Plough, Inc.,

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 24, 1973

203 N.L.R.B. 121 (N.L.R.B. 1973)

PLOUGH, INC. 121
Plough, Inc., Employer and Petitioner, and Oil, Chemi-
cal and Atomic Workers International Union and its
Local 3-307' and International Chemical Workers
Union and its Local 194.' Case 26-RM-297
April 24, 1973
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS JENKINS
AND KENNEDY
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hearing
was held before Hearing Officer Robert H. Watson of
the National Labor Relations Board. Following the
close of the hearing, the Regional Director for Region
26 transferred this case to the Board for decision.
Thereafter, Plough, Inc., and International Chemical
Workers Union and its Local 194 filed briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's rul-
ings made at the hearing and finds that they are free
from prejudicial error. They are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the
Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act, and it will effectuate the
purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
2. The Employer (hereafter Plough) manufactures
drugs and cosmetics at its Memphis, Tennessee,
plants. The Memphis production complex consists, in
pertinent part, of lab I at 3022 Jackson Avenue, lab
2 at 1178 Pope Street, and lab 3 at 1248 Warford
Street. Since the late 1940's, the International Chemi-
cal Workers Union (hereafter ICWU) has represented
the production employees in labs 1 and 3, and since
1964, the Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers Interna-
tional Union (hereafter OCAW) has represented the
production employees at lab 2,2 excluding line me-
chanics, whom ICWU has represented. Both Unions
are labor organizations within the meaning of the Act.
3. Both OCAW and ICWU have negotiated several
collective-bargaining agreements covering their re-
spective units. The latest agreement between OCAW
and Plough I is effective from May 1, 1970, to April
i The names of the Unions appear in the caption as amended at the
hearing
2 Lab 2 was built in 1964 to house production lines previously located at
705-725 South Fifth Street in Memphis ; ICWU had also represented the
employees at that location.
The introductory paragraphs of OCAW's collective-bargaining agree-
ments with Plough executed in 1965, 1966, and 1970 have identified the party
30, 1973, and contains an automatic renewal clause.
The latest agreement between ICWU and Plough is
effective from August 15, 1972, until August 14, 1975.
During negotiations over the latter agreement, ICWU
asserted that it was entitled to represent the lab 2
employees then represented by OCAW. In view of its
agreement with OCAW, Plough would not recognize
ICWU as representative of any employees in lab 2 but
the line mechanics. However, so as not to delay agree-
ment, Plough stipulated that it would file the instant
RM petition to resolve the issue as to which Union
was the representative of lab 2 employees.
The hearing on the petition was held on October 11,
1972, and January 31, 1973. At the October 11 hearing
OCAW asserted its contract with Plough as a bar to
the petition. After the hearing, however, OCAW and
ICWU agreed to submit the issue of representation of
lab 2 employees for resolution through the AFL-
CIO's "no-raiding" procedures. Pursuant to those
procedures, an election was held under AFL-CIO
auspices in December 1972 in which 72 of the approx-
imately 77 eligible lab 2 employees voted; 71 cast
ballots for representation by ICWU and 1 for repre-
sentation by OCAW. Plough was not a party to the
election , which at its insistence was held off its prem-
ises, and did not consent to be bound by the election
results.
After the election and before the hearing resumed
on January 31, OCAW filed with the Board a written
disclaimer of interest in this proceeding and in the
representation of lab 2 employees, and ICWU again
notified Plough of its claim to be the lab 2 employees'
representative and demanded recognition from
Plough as such.
OCAW's disclaimer removes its contract with
Plough as a bar to this petition.4 Since ICWU now
claims to represent Plough's employees in lab 2 and
Plough did not agree to accept the outcome of the
interunion election in December as determinative of
which Union was representative of lab 2 employees,
we find that there is an existing question affecting
with whom it was contracting as 'International Distributors , a division of
Plough , Inc......:The record does not indicate the reason for this , except
that initially the products being manufactured to lab 2 were owned by a
division of Plough called International Distributors . By 1966, however, a
number of products owned directly by Plough were being manufactured in
lab 2 as well, and others were introduced in the next few years. Many of these
products, such as Paas Easter egg dye and Maybelline eye shadow , continue
to be produced there . The International Distributors' product lines were sold
in 1971 and Plough has completely discontinued their manufacture. Al-
though all the products produced in lab 2 since its construction may not have
been directly owned by Plough, the agreements covering lab 2 employees
have been negotiated by Plough officials alone, signed by them on behalf of
Plough , Inc., and employees have been hired through Plough 's personnel
office and paid through Plough 's payroll. We therefore find Plough and
International Distributors were joint employers of lab 2 employees for pur-
poses of collective bargaining.
Manitowoc Shipbuilding Inc. and The Manitowoc Company, inc., 191
NLRB 786; National By-Products Company, 122 NLRB 334.
203 NLRB No. 50
122 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
commerce concerning the representation of certain
employees of the Employer within the meaning of
Section 9(c)(1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. We
shall therefore direct an election among the employ-
ees in question.'
3ICWU contends that lab 2 employees formerly represented by OCAW
are an accretion to the unit ICWU has historically represented . For the
following reasons we find no ment in this contention . First , lab 2 employees
have been separately represented for many years , and relatively few of them,
about 20-30 out of approximately 100 employees, were affected by the sale
of the International Distributors ' products . Second , apart from the latter
4. The appropriate unit is:
All employees of the Employer at its facility lo-
cated at 1178 Pope St., Memphis, Tennessee, ex-
cluding over-the-road truck drivers, mechanics,
office and clerical employees, and supervisors as
defined in the Act.
[Direction of Election and Excelsior footnote
omitted from publication.]
products , basically the same items are being manufactured in lab 2 that were
manufactured before the sale of International Distributors ' products oc-
curred , and basically the same employee complement is engaged in their
manufacture . Thus, there is no basis for finding the lab 2 employees to be
an accretion to ICWU's unit