Monsanto Chemical Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 11, 1943

53 N.L.R.B. 1283 (N.L.R.B. 1943)

In the Matter of MONSANTO CHEMICAL COMPANY and CHEMICAL
WORKERS UNION No. 22606 (AFL)
Case No. 1-R-1626.Decided December 11, 1943
Mr. Charles B. Rugg, of Boston, Mass., for the Company.
Mr. William F. Regan, of Peabody, Mass., for the Union.
Mr. David V. Easton, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a petition duly filed by Chemical Workers Union No. 22606,
AFL, herein called the Union, alleging that a' question affecting com-
merce had arisen concerning the representation of employees of
Monsanto Chemical Company, (Everett, Massachusetts, herein called
the Company, the National Labor Relations Board provided for an
appropriate hearing upon due notice before Thomas H. Ramsey,
Trial Examiner. Said hearing was held at Boston, Massachusetts,
on November 12, 1943. The Company and the Union appeared,
participated, and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to
examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bear-
ing on the issues. The Trial Examiner's rulings made at the hearing
are free, from prejudicial error, and are hereby affirmed . All parties
were afforded an opportunity to file briefs with the Board.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Monsanto Chemical Company, a Delaware corporation with its main
office located in St. Louis, Missouri, is engaged in the manufacture of
various chemicals, chemical products, and pharmaceutical products.
For this purpose it owns and operates 12 plants located in various
States of the United States, and in addition, operates 3 plants which
it does not own. We are concerned herein with the Company's plant
53 N. L. R. B., No. 234.
1283
1284 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
located in Everett, Massachusetts. The Company purchases raw
materials valued at more than $3,000,000 per year for use at its Everett,
Massachusetts, plant, of which in excess of 50 percent originates from
points outside the State of Massachusetts. The finished products of
the Everett plant are,,valued at more than $12,000,000 per year, of
which more than 40 percent is shipped to points outside the State of
Massachusetts. The Company admits that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Chemical Workers Union No. 22606 is a labor organization affiliated
with the American Federation of Labor, admitting to membership
employees of the Company.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Company refuses to recognize'the Union as the bargaining
representative of certain of its employees unless and until the Union
receives certification by the Board.
A statement of the Regional Director, introduced into evidence at
the hearing, indicates that the Union represents a substantial number
of employees in the unit hereinafter found appropriate.,
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Company, within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT; THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
The Union seeks to represent a unit comprised of all employees of
the Company engaged in its control laboratory, including professional
employees and all hourly paid employees attached thereto, but exclud-
ing supervisory employees. The Company contends that the hourly
paid employees should be excluded from the unit, and that the pro-
fessional laboratory workers should be given an opportunity to express
their desires with respect to whether or not they should be included
within a unit of laboratory employees.
The Union has been previously certified as the bargaining repre-
sentative of all hourly paid production and maintenance employees of
the Company, excluding, inter alia, chemists and laboratory employees
not paid at an hourly rate. Attached to the laboratory are two hourly
paid employees who act in the capacity of janitor and bottle washer,
I The Regional Director reported that the Union submitted 10 application cards, all of
which bore apparently genuine, original signatures , and contained the names of persons ap-
pearing upon the Company 's pay roll for the week ending October 17, 1943 which contained
a total of 19 names in the alleged appropriate unit.
MONSANTO CHEMICAL COMPANY 1285
respectively. It is apparent from their job classifications that these
persons are not properly part of a technical unit, but are properly
included within the industrial unit. Under these circumstances, we
are of the opinion that the two hourly paid employees attached to the
control laboratory were clearly meant to be included within the indus-
trial unit previously certified, and we shall therefore exclude them
from the voting units hereinafter designated.
• The Company employs ' approximately five persons in its control
laboratory who have received degrees in,chemistry or related sciences.
It contends that these employees should not be included in the same
unit as the non-professional laboratory employees on the ground that
a dissimilarity exists between them with respect to interests, type of
work, qualifications, methods of payment, amount of supervision, and
future prospects with the Company. The record indicates that while
these employees may perform work similar to that performed by the
non-professional employees, they are frequently called upon to do
special analytical work of a complicated nature, - and to handle new
and non-routine analyses on their own initiative. In contrast to the
professional employees, the non-professional employees are required
to perform only routine analyses. The professional employees are
paid on a monthly basis and receive a minimum of supervision; on
occasions they also supervise the work of the non-professional labora-
tory workers. The non-professional employees are paid on a weekly
basis, and require supervision and instruction from the outset. The
professional employees are hired through the central office at St.
Louis, Missouri, after interviews by several of the ranking research
and production supervisors of the Company, whereas the non-pro-
fessional laboratory employees are hired at the particular plant in
which they are employed. Furthermore, the Company considers the
professional laboratory employee to be in training for a future super-
visory post either in research or production; the advancement of the
non-professional laboratory worker is limited unless he undergoes
additional training on his own initiative. In view of these circum-
stances, we are of the opinion that the professional laboratory em-
ployees are entitled to voice their desires in the matter of representa-
tion in a voting group separate from that of the non-professional
employees.2 Accordingly, we shall direct separate elections among
the professional laboratory employees 'of the Company and the non-
professional laboratory employees who were engaged during the pay-
roll period immediately preceding the date of the Direction of Elec-
tion, subject to the limitations and additions set forth therein, to
determine whether or not they desire to be represented by the Union.
If the employees in both groups select the Union as their bargaining
2 Cf. Matter of Shell Development Company, 38 N. L. R B. 192.
1286 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
representative, they shall constitute a single unit; if, however, only
one group selects the Union as its bargaining representative, it shall
constitute the appropriate unit.
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
By virtue of -and pursuant to the power vested in the National
Labor Relations Board by Section 9 (c)'of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, and pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3, it is hereby
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representa-'
tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Monsanto Chemi-
cal Company; Everett, Massachusetts, separate elections by secret'
ballot shall be conducted as soon 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 First Region, acting in
'this matter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and
subject to Article III, Sections 10 and 11, of said Rules and Regula-
tions, among the following groups of employees of the Company 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 tem-
porarily laid off, and including employees in the armed forces of the
United States who present themselves in person at the polls, but ex-
cluding the chief chemist and the assistant chief chemist and all
other supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, disci-
pline, discharge, or otherwise effect changes in the status of em-'
ployees, or effectively recommend such action, and excluding' any who
have since quit or been' discharged for cause, and have not been re-
hired or reinstated prior to the date of the election, to determine
whether they desire to be represented by Chemical Workers Union
No. 22606, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, for the
• purposes of collective bargaining :
1. All professional monthly paid laboratory employees engaged in
the control laboratory;
2. All non-professional weekly paid laboratory employees engaged
in the control laboratory.
MR. GERARD D. REIu Y took no part in the consideration of, the
above Decision and Direction of Elections.