The Gates Rubber Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 20, 1951

95 N.L.R.B. 351 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

THE GATES RUBBER COMPANY 351
to lower job classifications in the boilerhouse. In addition, both the
powerhouse and boilerhouse employees are under the common super-
vision of a chief engineer and his two assistants, and are listed on the
same payroll.
While the Board has frequently recognized the inherent appropriate-
ness of a single unit for engineers, oilers, and firemen, the Petitioner
does not ask for such a unit but seeks to merge only a fractional part
of the boilerhouse personnel into its present bargaining unit. Under
the circumstances, we find that neither of the units for which the Peti-
tioner contends is appropriate. As neither organization seeks an
election in a broad powerhouse unit, we shall grant the Intervenor's
motion to dismiss the petition herein.
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition herein be, and it hereby is,
dismissed.
1 Cf. New Jersey Brewers Association et at , 92 NLRB 1404 ; Armour of Company,
88 NLRB 309
THE GATES RUBBER COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERAT-
ING ENGINEERS, LOCAL No. 1, AFL, PETITIONER . Case No. 30-RC-
451. Jul!, 20,1951
Decision and Direction of Election
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the Act, a hearing
was held before Clyde F. Waers, hearing officer. The hearing officer's
rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudical error and are
hereby affirmed.'
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Members Houston, Murdock, and
Styles].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer 2 is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the National Labor Relations Act.
I The Intervenor, United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers of America, Local
Union No 154 , CIO, moved to dismiss the petition on the grounds that ( 1) the Petitioner
has made no adequate current showing of interest; (2) the petition was premature],
filed and is barred by an existing collective bargaining agreement and pension plan, and
(3) the unit sought is inappropriate. As to (1), the sufficiency of a petitioner's interest
showing is a matter for administrative determination and is not litigable by the parties
Farrell- Cheek Steel Company/, 88 NLRB 303 We are administratively satisfied that the
Petitioner's showing is both current and adequate As to ( 2) and ( 3), we find these
contentions to be without merit for the reasons set forth below in paragraphs numbered .I
and 4 , respectively . Accordingly , the intervenor ' s motion is hereby denied
2 The name of the Employer appears in the caption as amended at the hearing.
95 NLRB No. 40
352 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. On November 14, 1949, the Employer and the Intervenor exe-
cuted, a collective bargaining agreement covering, among others, the
employees here involved. Except for pension provisions, the con-
tract was terminable on June 14, 1951, subject to automatic yearly
renewal in the absence of written notice of a desire to change or termi-
nate, served 60 to 75 days prior to the expiration date. The pension
plan extends to June 14, 1954. On about April 5, 1951, notice was
served and negotiations ensued for purposes of modifying the existing
contract. The Petitioner filed its petition on March 16, 1951.
The Intervenor contends that the petition was prematurely filed
and that the over-all contract constitutes a bar. We do not agree.
A petition filed within 1 month of the "Mill B" period is not pre-
mature,3 and the over-all contract cannot operate as a bar both because
of the timely filing of the petition 4 and because the parties forestalled
the operation of the automatic renewal clause.5
The Intervenor further contends that the pension plan constitutes
a bar. However, this plan contains no other substantive provisions
relating to terms and conditions of employment. Under these cir-
cumstances, as the Board has frequently held, the pension plan is not
a bar.'
We find, therefore, that a question affecting commerce exists con-
concerning the representation 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 a unit of all powerhouse employees at the
Employer's Denver, Colorado, plant. The Employer and the Inter-
venor contend that the unit sought is inappropriate principally be-
cause of the past bargaining history on a more comprehensive basis,
the integrated nature of the Employer's operations, and the alleged
disruptive effect on labor relations.
The Employer is engaged in the manufacture of rubber tires, tubes,
and other products at its Denver plant. The powerhouse employees
have been represented by the Intervenor, along with the other pro-
duction and maintenance employees, since about 1944.7 The Employ-
. 3 Micamold Radio Corp., 94 NLRB 1193 ; Independence Lumber & Manufacturing Com-
pany, Inc., 93 NLRB 1353.
4 Ibid.
5 Inco Company, 93 NLRB 745 ; 1. B. Kleinert Rubber Company, 92 NLRB No. 271,
a R-P&C . Valve Division and Reading Steel Casting Division of the American Chain and
Cable Company , Inc., 94 NLRB 1023; Independence Lumber & Manufacturing Company,
Inc., supra.
7 Following an election pursuant to a stipulation for certification , the Intervenor was
certified in 1942 as the bargaining representative for a unit of production and maintenance
employees , excluding the powerhouse employees . On February 1, 1943, the Intervenor
executed a contract with the Employer covering the plant employees , but not specifically
excluding the powerhouse employees . Within 1 year thereafter , as a result of a card
check , the powerhouse employees were represented by the Intervenor as part of the
production and maintenance unit and have continued to be so represented.
THE GATES RUBBER COMPANY 353
er's plant employs about 4,000 employees and is divided adminis-
tratively into production, warehouse, and engineering divisions.
About 500 to 600 employees work in the engineering division. Of
these, 12 employees, consisting. of 4 licensed stationary engineers and
8 firemen , are assigned to the power plant.
The work of the powerhouse employees is confined almost exclu-
sively to the power plant, which is housed in a separate building 8
and produces 65 to 70 percent of the electricity used by the Employer,
much of the compressed air, and all the steam for heating and for
vulcanizing and other manufacturing processes. The powerhouse
employees perform the usual duties of their classifications in connec-
tion with the operation of boilers, turbines, pumps, and compressors
in the power plant .9 Any maintenance work in the power plant is
performed by workers from other shops in the engineering division.
Although the powerhouse employees are subject to generally the same
conditions of employment as the other plant personnel, they work under
separate immediate supervision; have separate locker, toilet, and wash-
room facilities; and punch not only the time clock in the time house,
but also a separate time clock in the power plant. The power plant
works on a 7-day basis, with three shifts. Notices of vacancies in the
power plant are posted only in that department, and qualified power-
house employees are given preference in , filling such positions.10
There is no interchange of employees between the power plant and
other departments, and transfers have been. relatively infrequent.
It is clear, from the foregoing and the entire record, that the power-
house employees comprise a distinct, homogeneous, and functionally
coherent group of the type which the Board has customarily held may
be accorded separate representation.h1 Neither the past bargaining
history on a more comprehensive basis, nor the character of the Em-
ployer's operations, renders such a unit inappropriate 12
We find, accordingly, that all powerhouse employees of the Em-
ployer at its Denver, Colorado, plant, excluding all other employees
and supervisors as defined in the Act, may constitute a unit appro-
8 A boiler for the manufacture of steam for nonproduction purposes is located in
another building . This boiler , which in the past was operated by maintenance personnel
and will in the future be handled by the powerhouse employees , under the power plant
foreman , has not been in use for over 2 years.
e While a number of other employees of the Employer apparent possess engineer
licenses , they work under different supervision on equipment located outside the power
plant and no license is required for the performance of their duties.
10 In the event of layoffs , qualified employees in any department , who are to be laid off,
may replace those in other departments with less seniority.
11 See e . g., Raybestos-Manhattan , Inc., Manhattan Rubber Division , 93 NLRB No. 118;
I. B. Kleinert Rubber Company, supra; The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company ( Special
Products Plant "C"), 80 NLRB 1347.
12 Ibid. The intervenor's and the Employer's contention that severance of the power-
house employees should not be permitted because of alleged disturbance of established
labor relations is clearly without merit. Cf. Chris-Craft Corporation, 94 NLRB 567,
and cases cited.
354 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
priate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9 (b) of the Act. However, we shall make no final unit
determination at this time, but shall first ascertain the desires of these
employees as expressed in the election hereinafter directed. If a
majority vote for the Petitioner, they will be taken to have indicated
their desire to constitute a separate appropriate unit.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
COMMERCIAL EQUIPMENT COMPANY, INC., AND MONTY LARSEN AND
RUDY LARSEN , CO-PARTNERS D/B/A INDUSTRIAL TRUCK AND TRAILER
SERVICE COMPANY , PETITIONER and LODGE 1525, DISTRICT 114, IN-
TERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS . Case No. 2O-RM-69.
July 20, 1951
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 David Karasick, 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, Murdock, and Styles].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. Commercial Equipment Company, Inc., herein called the Corpo-
ration, is a Utah corporation with its principal office and place of
business in Salt*Lake City, Utah. The Corporation is engaged in
manufacturing, modifying, and repairing trucks and trailers, and
selling parts and equipment for trucks and trailers. During 1950,
the Corporation purchased materials, consisting of new. trucks, trailers,
truck parts, metal, and hardware, valued in excess of $500,000, of
which 92 percent represented shipments from points outside the State
of Utah. During the same period, the Corporation sold, finished
products and provided services valued in excess of $500,000, of which
over $200,000 represented shipments to, and services performed for,
Inland Freight Lines, an interstate carrier, and approximately $100,-
000 irepresented shipments to, and services performed for, other
customers located outside the State.
3 At the hearing and in its brief , the Union moved to dismiss the instant petition
on various grounds relating in substance to the existence of the question concerning
representation and the appropriateness of the unit . Ruling on this motion was referred
to the Board. For the reasons stated in paragraphs numbered 3 and 4,'infra, the motion
is hereby denied.
95 NLRB No. 51.