The Celotex Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 29, 1953

105 N.L.R.B. 815 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

T1 1E CELOTEX CORPORATION 815
THE CELOTEX CORPORATION and INTERNATIONAL UNION
OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, LOCAL 501, AFL,' Peti-
tioner. Case No. 21-RC-3049. June 29, 1953
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 FredW. Davis,
hearing officer . The hearing officer ' s rulings made at the hear-
ing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
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 [Members Houston, Murdock, and
Peterson] .
Upon the entire record in this case , the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning
of the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent cer-
tain employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the rep-
resentation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of
Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner seeks to sever the steam engineers from a
production and maintenance unit now represented by Inter-
national Brotherhood of Paper Makers, AFL, herein called the
Intervenor. The Employer and the Intervenor contend that only
a production and maintenance unit is appropriate. The three
steam engineers work in the boilerroom, and are solely con-
cerned with the production of steam for the plant operations.
All three have been employed in this capacity for many years.
The boilerroom is physically separated from the remainder of
the plant; it has a common wall with a supply area, but there is
no passageway between it and the supply area. The steam engi-
neers are licensed , as required by city ordinance , and no other
employees perform their type of work. They have no imme-
diate supervisor but are supervised by the plant superinten-
dent , as are all other plant employees.
We find, on the entire record , that the steam engineers con-
stitute a distinct , homogeneous , and functionally coherent
group such as the Board has consistently held may, if they so
desire, constitute a separate bargaining unit despite their past
inclusion in a broader bargaining unit: However, we make no
present unit determination as to these employees untilwe have
first ascertained their desires in the matter . If a majority vote
for the Petitioner, they will be taken to have indicated their
desire to constitute a separate appropriate unit, and the Re-
gional Director conducting the election directed herein is in-
structed to issue a certification of representatives to the
1 The name of the Petitioner appears as amended at the hearing.
2 Globe Steel Tubes Co , 101 NLRB 772.
105 NLRB No 125
8 16 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Petitioner for a unit of all steam engineers of the Employer,
excluding all other employees and all supervisors as defined in
the Act, which the Board , under such circumstances , finds to be
appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining . In the event
a majority vote for the Intervenor , the Boardfinds the existing
unit to be appropriate and the Regional Director will issue a
certification of results of election to such effect.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
Member Peterson, dissenting:
In view of the collective-bargaining history on a plantwide
basis since 1938, and in the absence of any other factors war-
ranting their severance from the established unit , I would not
accord the steam engineers separate representation.3
3See my dissenting opinion in W. C. Hamilton and Sons, 104 NLRB 627.
FLINTKOTE COMPANY, PIONEER DIVISION and INTERNA-
TIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS , AFL, LOCAL
501, Petitioner . Case No. 21 -RC-3057. June 29, 1953
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 Fred W. Davis,
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the
hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby
affirmed.
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 (Members Houston, Styles, and
Peterson].
Upon the entire record in this case, 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 employees of the Employer.'
1 The name of the Employer appears in the caption as amended at the hearing.
2 The Employer and the Intervenor, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 598,
AFL, refused to stipulate that the Petitioner is a labor organization within the meaning of the
Act. As the Petitioner exists in part, at least, for the purposes of representing employees
and negotiating in their behalf regarding wages, hours, and other conditions of employment,
we find that it is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act.
The Intervenor further objected to the amendment of the name of the Petitioner to substitute
Local 501 for Local 63 which was named in the original petition, and also questioned the
Petitioner's compliance status and showing of interest. Local 63 was merged with another
local to form Local 501. We find that the hearing officer properly granted the motion to
amend the petition to reflect this change. See Carbide & Carbon Chemicals Corporation.
88 NLRB 437. The showing of interest and the fact of compliance by a labor organization
which is required to comply, are matters for administrative determination and are not
litigable by the parties. Swift & Company, 94 NLRB 917. We are administratively satisfied
that the Petitioner has an adequate showing of interest and is in compliance.
105 NLRB No. 123.