The Mennen Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 21, 1954

108 N.L.R.B. 355 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

THE MENNEN COMPANY 355
THE MENNEN COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL CHEMICAL
WORKERS UNION, AFL, Petitioner and INTERNATIONAL
UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE WORKERS OF AMERICA,
LOCAL 649, AFL. Case No. 4-RC-2197. April 21, 1954
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 Herbert B.
Mintz, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at
the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby
affirmed.
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.
3. A question affecting commerce exists 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 appropriate unit:
The Petitioner and the Employer agree that a single plant-
wide unit of production, maintenance, and warehouse employees
at the Employer's Morristown, New Jersey, plant is appro-
priate. The Intervenor contends that there should be one unit
of production and maintenance employees and another unit of
warehousemen because of the separate history of collective
bargaining for the two groups.
The Employer is engaged in the manufacture of toiletries.
Before 1953, the Employer carried on production operations at
a plant in Newark, New Jersey, and warehousing and shipping
operations at a separate plant in South Kearney, New Jersey.
While operating at these two locations, on November 15, 1951,
and February 9, 1952, respectively, the Intervenor and the
Employer executed separate collective -bargaining contracts
covering employees at the warehouse at South Kearney, and
production and maintenance employees at Newark. Except for
different provisions with respect to job classifications and
wage rates, both contracts are essentially the same and expire
May 15, 1954.'
In 1953, the Employer transferred the operations of the
Newark and Kearney plants to a new plant at Morristown,
New Jersey. The Morristown plant is a one-story building
with a second floor over the packing room. Within this one
1 The Intervenor moved to dismiss the instant proceeding on the ground that the two con-
tracts constitute a bar. In view of the imminent termination of the contracts, we find that
they do not bar a present determination of representation. Accordingly, the motion to dis-
miss is hereby denied. National Clay Products Co., 98 NLRB 137.
108 NLRB No. 62.
356 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
plant, all production , maintenance , and warehousing operations
are carried on. The production area is separated from the
"storage area" by a brick firewall which contains numerous
openings through which some of the filling and packaging ma-
chinery is extended . Within the " storage area" are extensive
auxiliary facilities for the maintenance of premises and equip-
ment, an inspection station for quality control , receiving and
shipping offices, and a storage room for packaged goods.
Manufacturing operations are conducted practically on an
assembly-line basis . They begin with the receipt of raw mate-
rials at the warehouse freight entrance . From this point ware-
housemen carry the raw materials to the production lines.
Production employees feed the raw materials into packaging
machines on both sides of the firewall . The finished products
are then stored in the "storage area, " preliminary to shipment.
Formerly production , maintenance , and warehouse employees
worked in different locations and had little or no contact with
one another . This situation has been changed by the consolida-
tion of operations in a single plant.
At the request of the Intervenor , the Employer in February
1953 recognized Rocco Pallitto as shop steward for the entire
plant "since the Warehouse and Production Departments have
been combined . . ."
Although the Board ordinarily gives great weight to bar-
gaining history in making unit determinations, it does not con-
sider that history decisive where, as here , significant changes
have occurred in the employer ' s operations to dictate a dif-
ferent result . 2 The history of separate bargaining for produc-
tion and maintenance and warehouse employees resulted from
the fact that production and warehousing operations were
carried on in different locations several miles apart . However,
these operations have since been completely integrated and
consolidated in a single building . All employees now have the
same working conditions and benefits , use the same facilities,
and are in frequent contact with one another . In short, the
separate operations have been merged in a single new plant.
The Intervenor recognized this fact when it requested and
received permission to appoint 1 shop steward for the com-
bined operations in place of 2 stewards , 1 for the Newark and
the other for the Kearney plant. In these circumstances, we
believe that only a single plantwide unit is now appropriate.3
Accordingly, we find that all production , mainte-
nance, and warehouse emp loye es at the Employer's
Morristown, New Jersey , plant, including operators,
chemical operators "A," chemical operators "B," service-
2 Fruehauf Trailer Company, 87 NLRB 589 at 591.
3The Intervenor contends that in The Mennen Company, 105 NLRB 677, the Board found
that two separate units were appropriate . The Board made no such finding . All it did find
was that the two contracts covered all the employees at the Morristown plant and were a
bar because they did not expire until May 15, 1954. The Board did not decide whether a
single unit or two units was appropriate.
SCHERRER AND DAVISSON LOGGING COMPANY 357
men, freight handlers , machinists " A," machinists "B,"
electricians , setup men "A ," setup men "B ," oilers, car-
penters, porters , and truckdrivers , but excluding office clerical
employees , plant nurse, chemist , laboratory employees , watch-
men, working foremen, and supervisors as defined in the Act,
constitute a unit appropriate for the pur ose of collective bar-
gaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.4
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
4At the close of the hearing, United Gas, Coke and Chemical Workers, CIO, requested
leave to intervene for the purpose of having its name placed on the ballot . As the authoriza-
tion cards constituting its showing of interest are all dated subsequent to the close of the
hearing, the request is hereby denied. The United Boat Service Corporation, 55 NLRB 671
at 676.
PHILLIP DAVISSON, WILLIAM DAVISSON, OSCAR SCHERRER
AND WARNER SCHERRER, d/b/a SCHERRER AND
DAVISSON LOGGING COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL
WOODWORKERS OF AMERICA, Local 23-93. Case No.
19-CA-834. April 22, 1954
DECISION AND ORDER
On November 20, 1953, Trial Examiner Wallace E. Royster
issued his Intermediate Report in the above -entitled proceeding,
finding that the Respondents had engaged in and were engaging
in certain unfair labor practices , as set forth in the copy of
the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the
Respondents filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and
a supporting brief.
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial
Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error
was committed . The rulings are hereby affirmed . The Board
has considered the Intermediate Report , the exceptions and
brief,' and the entire record in the cast, and hereby adopts
the Trial Examiner ' s findings , conclusions , and recommen-
dations, with the following additions and modifications:
We agree with the Trial Examiner' 's conclusion that the
Respondents discriminatorily refused to hire Alex Cook.
However , we note certain factual omissions from the Inter-
tin their brief the Respondents contend, among other things, that there is no evidence in the
record tq support the Trial Examiner's 8 (a) (3) finding that failure to hire Cook discouraged
membership in the Union. It is true that there is no specific evidence in the record to show
discouragement. However, in the recent Radio Officers' case, the Supreme Court held that the
Board has power to draw such an inference. Like the Trial Examiner, we find that the Re-
spondents' discrimination against Cook warrants an inference, which we make, that the Re-
spondents thereby discouraged membership in the Union. Radio Officers' Union of Commercial
Telegraphers Union, A. F. L. v. N. L. R. B., 345 U. S. 962.
108 NLRB No. 75.