, even during repair of the electrical and electronic controls which regulate the flow of the product. The Employer has a total of 1,411 employees in wage roll and sal- ary classifications. Of the 950 in wage roll classifications, 450 are in the "manufacturing group," 370 in the "works engineering" group, 110 in the "process" group, 15-16 in shipping, and 10-11 in storage. The "works engineering" group has within it a "control equipment" group comprised of 70 employees, 29 classified as instrument mechan- ics and approximately 40 classified as electrical mechanics. It is these 40 electrical mechanics or electricians whom Petitioner seeks to represent. The electricians are assigned as follows : 9-10 in the plant I elec- trical shop, 10 in the plant II electrical shop, 8 in the power area, and 12 in the project shop. The plant I electrical shop is in the cen- tral shop, which houses instrument men, carpenters, painters, machin- ists, sheetmetal men, and welders, as well as an electrical shop, which is located in a separate room. All crafts are partitioned off from one another and are under separate supervision, and only electricians do electrical work. The plant II electrical shop is in a separate building approximately 100 yards from plant II. That building also houses a general mechanics group and an instrument shop in separate rooms. Electricians in the plant I and II shops do maintenance and repair work on motors, check and overhaul starters, check relay panels, start conduits, pull wires, and do inspection and repair work on transformers. The project shop is located 100 feet from the plant II electrical shop. It houses general mechanics and instrument men, as well as the project shop electricians. The latter do primarily electri- cal construction and installation work on power motors, relay boxes, and switches, rather than regular maintenance and repair work, although they are required to repair switch gears, starters, and sim- ilar equipment. The power shop is located in the same building as the plant I electrical shop (central shop), but the, electricians there engage primarily in maintaining the equipment in the powerhouse. 416 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Each shop has an electrical foreman who supervises only electri- cians . The foreman reports to an electrical supervisor , who in turn reports to the control equipment supervisor , who has jurisdiction over the electrical and instrument departments . The control equip- ment supervisor is directed by the works engineer, who reports directly to the plant manager. Of the approximately 40 electricians, 2 were hired as such and the rest trained to become electricians through a 3-year training pro- gram conducted by the Employer. Although the program is not ap- proved as a formal State apprenticeship program, it involved on-the- job training , classroom instruction , and homework, Also, 14 of the electricians received training in addition to that provided in the program. Electricians , like other highly skilled classifications, are in the highest pay group of the Employer. Although seniority was described as plantwide , in actuality it operates more on a depart- mental basis . Thus , the Employer 's plant manager testified that qual- ifications are considered along with seniority and that he knew of no time when a manufacturing employee had bumped an electrician dur- ing a layoff . It appears that, in the event of the reduction of electri- cal employees, any such employees who might be subject to layoff would be able, if they had sufficient plant seniority, to bump down into a production job. The electricians report each day to a particular electrical shop to which they are attached. They are then assigned by their foreman to perform certain tasks in the shop or throughout the plant , in accord- ance with maintenance or repair requests received through the con- trol equipment supervisor and electrical supervisor . Upon completion of their assignments , the electricians return to their own shops for reassignment . Over 90 percent of their working time is spent in pro- duction areas, carrying out such assignments , with prescheduled maintenance work accountable for a vast majority of that time. Although the electricians , while performing certain of their duties in production areas , must synchronize their work with production employees or instrument mechanics , only electricians perform the actual electrical work. One electrician testified that the machine operator frequently will tell him what the trouble he is having with the machine, perhaps test the machine after the electrician has worked on it, and otherwise simply stand by and observe the electri- cian working, or even leave the machine while it is being worked upon. Additionally, although a production supervisor may direct an electrician on such minor matters as when to take a lunch break or when to finish a job, the electricians receive directions with respect to the performance of their work tasks only from electrical super- E. I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS & CO. 417 visors and not from production supervisors . Moreover , electricians and instrument mechanics never work together in the shops . Although electricians and instrument mechanics do perform some related func- tions on the same machines , the latter frequently work on completely different types of equipment , such as recorders , gauges, and valves, and must use highly specialized tools. In some instances where it is necessary to tie electricity into certain equipment which an instru- ment mechanic will install or repair , the required tie-in work is per- formed by an electrician . In addition to the production employees and instrument mechanics , electricians have some contact with em- ployees classified as oilers. The principal function of the oilers is "relamping," which consists simply of changing light bulbs and fluorescent tubes and starters throughout the plant . These functions were performed by electricians at one time, but the work was reas- signed several years ago to the oilers , who are in a lower pay classi- fication. These employees also lubricate motors and perform related tasks. Unit Findings Petitioner seeks a unit composed of all electricians and trainees or apprentices as electricians, under the supervision of Mr. Springs and under the immediate supervision of the four foremen in the electrical shops situated throughout the plant, to wit, project electrical, plant I, plant II, and power area, excluding instructors and supervisors as defined in the Act, and all other employees in the plant. The Employer's principal contention is that, because of the inte- grated process and the degree of coordination between production operators and maintenance electricians, only an overall production and maintenance unit is appropriate. The Employer asks that, in addition to such a finding with respect to its May plant, the National Tube doctrine be extended to other plants and employees in the chemical manufacturing industry. The Employer's request was made in this case prior to the Board's ruling in Mallinckrodt Chemical Works, Uranium Division, 162 NLRB 387, issued this day, in which the National Tube rule, which previously precluded separate craft units in four specific, highly integrated industries, was modi- fied. Under the modification there announced, the Board will, in all cases, regardless of industry, determine the appropriateness of the craft unit sought in the light of all factors present in the case. This approach is consistent also with the recognition by the Board that only through a case-by-case examination of all relevant factors can full consideration be given to the effect of rapid technological changes upon the essential element of the separate identity of em- 264-047-67-vol. 162-28 418 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ployee groups and interests. That, in American-Cynarnid Company, 131 NLRB 909, 911-912, the Board stated this principle as follows : The Board must hold fast to the objectives of the statute using an empirical approach to adjust its decisions to the evolving realities of industrial progress and the reflection of that change in organizations of employees. To be effective for that purpose, each unit determination must have a direct relevancy to the cir- cumstances within which collective bargaining is to take place. While many factors may be common to most situations, in an evolving industrial complex the effect of any one factor, and therefore the weight to be given it in making the unit determina- tion, will vary from industry to industry and from plant to plant. We are therefore convinced that collective-bargaining units must be based upon all the relevant evidence in each individual case. Thus we shall continue to examine on a case-by- case basis the appropriateness of separate maintenance depart- ment units, fully cognizant that homogeneity, cohesiveness, and other factors of separate identity are being affected by automa- tion and technological changes and other forms of industrial advancement. Applying the Board's newly announced approach, we find that neither the integrated nature of the production process nor the fact that, in performing many of their functions, the electrical mainte- nance employees must coordinate their operations with the operations of production employees, constitutes a bar to a finding that the unit sought by Petitioner is appropriate.,' We note at the, outset that there is no history of *bargaining at the Employer's May plant. Further, as indicated above, the record re- veals that, although some of the electrical maintenance and repair work is coordinated with the work of production operators, the actual electrical work is performed solely by the electricians, and is subject to the supervision and direction only of electrical supervisors. More- over, although other employee classifications, such as instrument mechanics and oilers, perform some of the less skilled functions of electricians, they do so infrequently, and -none exercise all of the electrical- skills.5 Finally, in the performance of their duties, the electricians are` required to exercise the usual and recognized skills of craft, and in order to reach full electrician status, employees must progress through the 3-year-. training program requiring on-the-job training and experience as well as classroom instruction. In the light of the above-described conditions at the Employer's May plant, we find that the electricians sought by the Petitioner A Mallinckrodt Chemical Works, supra, at footnote It See also Union Carbide Corpora- tion Chemicals Division , 156 NLRB 634. 1 See Union Carbide Corporation, supra. E. I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS & CO. 419 possess and exercise the skills of craft electricians and enjoy a separate community of interests as such. This latter finding concern- ing their separate interests has taken into account the highly inte- grated nature of the Employer's manufacturing process, but this integration is not sufficient, under all of the circumstances presented herein, to require a different conclusion. Integration of a manufac- turing process is a factor to be considered in unit determinations. But it is not in and of itself sufficient to preclude the formation of a separate craft bargaining unit, unless it results in such a fusion of functions, skills, and working conditions between those in the asserted craft group and others outside it as to obliterate any mean- ingful lines of separate craft identity. We have found that the electricians here sought to be represented separately retain their separate identity as craftsmen. We are satisfied, for reasons set forth above, that there has been no such merger of functions, skills, and working conditions as to erase such craft identity. Nor do we find present in this case other considerations of such overriding force as to require a finding that the electricians, notwithstanding their separate identity, no longer maintain a sufficiently distinct com- munity of interest of their own to allow the formation of the unit sought. Nor are we persuaded, as contended by the Employer, that the decision involving this Employer's Savannah River plant 6 requires a contrary result. The Board concluded in that case that the elec- trical maintenance employees sought to be represented separately were, under the facts of that case, "specialists" rather than crafts- men and thus not entitled to separate representation. The Board's conclusion rested not only on the close functional integration of the electrical maintenance employees with production employees, but on the fact that, unlike this case, roughly 84 percent of the electrical maintenance employees there were permanently assigned to specific locations in the production areas, as well as the fact that, contrary to the record herein, production repairs were made by interlocking teams of mechanical, electrical, and instrument employees working under production supervision. While we do not abandon the dichot- omy between craftsmen -and specialists set forth in- the earlier DuPont case, we find that the differing circumstances herein require a different conclusion. The remaining contention of the Employer is that the proposed unit is inappropriate in that it does not include all employees exer- cising skills similar to those of the electricians, to wit, the instru- ment mechanics and the oilers. We may easily dispose of the argument concerning the oilers, as it is abundantly clear from the 6 E I. DuPont de Nemours & Company, 119 NLRB 723. 420 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD record that they perform such custodial functions as changing light bulbs and replacing fluorescent tubes and starters, work hardly requiring the training and skills exercised by electricians generally and at the May plant. Moreover, all electricians are in pay group 9, the highest classification, while oilers are in classification 3. With respect to the instrument mechanics, we have found that they work out of their own separate shops, are under their own separate supervision, and perform functions which are distinguish- able from those of the electricians. Although they have some con- tact with the maintenance electricians, certain of their job functions are wholly unrelated to electrical work. While electricians and instrument mechanics were at one time interchanged on a temporary basis, it does not appear that there is any interchange between the two groups at the present time. Moreover, the Board has found in the past that instrument mechanics constitute an identifiable craft and may be entitled, under appropriate circumstances, to separate representation.7 Indeed, the Board has, on occasion, specifically refused to combine electricians and instrument mechanics.s We find, therefore, that the instrument mechanics constitute a separate identi- fiable group of craftsmen who need not be included in the unit sought by the Petitioner. Under all of the above circumstances, including the absence of a bargaining history on a more comprehensive basis, the separate identity of the functions, skills, and supervision of the electricians, and the fact that Petitioner has long experience in representing journeymen electricians, we find the craft unit sought by Petitioner to be appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining.9 We find, therefore, that the following employees of the Employer constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargain- ing within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act: All electricians and trainees or apprentices as electricians, situ- ated throughout the plant, to wit, project electrical, plant I, plant II, and power area, excluding instructors and supervisors as defined in the Act, and all other employees in the plant. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] io 7 Union Carbide Corporation, supra; General Two and Rubber Company , 106 NLRB 246. 8 Colgate-Palmolive Company, 120 NLRB 1567, 1571-72; Container Corporation of Amer- ica, 121 NLRB 249, 256. o S. D. Warren Company v . N.L.R.R., 353 F.2d 494 (C.A. 1), cert. denied 383 U.S. 958. 10 An election eligibility list, containing the names and addresses of all the eligible voters, must be filed by the Employer with the Regional Director for Region 11 within 7 days after the date of this Decision and Direction of Election . The Regional Director shall make the list available to all parties to the election . No extension of time to file this list shall be granted by the Regional Director except in extraordinary circumstances . Failure to comply with this requirement shall be grounds for setting aside the election whenever proper objec- tions are filed. Excelsior Underwear Inc., 156 NLRB 1236. AVONDALE SHIPYARDS, INC. 421 MEMBER FANNING, concurring : I concur in my colleagues' opinion except to the extent that it relies on the absence of bargaining history on a more comprehensive basis as a reason for finding that the skilled electricians involved herein constitute a unit appropriate for purposes of collective bar- gaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. For reasons stated in my separate opinion in the Mallinckrodt case," issued this date, I do not believe that the mere fact that craft employees have been included in a more comprehensive unit can bar a petition for an election in a separate unit of craft employees. 11 Mallinckrodt Chemical Works , Uranium Division, 162 NLRB 387. Avondale Shipyards , Inc. and International Brotherhood of Boil- ermakers , Iron Ship Builders , Blacksmiths , Forgers and Help- ers, AFL-CIO. Cases 15-CA-2601, -2, -4, -6, -8, -9, -10, -11, and 2660. December 29, 1967. DECISION AND ORDER On July 8, 1966, Trial Examiner Horace A. Ruckel issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, and on July 15, 1966, an erratum thereto, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. He also found that the Respondent had not engaged in other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint. Thereafter, both the Respondent and the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision together with briefs in support thereof. The Respondent also filed an answering brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with these cases to a three- member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Fanning and Jenkins]. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision and the entire record in these cases, including the exceptions and briefs, and hereby adopts the findings, conclu- sions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner, with the follow- ing modifications.' 'Respondent ' s contention that employee Alford should be denied reinstatement is a matter which should properly be raised at the compliance stages of this proceeding. 162 NLRB No. 40.