Potash Co. of America

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 27, 1955

113 N.L.R.B. 340 (N.L.R.B. 1955)

340 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
factor, in our opinion, was one of the reasons why Congress specifically
provided for the establishment of separate professional units. To
justify the exclusion of individuals otherwise qualified for inclusion in
a professional unit upon the ground that they are too closely allied
to the employer to be regarded as employees under the Act, we be-
lieve that it must be established that the individuals in question have
interests and duties not shared by the other professionally engaged
employees.
In the present instance, as noted above, the record does not disclose
that the manufacturing engineers in question have functions and in-
terests essentially different from those of the other professional en-
gineers properly included within the unit sought. We therefore find,,
contrary to the Employer's contentions, that they may be included in
the professional unit herein found appropriatc.e
We find that the following employees of the Employer constitute a
unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act:
All professional employees, including manufacturing engineers, of
the Westinghouse Electric Corporation at its atomic equipment de-
partment plant, Cheswick Road, Harmar Township, Pennsylvania,
excluding all other employees and all supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
6 Cf. Westinghouse Electric Corporation, 89 NLRB 8, 30; 91 NLRB No. 40 (not reported
in printed volumes of Board Decisions and Orders) ; 92 NLRB 871, 872; 107 NLRB 16, 18,
where, on the record then before the Board, the Board found that the manufacturing engi-
neers should be excluded. Although those cases are distinguishable on their facts from
the present proceeding, they are expressly overruled to the extent that they are incon-
sistent herewith
Potash Company of America and International Association of
Machinists , Permian Basin Lodge 1265, AFL , Petitioner
Potash Company of America and International Association of
Machinists, AFL,1 Petitioner
Potash Company of America and United Stone and Allied Prod-
ucts Workers of America , CIO, Petitioner2 Cases Nos. 33-RC-
503, 33-RC-506, and 33-RC-508. July 97, 1955
DECISION, DIRECTION OF ELECTION, AND ORDER
Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held in Case No. 33-RC-503,
and a separate hearing was held in Cases Nos. 33-RC-506 and 33-RC-
1 The Petitioner in Cases Nos . 33-RC-503 and 33-RC-506 is hereinafter referred to as
the IAM.
2 Hereinafter referred to as the CIO.
113 NLRB No. 34.
POTASH COMPANY OF AMERICA 341!
508, before Harold L. Hudson, hearing officer.3 The hearing officer's=
rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are
hereby affirmed :
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 eln-
ployees of the Employer.'
3. The Employer and the Smelter Workers contend that their cur-
rent contract covering the employees in question constitutes a bar to
the petitions herein. The IAM, the CIO, the Operating Engineers, and
the Independent contend that the contract is a premature extension of
an earlier contract which expired May 31, 1955, and that neither this,
contract nor the extension thereof which is currently in effect may con-
stitute a bar to a present determination of representatives.
The contract between the Employer and the Smelter Workers, made
effective from May 1, 1953, to May 31, 1955, contains a reopening clause
whereby either party may reopen for negotiation of changes in any, or
all, economic matters. On August 15, 1954, the parties negotiated
wage changes and extended the contract terms to May 31, 1956.
The Employer contends that the premature-extension doctrine
should not be applied in this case because the extended contract was
executed in good faith in order to give the employees increased wages
and at the same time stabilize bargaining relations, and not for the
purpose of frustrating representation claims or the desires of its em-
ployees to change representatives. It further points'to the fact that
the 5 potash mining companies in the Carlsbad, New Mexico, area have
15 contracts with various unions which have all been extended in a
similar manner to common expiration dates of May 31, 1956, and urges
that this "joint bargaining" should not be disrupted by the direction
of elections which might result in contracts dates which do not con-
form to this pattern. We find no merit in these contentions. There is
no evidence that the separate contracts of the various employers were,
negotiated through multiemployer bargaining. The Board has con-
sistently held that in the application of the premature-extension doc-
trine, the question of good faith in the execution of an extended con-
tract is not 'determinative,s nor does the fact that the contract was
$ For. the purposes of this Decision , Cases :Nos. 33-RC-503 , 33-RC-500, and 33-RC-508
have been consolidated.
International Union of Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers, herein called Smelter Workers,
intervened in these cases on behalf of itself and Carlsbad Potash Workers Union, Local
415, on the basis of their current contract with the Employer covering the employees in,
question . The CIO, Petitioner in Case No . 33-RC-508, intervened in the other cases on
the basis of a cuiient showing of inte r̀e'st. International Union of Operating Engineers,
Local 855, AFL, herein called "Operating Engineers," and Carlsbad Potash Workers
Union, Independent , herein called "Independent ," each intervened in Cases Nos. 33-RC-500,
and 33-RC-508, on the basis of a current showing of interest.
5 American Steel Foundries, 85 NLRB 19, 20.
342 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
prematurely extended because of economic reasons affect the appli=
cability of this doctrine s
As the current contract of the Employer and the Smelter Workers is
a premature extension of their prior agreement, and as the petitions
herein were timely filed with respect to the automatic renewal date
of the original agreement, we find no bar to a present determination of
representatives.'
4. In Case No. 33-RC-503 the IAM seeks an election among "all
servicemen and servicemen's helpers (employees engaged in the instal-
lation, maintenance, and repair of conveyor belt equipment)" in order
to represent these employees as part of an existing unit of mine me-
chanics and their helpers and apprentices, which it currently repre-
sents. The servicemen and their helpers are currently represented by
the Smelter Workers in a unit described as "all mine department, mill
department, storage and loading department, labor department, refin-
ing department and laboratory department employees, excluding main-
tenance employees. . . ." In Case No. 33-RC-506 the Ip_M seeks to
represent this unit, currently represented by the Smelter Workers,
excluding the servicemen and their helpers. In Case No. 33-RC-508
the CIO seeks to represent the unit currently represented by the Smelter
Workers, including the servicemen. All parties, except the IAM, con-
tend that the unit requested by the CIO is the only appropriate unit.
The Employer is engaged in mining and refining potash near Carls-
bad, New Mexico. As indicated in the unit request of the IAM, the
servicemen and their helpers are engaged primarily in working on
conveyor belt equipment. The classification of serviceman was created
in the early summer of 1953, at about the same time the Employer
began to use a new type of mining machine which it had developed,
known as the PCA Continuous Miner. This machine cuts ore directly
from the face of a deposit and places it on conveyor belts which run to
other areas. As the machine moves against the face of the ore, addi-
tional sections of conveyor belt must be added to maintain connection
with the machine.
. The Employer has 23 servicemen and helpers, 14 of whom are as-
signed to work in connection with the Continuous Miners, and 9 of
whom are temporarily employed in installing a new conveyor line-in,
another section of the mine. A crew of 10 men, including a "face
boss," who is a supervisor, 2 men to operate the mining machine, a
mechanic, an electrician, and 3 servicemen and 2 servicemen's helpers,
is assigned to each of the 3 PCA Continuous Miners currently in
operation.
Worthington Corporation (Holyoke Works ), 109 NLRB 1306
7 Ibid_
POTASH COMPANY OF AMERICA 343
The Employer's records of daily work reports made by the service-
men and their helpers indicate that 58 percent of their total working
time is spent in servicing conveyor belts. Much of this time is spent in
adjusting the alignment of the belts, which includes loosening bolts
which hold the brackets of the rollers on which the belt moves, and
hammering the,-rollers into position. When required, they add sec-
tions to the conveyor assembly, which involves bolting a new section to
the line, and clamping an additional piece into the belt so that it will
fit over the new section. An additional 18 percent of their time is
spent shoveling ore which falls off the belt and hauling supplies to
the area. The servicemen also operate the mining machine as relief
for the operator, and assist the operator in greasing and oiling the
machine and in replacing broken or dull cutting bits., The tools used
by the servicemen are a hammer, wrench, and screwdriver. When
mechanical repairs to the conveyor system or the machine are neces-
sary, mine mechanics are called to perform them. The work of the
mine servicemen engaged in installing a new conveyor belt in another
area is substantially similar to the work of adding sections to con-
veyor belts described above.
The IAM contends that when the classifications of serviceman and
serviceman's helper were created, those employees should have been
placed in its unit of mine mechanics, and that as the servicemen were
placed in the unit of production employees represented by the Smelter
Workers without an election at that time, a self-determination elec-
tion should now be conducted to afford them a choice as to unit place-
ment on the basis of the Board's decision in Zia Company, 108 NLRB
1134. We find no merit in this contention as the employees here in-
volved constitute merely accretions to the existing bargaining unit.
Moreover, it is clear that the servicemen and their helpers, whose work
is necessarily confined to the production departments, and who are
under production supervision, do not have interests in common with
the mine mechanics, and do not themselves qualify for separate repre-
sentation on any basis, as they do not possess any appreciable degree
of skill or training. We therefore find that the units requested by the
IAM in Cases Nos. 33-RC-503 and 33-RC-506 are inappropriate, and
we shall dismiss the petitions in those cases.
In accord with the contentions of the remaining parties, we find that
the following employees of the Employer, currently represented by
the Smelter Workers, and sought in the petition filed in Case No.
33-RC-508, constitute an appropriate unit for the purposes of collec-
tive bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act:
All mine department, mill department, storage and loading depart-
ment, labor department, refining department, and laboratory depart-
379288-66-vol. 113-23
344 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR' RELATIONS BOARD
ment employees , including servicemen and their helpers, but exclud-
ing maintenance-employees , guards, professional employees , and super-
visors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
[The Board dismissed the petitions in Cases Nos. 33-RC-503 and
33-RC-506. ]
Essex Wire Corporation , a Michigan corporation , d/b/a Essex
Wire Corporation of California and Ann Hamilton
Essex Wire Corporation , a Michigan corporation , d/b/a Essex
Wire Corporation of California and Loraine L. Evans. Cases
Nos. 21-CA-19,01 and g21-CA-4035. July 28, 1955
DECISION AND ORDER
On February 15, 1955, Trial Examiner Maurice M. Miller issued
his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled consolidated proceeding,
finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in cer-
tain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist
therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the,copy
of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. The Trial Examiner
also found that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other un-
fair labor practices alleged in the complaint and recommended that
such allegations be dismissed. Thereafter, the Respondent and the
General Counsel filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and briefs
in support-thereof.'
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Interme-
diate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in the
case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner to the extent that they are consistent
herewith. . '
1. `The Trial Examiner found, and we agree, that the Respondent
violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act by demanding that 'an employee
surrender the executed union membership cards he had in his posses-
sion, by prohibiting rival union activity during employee rest periods,
and-by requiring the removal of buttons denoting adherence to the rival
'The Respondent also iequested oral aigument before the Board This request is de-
nied because, in oui opinion, the record, including the exceptions and briefs, adequately
piesents the issues and the positions of the parties.
113 NLRB No. 41. -