South-East Coal Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsSep 13, 1962

138 N.L.R.B. 562 (N.L.R.B. 1962)

562 DECISIONS' OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD reinstatement upon application in accordance with the Selective Serv- ice Act after discharge from the Armed Forces. This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 830 Market Street, Room 703, San Francisco 2, California, Telephone Number, Yukon 6-3500, Extension 3191, if they have any questions concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions. South -East Coal Company and United Mine Workers of America, Petitioner . Case No. 9-RC-1851. September 13, 1962 DECISION ON REVIEW On April 13, 1962, the Regional Director for the Ninth Region issued a Decision and Direction of Election in the above-entitled proceeding. Thereafter, the Petitioner, in accordance with Section 102.67 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, as amended, filed with the Board a timely request for review of such Decision and Direction of Election on the ground that the Regional Director's findings were in error and that, in the circumstances of this case, an overall bar- gaining unit of Employer's mining and processing plant employees is appropriate. The Board by telegraphic order dated May 4, 1962, granted the request for review. Thereafter, briefs were filed by both the Petitioner and the E''inployer. 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 McCulloch and Members Rodgers and Leedom]. The Board has considered the entire record with respect to the issue under review, and the briefs of the parties, and makes the following findings: The Petitioner requested a unit of all employees of the Employer at its three coal mines at Seco, Polly, and Millstone, Kentucky, and its processing plant at Irvine, Kentucky. The Regional Director found a unit of employees at the three mines to be appropriate on the basis of several factors, including a long history of bargaining for such employees. As to the processing plant employees, he found that the Irvine plant was a new operation, that its employees were newly hired, and that the Petitioner's contract never covered this operation. He concluded that a separate unit of such employees is appropriate. However, lie did not direct an election in such unit because the Peti- tioner's showing of interest among processing plant employees was insufficient. As above-indicated, the Petitioner disputed the Regional Director's findings as to the processing plant employees. 138 NLRB No. 71. SOUTH-EAST COAL COMPANY 563 The record shows that the Petitioner, on behalf of three of its locals, has for a long period bargained with Southern Coal Producers Asso- ciation, the representative of the Employer, for a, single unit of all employees at its operations at Seco, Polly, and Millstone, and that the latest contract covering such unit terminated March 5, 1962. The record also shows that at the Seco location the Employer had a prep- aration or processing plant in addition to a mine called Big Chief, and that the contract unit covered some 25 to 29 employees employed at the preparation plant. However, the operations at the preparation plant came to an end on October 1, 1961, when the Employer opened the new and more fully automated processing plant at Irvine, above referred to, located about 135 miles from the mines. The Petitioner contends that the Irvine plant is in effect a relocation of the prepara- tion plant and that the new functions performed at Irvine are merely accretions to those previously performed at Seca We find merit in this contention. Employees at the preparation plant at Seco prepared or processed coal from all three mines for marketing. This process involved screening out different sizes of the coal, crushing larger sizes, washing, picking out low grade ores, centrifugal drying, and dumping into railroad cars. At the Irvine processing plant, because of the intro- duct ion of more fully automated equipment, fewer employees are needed-about 14-and the coal is more thoroughly dried by a thermal process. The Irvine plant, as did the preparation plant at Seco, han- dles all coal taken from the Employer's three mines.' Of the 14 em- ployees at the Irvine plant, 5 were previously employed either at the Seco preparation plant or in the mines. The fact that the Employer has constructed the Irvine processing plant has not destroyed the close relationship between the mining and processing operations conducted by the Employer. Employees who worked in the mines operating and maintaining mining equip- ment have been transferred to both the preparation plant when it was in operation at Seco and to the new plant at Irvine. Indeed, a number of the classifications at the mines and the processing plant require similar skills. All operations are under the executive vice president and labor relations policy is centrally controlled. In the circumstances disclosed by our review of the entire record, we are persuaded that the Irvine processing plant is in essence a relocation of the Employer's preparation plant and that the changes introduced in the methods of processing the coal at the new location are not such as to require a self-determination election. We find, therefore, that the Petitioner's requested employerwide unit is ap- propriate and the unit description is hereby amended as follows : 'In addition the Irvine plant processes coal mined by other concerns-about 25 percent of the total amount processed 662353-63-vol. 13 8-3 7 564 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD All employees of the Employer's coal mining operations located at Seco, Polly, and Millstone , Kentucky, and at its processing plant at Irvine , Kentucky, excluding office clerical employees, professional employees, guards , and supervisors as defined in the Act. Accordingly, the case is hereby remanded to the Regional Director for the Ninth Region for the purpose of conducting an election pur- suant to his Decision and Direction of Election, as amended herein, except that the payroll period for determining eligibility shall be that immediately preceding the date below. MEMBER RODGERS , dissenting : The Regional Director found as follows with respect to the Em- ployer's processing plant at Irvine, Kentucky : In October 1961 the Employer began operation of a new coal processing plant at Irvine, Kentucky, which is located approxi- mately 130 miles from its nearest mining operation. There is no history of collective bargaining for the employees of this plant, and the prior collective-bargaining contracts between the Em- ployer and the UMW have never covered this operation. The record reveals that the employees of this plant were all newly hired. This processing plant is separately supervised by its own, superintendent, who does the hiring and firing for this plant. This processing plant maintains separate payroll and operational records, and has its own personnel facilities. There is no inter-' change of employees between this plant and the three mining operations of the Employer. As stated above, the Irvine plant is located approximately 130 miles from the Employer's three mines, is largely autonomous with local supervision, and has no interchange with Employer's other mining operations. In these' circumstances, particularly in view of the lack of any bargaining history and the geographical separation from Employer's mining ,operations, I find that a separate unit limited to the processing plant at Irvine, Kentucky, is, appropriate. (See Libby, McNeill d Libby, 130 NLRB 267; Thompson Ramo Wooldridge, Inc., 128 NLRB 236; Chrysler Corporation (Ohio Stamping Plant), 119â€¢ NLRB 1312; and Fleming cC Sons, Inc., 118 NLRB 1451. However, as the Petitioner has not made a showing of interest among the Irvine Processing Plant employees, I shall'dismiss as to this unit. (See Libby, McNeill c6 Libby, supra.) I, would affirm the Regional Director. Clearly, in view of the cases, he cites and the facts of this case, the Regional Director's conclusion is not "clearly erroneous"-the standard by which his action must be judged in this Decision on Review. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY 565 Moreover, even if the Regional Director was clearly wrong in con- cluding that the new Irvine plant is, in and of itself, the only appro- priate unit, I think that the employees in this plant should not be blanketed into the existing bargaining unit without a self- determination election. The employees in the new plant have never before been represented in a collective-bargaining unit. There are only 14 of them, whereas there are some 130 employees in the presently existing unit. In these circumstances, it is obvious that what my colleagues are doing deprives the employees in the new plant of any meaningful opportunity to remain unrepresented if they so wish. See The Zia Company, 108 NLRB 1134. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company and Insurance Workers International Union , AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 4-RC- 4865. September 13, 1962 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Joseph F. Rosenthal, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record 1 in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain employees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9(c) (1) audSection 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The appropriate unit : The Petitioner seeks a unit of the Employer's two district offices located in the Wilmington, Delaware, metropolitan area. The Em- ployer contends that the appropriate unit should consist of either (1) all its offices in the United States; (2) all offices in its Atlantic Coast territory; or (3) all'its offices in the State of Delaware. Otherwise, the parties are in agreement as to the composition of the unit. The Employer is engaged in the sale and issuance of various types of insurance policies and does business throughout the United States and Canada. It maintains its principal office in New York, New 1 Because, in our opinion , the record and briefs adequately set forth the issues and positions of the parties , the Employer 's request for oral argument is hereby denied. Also, for the reasons hereinafter stated, the Employer's motion to dismiss the petition on the grounds that the unit petitioned for is inappropriate is hereby denied. 138 NLRB No. 73.