The General Tire & Rubber Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 8, 1946

66 N.L.R.B. 453 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

In the Matter of THE GENERAL TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY and INTER-
NATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, A. F. of L., LOCAL.
UNION No. 644
Case No. 16-B-1361.-Decided March 8, 1946
Messrs. T. Lyman and Roy Elms, of Baytown, Tex., for the
Company.
Mr. O. M. Craig, of Baytown, Tex., and Mr. Lewis W. Orton, of
Goose Creek, Tex., for the I. B. E. W.
Mr. Wilson M. Askins, of Goose Creek, Tex., for the Council.
Miss Katharine Loomis, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a petition duly filed by International Brotherhood of Elec-
trical Workers, A. F. of L., Local Union No. 644, herein called the
I. B. E. W., alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen
concerning the representation of employees of The General Tire &
Rubber Company,' Baytown, Texas, herein called the Company,
the National Labor Relations Board provided for an appropriate
hearing upon due notice before Earl Saunders, Trial Examiner. The
hearing was held at Pelley, Texas, on September 19, 1945. The
Company, the I. B. E. W., and the Tri-Cities Central Labor and
Trades Council, herein called the Council, appeared and participated.
At the hearing the Company moved that the I. B. E. W.'s petition
be dismissed because "there is no quarrel between the Company and
this Petitioner, * * * [it] is purely a matter between a local
union and the Trades Council itself." The Trial Examiner referred
the motion to the Board for ruling thereon. In view of our dismissal
of the petition hereinafter, we find it unnecessary to rule on this
motion. All parties were afforded full opportunity 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:
1 The name of the Company appears as amended at the hearing.
66 N. L . R. B., No. 54.
453
454 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF TIIE COMPANY
The General Tire & Rubber Company, an Ohio corporation,
operates plaints in the States of Ohio, Texas, Indian u, and Georgia.
We are here solely concerned with the Company's plant at Baytown,
Texas, where it is, engaged in the production of synthetic rubber.
This plant has been in existence since July 1943. Appro duIately
99 percent of the products finished at this plant, valued at about
$15,000,000 annually, is shipped to points outside the State of Texas,
and approximately 10 percent of the raw materials used at this
plant, also valued at about $15,O00,000,2 is shipped to it from points
outside the State.
The Company admits that it is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
H. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
,Tri-Cities Central Labor and Trades Council is a labor organization
afdliatod with the American Federation of Labor. It is composed of
64 constituent unions affiliated with the American Federation of
Labor.
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,, Local Union
No.,644, ,is a labor organization affiliated with the Araeriean Federa-
tion of -Labor, admitting to membership employees of the.Company.
It is a constituent union of the Tri-Cities Central Labor and. Trades
CoUllcil 3
III. THE ALLEGED APPROPRIATE UNIT
The I. B. E. W. seeks a unit of all electricians and,instrumept
men at the plant here involved. The Council, which has represented
these employees in a plant-wide unit since February 1944,4 appears
3 The record does not make clear whether this figure represents annual purchases of
raw materials or, purchases since 1943.
3 At the hearing the Council's representative testified that any union in the Tri-Cities
area 'affiliated with the American Federation of Labor may also affiliate with the Council,
and that the constituent unions receive representation at the Council by electing their
own delegates to it.
i The Council and the Company entered into an agreement for a consent election on
February 16, 1944. The electinn' was held under Board auspices on February 23, 1944,
and the Regional Director designated the Council as bargaining agent for all production
and maintenance employees of the Company except machinists on March 1, 1944. On
this same date the International Association of Machinists was designated as bargaining
agent for the machinists (Case No. 16-R-836). The Council and the Company there-
after entered into a bargaining agreement with a maintenance of membership provision.
The agreement is dated April 28, 1944, and covers the produhtion ' and, mainterisnee
unit.
THE GENERAL TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY 4SS
to question the priority of severing them from the larger unit only
on the ground that the I. B. E. W. seeks to include both electricians
and instrument men in its unit.5 The Company, however, contends
that only a plant-wide unit is appropriate because of the past history
of collective bargaining and the integrated character of the Com-
pany's operations. In support of its position, it argues (1) that the
I. B. E. W. was a constituent union of the Council both at the time
of the consent election and at the time the Council and the Company
entered into the 1944 bargaining agreement, and (2) that neither
electricians nor instrument men constitute separate departments of
the Company, but that they, together with other categories of em-
ployees not sought by the I. B. E. W., form part of the Company's
maintenance department.6
Although the I. B. E. W. admits that by participation in the
consent election it consented to representation of electricians and
instrument men by the Council, it argues that because wage rates
and working conditions of these employees have suffered by such
representation and because certain provisions of the 1944 contract
indicate the preservation of craft interests under the plant-wide
bargaining, its petition should be granted.7 In connection with the
latter contention it stresses Article I, Section 1, of the contract which
provides:
Company agrees that as far as practicable it will use only
members of a craft for the performance of work coming within
the now recognized jurisdiction of said draft, it being understood,
however, that in the event of an emergency, and/or for the pro-
tection of life, limb, or property, Company may use any employee
to perform any work.
We do not, however, consider this provision in itself significant of
the preservation of craft idehtities.8 We note that Articles 2, 4, and
6 The Council 's position is based mainly on the fact that the inclusion of both groups
of employees in one unit would give rise to a jurisdictional dispute between the
,I. B. E. W. and the International Brotherhood of Pipefitters , one of the Council's con-
stituent unions, inasmuch as both constituent unions have members among the instru-
ment men.
8 The Company further contends that, if the I. B. E. W.'s request for a separate unit
is granted , it will be subjected to claims for separate representation from the 14 other
craft organizations which the Council represents in its bargaining with the Company.
7In addition , the I. B. It. W. contends that the fact that the Company has recognized
a separate unit of machinists demonstrates that the present unit represented by the
Council is not strictly plant-wide in scope.
8In Matter of Todd-Johnson Dry Docks, Inc ., 18 N. L . ,Ii. B. 973, the members of nine
Intervening unions had been bargained for by a council composed of constituent unions,
including the intervenors . The Board , in rejecting the contentions ' of the intervenors
for separate craft units , did not consider significant a provision in the contract between
that council and the employer providing that "employees will be assigned to work
mutually recognized as work belonging to their respective crafts and regularly performed
by employees of that craft in the past , incidental work excepted ." Mr. Leiserson, in his
concurring opinion in that case , said in this connection , "This is the method by which
the [Council ] as the duly designated representative of all employees in a single unit has
worked out with the Company the problem of assigning work to the different crafts."
456 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
23 (2) of the contract, dealing respectively with hours of work,
rates of pay, and vacations, apply to all employees without'special
reference to craft interests. Thus, the provisions of the contract as
it whole and the manner in which the Council and the Company
have bargained under it clearly demonstrate that bargaining through
the Council has been truly plant-wide in character.
The record discloses that, in addition to participating in the consent
election in February 1944 which resulted in the establishment of
the plant-wide unit, the I. B. E. W., through its delegates to the
Council, took an active part in negotiating the 1944, contract under
which the Council has represented the electricians and instrument
men in the plant-wide unit since that time .9 These employees have
shared not only in all benefits resulting from bargaining between
the Council and the Company but have, in fact, presented their
grievances through the Council."' Indeed at the time of the hearing,
the Council was negotiating a grievance on behalf of an electrician.
It is thus clear that since February 1944, the electricians and instru-
ment men have deliberately merged their interests with those of the
other employees in the plant-wide unit represented by the Council
and have participated in the benefits of collective bargaining upon
a broader basis than the craft unit sought herein.
The record further shows that electricians and instrument men
comprise a part of the maintenance department and that they, to-
gether with other categories of employees therein, come under the
ultimate supervision of the maintenance engineer and the more
immediate supervision of the master mechanic. They therefore do
not form a group under separate supervision. Moreover, it is clear
that all operations of the maintenance department are carried on
in an integrated manner.
Accordingly, in view of the foregoing, including the participation
of the I. B. E. W. in the original establishment of the plant-wide
unit and the subsequent history, of collective bargaining through the
Council, we see no reason for setting the electricians and instrument
men apart from the remainder of the Company's employees presently
represented by the Council. We therefore find'that the unit sought
by the I. B. E. W. is inappropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining."
9 The I. B. E. W. did not express dissatisfaction with bargaining through the Council
until sometime in January or February 1945 when it requested the Company to recognize
it as bargaining agent for the electricians and instrument men. Thereafter , on May 17,
1945, it withdrew , its affiliation from the Council.
l0Article 13 of the contract provides that the shop steward of the constituent union
first attempt to adjust any grievance with the aggrieved employee's foreman. If the
grievance is not settled at this stage, the Council' s Grievance Committee , which always
includes a representative of the constituent union, then negotiates it with various
representatives of the Company.
n See Matter of International Minerals and Chemical Corporation , 82 N. L . R. B. 655;
Matter of The Harvester War Depot, Inc., 62 N. L. R. B. 520.
THE GENERAL TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY 457
IV. THE ALLEGED QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
Since the bargaining unit sought to be established by the petition
is inappropriate, as stated in Section III, above, we find that no
question has arisen concerning the representation of employees of
the Company in an appropriate unit.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, the National
Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the petition for investiga-
tion and certification of representatives of employees of The General
Tire & Rubber Company, Baytown, Texas, filed by the International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, A. F. of L., Local Union No. 644,
be, and it hereby is, dismissed.