Rohm & Haas Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 9, 1970

183 N.L.R.B. 147 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

ROHM & HAAS COMPANY 147
Rohm & Haas Company and United Glass and
Ceramic Workers of North America and its Local
Unions Nos. 88 and 90 , AFL-CIO-CLC,1 Peti-
tioners. Case 4-UC-22
June 9, 1970
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, MCCULLOCH, AND JENKINS
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(b) of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a
hearing was held before Milton S. Maclasky, Hear-
ing Officer. All parties appeared at the hearing and
were given full opportunity to participate therein.
On December 3, 1968, the Regional Director for
Region 4 issued an order transferring the case to
the National Labor Relations Board. Thereafter,
the Employer and the Petitioner filed briefs with
the Board.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
Act, the National Labor Relations Board has
delegated its powers in connection with this case to
a three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's
rulings made at the hearing and finds that they are
free from prejudicial error. They are hereby af-
firmed.
Upon the entire record, the Board finds:
The Employer is a multidivision Delaware cor-
poration with its headquarters in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania. The chemical division, involved
herein, is engaged in the production of chemicals
and chemical supplies at five plants in various
States of the United States.'
The Petition seeks to combine into one bargain-
ing unit three separate existing bargaining units of
the Employer's employees which it represents.
Thus, the Petitioner seeks an order combining into
one multiplant unit the production and the main-
tenance units at the Bristol, Pennsylvania,3 plant
and the production and maintenance unit' at the
Knoxville, Tennessee,' plant. Alternatively, the
Petitioner seeks an election among the employees
in each of the separate units to determine the
preference of these employees concerning their in-
clusion in one multiplant unit . The Employer con-
tends that the petition should be dismissed because
combining these units into a single unit either by
order or by use of the Board's election process is
beyond the Board's authority and because the unit
sought is inappropriate.
The Bristol plant employs about 1,400 em-
ployees, while the Knoxville plant employs about
1,000. Both manufacture plexiglass, emulsions, and
various other chemicals. The other plants in the
division also manufacture chemicals, some similar
to those made at Bristol and Knoxville. Some
products and materials are shipped between Bristol
and Knoxville, and to and from them and other
division plants.
Since 1949, the Petitioner has made numerous
proposals in contract negotiations requesting joint
bargaining for the Bristol and Knoxville plants.
Beginning in 1966 and continuing to date, the Em-
ployer engaged in "coalition" bargaining with the
Petitioner for the Bristol and Knoxville units it
represents, and Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers,
for the Houston employees it represents. That is,
the Petitioner attended the Houston negotiations,
and vice versa. In 1966, and again in 1968, these
Unions also requested multiplant bargaining on
fringes, without success. The Employer's position
has always been to reject multiplant bargaining.
The Employer's labor relations policies are
established at its main office in Philadelphia by the
manager of industrial relations. Although he is
responsible for the negotiations at each plant, he is
assisted at each by a bargaining team of which the
manager and personnel manager of the plant in-
volved are members.
The Petitioners are referred to herein as the Petitioner
T The chemical division plants and their representative status are as fol-
lows Note that in this tabulation the symbol M indicates maintenance and
the symbol P indicates production
Location Unit Union
Representing
Employees
Bristol, Pa. P Petitioner
Bristol, Pa. M Petitioner
Knoxville,
Tenn. P&M Petitioner
Houston , Texas P&M Oil, Chemical
& Atomic Wkrs.
183 NLRB No. 20
Louisville, Ky. P Unorganized
M Fireman's
Bridesburg, Pa. P
M
Oilers
Unorganized
Operating
Engineers
' The Bristol plant consists of two separately certified units In November
1946 the Board certified (Case 4-R-2200) the International Petitioner as
the bargaining representative for the production and service employees
The International Petitioner was certified by the Board ( Case 4-RC-871)
in October 1950 as the bargaining representative of the maintenance em-
ployees
' In November 1943 the Board certified ( Case 10-R- 1013) the Interna-
tional Petitioner as the bargaining agent for the production and main-
tenance employees
427-258 O-LT - 74 - 11
148 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The plant personnel manager administers the
local contract; he is responsible to the plant
manager, who in turn is responsible to the vice pres-
ident of production. The manager of industrial
relations decides at the final step of the grievance
procedure whether to settle a grievance or go to ar-
bitration.
Supervisors and executives have been promoted
from one plant to another, but there has been vir-
tually no interchange or transfers of unit em-
ployees. Moreover, there is no contract interplant
seniority or transfer rights. There is one pension,
life, and medical insurance plan for all employees
in the chemical division.
The Petitioner herein is the same labor organiza-
tion as that involved in Libbey-Owens-Ford Glass
Company5 and PPG Industries, Inc.,6 and it seeks a
type of relief similar to that which it sought in those
cases . Thus, it would have the Board certify the
three existing separate units as a multiplant unit, or
conduct elections at the separate units to determine
the wishes of these employees on this question,
although there is no established multiplant unit and
the Petitioner does not represent any employees at
the three other chemical plants of this Employer,
some of whom are represented by other unions and
some are unrepresented.
In our view, the multiplant unit herein sought is
one which the Board would not find appropriate on
any basis except agreement of the parties. Thus,
this array of units which the Petitioner would have
us merge is not identifiable as an employer adminis-
trative division, as geographically related, or as re-
lated by a history of bargaining. As we explained in
PPG Industries, Inc., supra, where, as here, these
tests are not met, there must be some showing that
the separate units belong "in the overall unit" by
virtue of such factors as common terms and condi-
tions of employment, substantial uniformity of wage
systems and fringe benefits, substantial integration
of operations, interchange of employees across unit
lines , and the like. Such a showing has not been
made in this case. There is no interchange of em-
ployees across unit lines and no interplant seniority
or transfer rights. As revealed by the collective-bar-
gaining agreement , the wage systems are markedly
different. Local plant and personnel managers have
5 169 NLRB 126, Members Fanning and Jenkins dissenting
6 180 NLRB 477, Member Zagoria concurring, Chairman McCulloch
and Member Brown dissenting
' At the hearing, the Employer introduced evidence concerning the
substantial authority over labor relations at their
plants, including contract administration and par-
ticipation in negotiations and handling of
grievances.
On the basis of the foregoing, we find that the
record affords an inadequate basis for a finding that
the three existing units have merged into a single
overall two-plant unit.
In the Libbey-Owens-Ford Glass Company and
PPG Industries, Inc., cases, we set forth reasons
why we believe the Board is without statutory
authority to conduct elections in these circum-
stances. We adhere to those views. Accordingly, we
shall dismiss the petition in its entirety.7
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the petition herein be,
and it hereby is, dismissed.
Member McCulloch, concurring:
While I agree that the petition herein should be
dismissed, I do not entirely agree with the rationale
upon which my colleagues reach the same conclu-
sion. Rather, I find this case factually distinguish-
able from Libbey-Owens-Ford, supra, in which I
joined in directing elections, and PPG Industries,
supra, in which I dissented and would also have
directed elections. In each of those cases, there was
an established multiplant unit long adhered to by
the parties in the conduct of their labor relations,
and the elections directed therein could only have
resulted in increasing the scope of the already exist-
ing multiplant unit into a larger appropriate mul-
tiplant bargaining unit. In this case, on the other
hand, the parties have bargained solely on the basis
of units of plantwide or narrower scope. Thus there
is no history or pattern of multiplant bargaining,
and the multiplant unit which the Petitioner seeks
herein to have created, over the Employer's objec-
tions, would not be appropriate under the tradi-
tional objective standards applied by the Board. As
there is therefore no basis for ordering the merger
of the existing separate appropriate units, or for
conducting elections, I concur in the dismissal of
the petition.
guard status of certain employees in the Knoxville unit However , neither
the Petitioner nor the Employer requests clarification of the status of these
employees , and we shall make no determination as to them