Monsanto Chemical Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsJan 14, 1953

102 N.L.R.B. 273 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

MONSANTO CHEMICAL COMPANY 273 MONSANTO CHEMICAL COMPANY, MUSCLE SHOALS CHLORINE CAUSTIC PLANT and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS LODGE No. 1189 AFL, PETITIONER MONSANTO CHEMICAL COMPANY, MUSCLE SHOALS CHLORINE CAUSTIC PLANT and MUSCLE SHOALS BUILDING TRADES COUNCIL AND INTER- NATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, LOCAL No . 660 AFL, JOINT PETITIONER . Cases Nos. 10-IBC-1967 and 10-RC-2028. January 14, 1953 Decision and Direction of Elections Upon separate petitions filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, separate hearings were held before Paul L. Harper and Morgan C. Stanford, hearing officers. The hearing officers' rulings made at the hearings are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. As the two cases involved the same Employer and the same issues, they are hereby consolidated for purposes of decision. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with these cases to a three- member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Styles and Peterson]. Upon the entire record in these cases, 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 em- ployees of the Employer? 3. Questions affecting commerce exist 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. The Employer produces chlorine, hydrogen, and caustic soda by an electrolytic process, all phases of which are interdependent and part of a single, continuous operation. The entire plant is adminis- tered by a plant manager assisted by the maintenance superintendent in charge of maintenance and the manufacturing superintendent in charge of production. There is no prior history of collective bar- gaining. The Muscle Shoals Building and Trades Council and International Union of Operating Engineers, Local No. 660 AFL, hereinafter called the Joint Petitioner, requests a unit of all production and main- 11 Association of Machinists, the Petitioner in Case No. 10-RC-1967, inter- vened in Case No. 10-RC-2028. 102 NLRB No. 29. 274 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tenance employees. International Association of Machinists, herein- after called the IAM, seeks a unit consisting of the machinist, the outside machinists (also referred to in the record as maintenance mechanics (repairmen) ), and the maintenance mechanic (welder) or, in the alternative, IAM seeks a unit that would include, in addition to the employees in the unit first proposed, any other maintenance employees. The Employer contends that neither the original pro- posed unit nor any alternative unit of maintenance employees is ap- propriate, and that a plantwide unit is alone appropriate. We find, in accord with the customary policy of the Board, that the plantwide unit proposed by the Joint Petitioner may be appropriate. IAM seeks in its primary unit the machinist, the outside machinists, and the maintenance mechanic welder. The outside machinists spend most of their time repairing and maintaining mechanical equipment throughout the plant, at times working with production employees. Some of the outside machinists are assigned to second and third shift work under the manufacturing superintendent, whereas others work only the day shift, under the maintenance superintendent. In addi- tion to the outside machinists, the maintenance employees comprise the machinists and welder, whom the IAM would include in its pri- mary unit, and certain "maintenance mechanics" classified as painters, pipefitters, electricians, and carpenters, as well as a number of laborers, and other unskilled employees, all of whom the IAM would exclude from its primary unit. The outside machinists do not exercise any craft skills; the record indicates that only the machinist and welder in the primary unit sought are true craftsmen. As the primary unit sought consists of only a segment of the maintenance employees, and is not a craft unit, we find that it is not appropriate. Contrary to the contention of the Employer, however, we find that a unit of all maintenance employees may constitute a separate appro- priate unit. In spite of the integration and interdependence of op- erations at the Employer's plant and the general pattern of plantwide bargaining in the chemical industry, we believe that, absent a history of collective bargaining on a broader scale, the maintenance em- ployees at the instant plant have sufficient interests apart from pro- duction employees to warrant granting them a self-determination election 2 Accordingly, we shall direct that separate elections be conducted among the following groups of employees at the Employer's Muscle Shoals plant : *Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co., 80 NLRB 1347 ; Jefferson Chemical Company , 81 NLRB 1393; 79 NLRB 585. WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION 275 (1) All maintenance employees, excluding all other employees, office, clerical, technical, and professional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. (2) All production employees, excluding all other employees, office, clerical, and professional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. If a majority of the employees in each of the voting groups (1) and (2) select the Joint Petitioner, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to constitute a single appropriate unit. If a majority of the employees in voting group (1) select a labor organization which is not selected by the employees in voting group (2), the employees in voting group (1) will be taken to have indicated their desire to con- stitute a separate unit. If a majority of the employees in voting group (2) alone vote for the Joint Petitioner, that union will be certi- fied for such unit. The Regional Director is instructed to issue a certification of representatives consistent herewith to the bargaining agent or agents selected for such unit or units, which the Board, under the circumstances, finds to be appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. [Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication in this volume.] WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION , ELECTRONIC TUBE DIVISION and UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS & JOINERS OF AMERICA, AFL, PETITIONER WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION , ELECTRONIC TUBE DIVISION and DISTRICT LODGE No. 58, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MA- CHINISTS , AFL, PETITIONER . Cases Nos . 3-RC-1084 and 3-RC- 1101. January 14, 1953 Decision and Direction of Elections Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the Na- tional Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before Katherine A. Tarbell, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three- member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Styles and Peterson]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 102 NLRB No. 30.