The Celotex Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 14, 1946

66 N.L.R.B. 744 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

In the Matter of THE CELOTEX CORPORATION and CELOTEX SUPER-
VISORY EMPLOYEES' ASSOCIATION
In the Matter of THE CELOTEX CORPORATION and CELOTEX SUPER-
VISORY EMPLOYEES' ASSOCIATION
Cases Nos . 15-R-1358 and 15-R-1406, respectively.Decided
March 14, 1946
Pam, Hurd and Reichmann, by Mr. Carl Urist, of Chicago, Ill.;
Mr. C. L. Christenson, of Chicago, Ill.; and Messrs. Ralph Freeman
and H. B. Dobson, of Marrero, La., for the Company.
Messrs. Curry Juneau and Werner Ebner, of New Orleans, La.,
and Messrs. Lawrence Landwehr and Sidney La Rowse, of Marrerc,
La., for the Association.
Mr. Angelo J. Fiumara, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon petitions duly filed by Celotex Supervisory Employees' As-
sociation, herein called the Association, each alleging that a question
affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation of em-
ployees of The Celotex Corporation, Marrero, Louisiana, herein
called the Company, the National Labor Relations Board consolidated
the cases and provided for an appropriate hearing upon due notice
before T. Lowry Whittaker, Trial Examiner. The hearing was held
at New Orleans, Louisiana, on July 31, August 1, and 2, 1945. The
Company and the Association appeared and participated. All parties
were afforded full opporunity to be heard, to examine and cross-
examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues.
The Trial Examiner's rulings made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. All parties were afforded
opportunity to file briefs with the Board.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following .
66 N. L . R. B., No. 97.
744
THE CELOTEX CORPORATION
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. TIIE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
745
The Celotex Corporation, a Delaware corporation with its principal
office located in Chicago, Illinois, operates several plants at various
places in the United States. We are here concerned solely with the
operations at its plant at Marrero, Louisiana, where the Company is
engaged in the manufacture of cane fiber insulation board. During
the 12-month period ending on or about July 1, 1945, the Company
received at its plant raw materials valued in excess of $50,000 from
points outside the State of Louisiana. During the same period the
Company manufactured and shipped outside the State finished prod-
ucts valued in excess of $50,000.
The Company concedes for the purpose of this proceeding that it is
engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Re-
lations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Celotex Supervisory Employees' Association, unaffiliated , is a labor
organization ' admitting to membership supervisory employees2 of the
Company.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
On May 18, 1945, and again at the hearing, the Company indi-
cated that it would not recognize the Association as the exclusive
collective bargaining representative of certain of its supervisory
employees.
The Company contends that the supervisory personnel involved in
this proceeding are not "employees" within the meaning of Section
2 (3) of the Act, but are rather "employers" under the definition con-
tained in Section 2 (2). The question of the status of foremen under
the Act was discussed in all its aspects in the Soss3 and Packard4 cases
1 The record clearly establishes, contrary to the Company's position , that the Associa-
tion was organized for the purposes of collective bargaining, and that it is, therefore,
a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act See Matter of
R I du Pont de Nemours and Company, 63 N L R. B 1387
2 The Association 's constitution describes as eligible for membership those employees
of the Company "who have no other affiliation rights with a representative organization
certified as such to the Celotex Corporation , providing he is not an executive or depart-
ment head ." Although this wording might give rise to an inference that rank and file
employees of the Company could be eligible for membership , there was undisputed testi-
mony that the Association 's charter , which was granted by the State of Lc,uisiana and
which was not available at the hearing , describes as eligible only supervisory employees
Moreover, both production and administrative rank and file employees of the Company
are mepresented by locals of affiliated organizations
4 flatter of doss Manufacturing Company, et al, 56 N L R B 348
Matter of Packard Motor Car Company, 61 N L It. B. 4, and 64 N L It. B. 1212
746 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and we there held that foremen in relation to their employer are
"employees." This conclusion was reaffirmed in the recent Young
case.5 In accordance with our previous determinations we find that
the foremen and, as hereinafter appears, the other supervisory per-
sonnel involved in this proceeding are "employees" within the mean-
ing of the Act.'
A statement of a Board agent made at the hearing indicates that
the Association represents a substantial number of employees in the
units hereinafter found appropriate .7
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Company, within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNITS
The Association seeks to establish two separate units to be con-
stituted as follows: (1) all general foremen, foremen, and assistant
foremen, herein collectively called the production foremen, excluding
department ]leads, executives, and all other employees; and (2) all
chief clerks, supervisors, chief inspectors, and the assistant cashier,
herein collectively called the administrative supervisors, excluding
instrument men, the head nurse, the chief interviewer, the laboratory
assistant, the chief chemist, and all other employees. The Company,
although not objecting to the composition of either of the units, as-
serts that the production foremen and the administrative supervisors
are part of management, and therefore, units of such employees are
inappropriate. The Company further undertakes to distinguish this
case from the Packard case on the ground that the employees herein
have duties, powers, and responsibilities greater than those in the
Packard case and that their duties are more analogous to the foremen
of the early 1900's than to foremen "traffic cops." The Company has
also set forth various evils which it alleges will flow from the union-
ization of its supervisory personnel.
The issues raised in the instant proceeding were considered in,
extenso in the recent Young case." We there held, as we do now, that
5 Matter of L. A. Young Spring cb Wire Corporation, 65 N. L. R. B. 298.
8 See N. L. R. B. v. Armour and Co., 154 F. (2d) 570 (C C. A. 10) ; Jones & Laughlin
Steel Corporation v. N. L. R. B., 146 F. (2d) 833 (C. C. A. 5) ; N. L R B v Skinner &
Kennedy Stationery Company, 113 F. (2d) 667 (C C. A 8).
7 The Trial Examiner reported at the hearing that the Association submitted 2 peti-
tions listing the signatures of 46 persons ; that 36 names appearing on the petitions were
listed on the Company's pay roll of about June 14, 1945, containing the names of 48
employees in the unit sought in Case No. 15-R-1358; and that of the remaining names
on the said petitions, 9 were listed on the aforesaid pay roll listing the names of 14
employees in the unit petitioned for in Case No. 15-R-1406.
8Matter of L A. Young Spring & Wire Corporation, supra; see also Matter of The
B. F. Goodrich Company, 65 N. L. R. B. 294.
THE CELOTEX CORPORATION 747
foremen, in relation to their employer, are "employees" within the
meaning of the Act; that, as "employees," they are entitled to be
established in some appropriate unit under Section 9 (b) ; that the
type of industry in which foremen are employed is immaterial; and
that the nature of the duties and responsibilities of the foremen is
relevant only insofar as it relates to the question of the proper group-
ing of the foremen for collective bargaining purposes. The same
principles are no less applicable to the administrative supervisors.
Notwithstanding their supervisory duties and responsibilities they
are, like the production foremen, "employees"' within the meaning of
the Act, and, accordingly, are equally entitled to the privileges of
collective bargaining within appropriate units.
The Company has made no contention that the Association is not
independent of United Gas, Coke and Chemical Workers, Local
Union No. 179, CIO, or of Local No. 248 of the same national union,
or of International Association of Machinists, which represent the
rank and file employees in both production and administrative units.
We find that the Association is an independent, unaffiliated labor
organization organized for the exclusive purpose of representing
supervisory employees .9
As indicated above, the Company does not object to the composi-
tion of either of the units proposed by the Association. We find,
therefore, that all general foremen, foremen, and assistant foremen
at the Company's Marrero, Louisiana, plant, excluding department
heads, executives, and all other employees, constitute a unit appropri-
ate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9 (b) of the Act.
We also find that all chief clerks, supervisors, chief inspectors, and
the assistant cashier at the Company's Marrero, Louisiana, plant, ex-
cluding instrument men, the head nurse, the chief interviewer, the
laboratory assistant, the chief chemist, and all other employees, con-
stitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
We shall direct that the question concerning representation which
has arisen be resolved by an election by secret ballot among employees
in the appropriate units who were employed during the pay-roll
period immediately preceding the date of the Direction of Elections
herein, subject to the limitations and additions set forth in the
Direction.
9 Matter of L. A. Young Sprtng d Wire Corporation, supra; and Matter of Packard
Motor Car Company, supra.
748 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National
Labor Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, and pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of National
Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3, as amended,
it is hereby
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representa-
tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with The Celotex Cor-
poration, Marrero, Louisiana, an election by secret ballot shall be
conducted as early as possible, but not later than thirty (30) days
from the date of this Direction, under the direction and supervision
of the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region, acting in this
matter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject
to Article III, Sections 10 and 11, of said Rules and Regulations,
among employees in the units found appropriate in Section IV, above,
who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately preced-
ing the date of this Direction, including employees who did not work
during said pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation or
temporarily laid off, and including employees in the armed forces
of the United States, who present themselves in person at the polls,
but excluding those employees who have since quit or been discharged
for cause and have not been rehired or reinstated prior to the date
of the elections, to determine whether or not they desire to be repre-
sented by Celotex Supervisory Employees' Association, for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining.
MR. GERARD D. REILLY took no part in the consideration of the
above Decision and Direction of Elections.