W. R. Grace & Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 29, 1954

110 N.L.R.B. 85 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

DAVISON CHEMICAL COMPANY 85
4. The following employees of the Employer constitute a unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
All employees employed at all of the Employer's plants and facil-
ities, including the Engle Street plant, Greens Bayou Batch plant,
Harrisburg plant, Clay Road plant, Holmes Road plant, Columbus
plant, Dickinson plant, San Leon plant, shipyard, Highway 73 plant;
all employees employed on all of the Employer's vessels, including the
dredges Trinity I, Trinity II, Echo, Raymond (Kilgore 3), the der-
rick barges, old and new, Fred S. Robbins, the tugs Lavinia, Gertrude,
Edna May, Annie 0., Billy C., Iliff, Allan W., Sharon, Cindy, Jim F.
Newell, and the Clarence H. Brown; and the yacht Mary Gene II, and
all employees employed on vessels manned and operated by the Em-
ployer, but excluding all office clerical employees, technical and pro-
fessional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
5. For the reasons stated by the Regional Director in his report, we
find that the exceptions filed by Houston Metal Trades Council, AFL,
do not raise substantial and material issues with respect to the conduct
or results of the election. Accordingly, the objections are hereby
overruled and the request for a hearing on the objections is hereby
denied.
Because, as the tally of ballots shows, a majority of the ballots were
cast for the Petitioner, we shall certify it as the exclusive bargaining
representative of all the employees in the appropriate unit.
[The Board certified the Shell Workers' Independent Union as the
designated collective-bargaining representative of the employees of
Parker Brothers & Company, Inc., Houston, Texas, in the unit herein
found appropriate.]
CHAIRMAN FARMER and MEMBER MURDOCK took no part in the con-
sideration of the above Decision and Certification of Representatives.
CINCINNATI DIVISION , DAVISON CHEMICAL COMPANY, DIVISION OF
W. R. GRACE & COMPANY and DISTRICT LODGE No. 34 , LODGE No.
162, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS , AFL, PETITIONER
and WAREHOUSE , PRODUCTION & MAINTENANCE EMPLOYEES LOCAL
UNION No . 661, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS,
CHAUFFEURS , WAREHOUSEMEN & HELPERS OF AMERICA, AFL . Case
No. 9-RC-2258 . September 29, 1954
Decision and Order
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Harold M. Kennedy,
110 NLRB No. 16.
86 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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 employees
of the Employer.
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section
9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, for the following
reasons:
The Petitioner seeks to sever from the established bargaining unit
of production and maintenance employees of the Employer, a unit
consisting of all maintenance and powerhouse employees, or, in the
alternative, it would sever 10 separate units of (1) machinists, (2)
machine repairmen, (3) pipefitters, (4) lead burners, (5) welders,
(6) carpenters, (7) painters, (8) electricians, (9) instrument repair-
men, and (10) powerhouse employees, including in each group, ap-
prentices and helpers. As a further alternative, the Petitioner would
sever any combinations of the foregoing units which the Board deems
to be appropriate. The Employer and the Intervenor, citing a 10-
year bargaining history, contend that their present plantwide pro-
duction and maintenance unit is the only appropriate unit and that the
units represented by the Petitioner are inappropriate.
The Employer, who is engaged in the production of synthetic pe-
troleum refining catalytic agents, employes a total of about 124 em-
ployees, 36 of whom are in the maintenance group'
Insofar as the Petitioner seeks the severance of maintenance and
powerhouse employees as a single unit, it is well settled that the Board
will not sever such a unit from a plantwide unit in the face of a sub-
stantial bargaining history- on a broader basis.3 Such a bargaining
history is here present, and this portion of the Petitioner's unit re-
quests is therefore denied.
Further, assuming, without deciding, that the pipefitters, carpen-
ters, painters, and electricians herein involved are craftsmen, we like-
wise deny the Petitioner's request to represent these employees in a
separate unit, because, as the Board has recently held, the Petitioner
does not historically and traditionally represent these crafts.'
i In view of our unit findings it is unnecessary for us to pass upon the Employer 's various
motions to dismiss the petition.
e The Employer and the Intervenor refer to the maintenance employees in question as
the "maintenance group" and use only three classifications within this group; namely,
(1) electricians , ( 2) lead burners, and (3 ) maintenance mechanics . The latter category
is further subdivided into four classes, from fourth to first class maintenance mechanic,
depending upon the employee 's ability.
8 Crossett Paper Mills , 98 NLRB 542, 547 ; Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, Inc., 107
NLRB 1621 . See also, United States Time CorpOration, 108 NLRB 1435.
' Campbell Soup Company, 109 NLRB 475; Forstmann Woolen Co ., 108 NLRB 1439.
DAVISON•CHEMICAL COMPANY 87
The Petitioner's showing of interest indicates that the unit of ma-
chinists which it seeks to sever consists of four employees. The rec-
ord is silent with respect to the skills and duties of these employees
other than to indicate that there may be one employee who conceiva-
bly might be said to perform the craft skills of a machinist. Fur-
thermore, it is uncontradicted that the Employer employs only one
lead burner. Accordingly, in accordance with the Board's long es-
tablislied practice of holding one-man units to be inappropriate for
purposes of collective bargaining,' we deny the Petitioner's request
to sever machinists and lead burners in separate units.
There are four powerhouse employees. These employees, all licensed
operators, work apart from the maintenance employees in the Em-
ployer's boilerhouse, tending the boilers that generate steam for build-
ing heat and for use in washing the chemicals produced. From our
administrative experience in the processing of the many representa-
tion cases coming before us, we are convinced that the Petitioner does
not traditionally represent powerhouse employees of the type herein
involved. Accordingly, we deny the Petitioner's request to sever
powerhouse employees in a separate unit.
There are 12 employees whom the Petitioner terms "machine re-
pairmen." The Employer, as already noted,' does not classify any of
its maintenance employees as machine repairmen, but limits its classi-
fication of such employees to lead burners, electricians, and mainte-
nance mechanics. The maintenance mechanics, who are supervised
separately from the production employees only on the day shift, use
the maintenance shop as their headquarters, but work throughout the
plant providing general maintenance to the Employer's buildings and
equipment. Each of the maintenance mechanics may be called upon
to perform almost any maintenance job that may be required, al-
though some of them tend to specialize in certain skills and are given
regular assignments involving these skills. Although no testimony
was introduced as to the specific duties of the so-called machine re-
pairmen, the Petitioner appears by this designation to refer to those
maintenance mechanics who do not have regular assignments involv-
ing a certain craft skill. The record indicates that as a portion of
their,duties these "machine repairmen" lubricate, repair, and gener-
ally help maintain the Employer's machinery, which is of a relatively
uncomplicated nature. Further, the repair work done by the "ma-
chine repairmen" is to a large extent confined to the replacement of
worn or defective parts, although this may require dismantling of the
particular piece of equipment being repaired. Any extensive machin-
ing of parts that may be required is sent outside the plant. The Em-
ployer, who hires most of these "machine repairmen" as it does its
5 General [Textile Mills , Inc., 109 NLR 263.
'See footnote 2, supra.
88 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
other maintenance mechanics, from among its other employees-i. e.,
yardmen, or chemical production workers-has no apprentice or
training programs of any sort, and, for the most part, insists only
upon some knowledge of the chemical production operations and a
general mechanical aptitude when hiring its maintenance employees :
The record further shows that fourth class maintenance men advance
to first class in somewhat less time than 1 year. Of the 30 mainte-
nance mechanics presently employed, 29 are first class and 1 is sec-
ond class. Promotion of all of the maintenance mechanics is based
solely upon the recommendation of a foreman, who testified that he
used no established objective standards in his evaluation of their
work, but merely relied upon his judgment each time. There is no
indication in the record that the "machine repairmen" in question are
expected to or ever do advance to the craft status of machinist or
millwright. In such circumstances it is clear that the "machine re-
pairmen" although undoubtedly exercising a variety of skills to some
degree, do not exercise that degree or range of skills characteristic of
craftsmen.' Accordingly, we shall deny the Petitioner's request for
a separate unit of "machine repairmen."
The Petitioner seeks to sever four employees known as instrument
repairmen , who spend the majority of their time repairing and main-
taining instruments used in the production process. The record shows
this work includes the changing of charts on automatic recording de-
vices, and the regular inspection and reading of such instruments. It
appears that the instruments used by the Employer are relatively
simple in construction and operation and that other maintenance me-
chanics, who do not ordinarily work with the instruments , occasionally
fill in for absent instrument repairmen. The record contains nothing
more to show that the instrument repairmen are craftsmen.
Lastly, the Petitioner would sever a unit consisting of "welders."
The record shows that 1 of the maintenance mechanics spends approxi-
mately 50 percent of his time at welding duties; that 2 other mainte-
nance mechanics spend about 40 to 45 percent of their time at welding;
and that all of the other maintenance mechanics do some welding, al-
though less frequently. No evidence of any apprenticeship program
or similar training requirements for welders was introduced; nor is
there any other evidence tending to establish the craft status of the
welders herein involved.
We have previously held that the burden of establishing the facts
to justify severance on a craft basis rests upon the petitioning union.'
Accordingly, on this record, we find that the Petitioner has not estab-
lished facts sufficient to show that either the instrument repairmen or
v See American Potash & Chemical Corporation , 107 NLRB 1418. Cf. Campbell Soup
Company, 109 NLRB 475.
e American Potash & Chemical Corporation, 107 NLRB 1418. See also Richmond Engi-
neering Company, Inc, 108 NLRB 1659.
AMERICAN CYANAMID COMPANY 89
the welders herein involved are exercising true craft skills which would
warrant their severance from the existing production and maintenance
unit, and we therefore deny their unit request with respect to these em-
ployees.
Moreover, there is nothing in the record, we find, to indicate that any
of the foregoing inappropriate units requested by the Petitioner is
rendered appropriate by combination with any other of such units.
Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petition.
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
AMERICAN CYANAMID COMPANY, ORGANIC CHEMICALS DIVISION' and
DISTRICT #61, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, AFL,
PETITIONER. Cases Nos. 41-RC-227. through 4-RC-209.. Sep-
tember 29, 1954
Decision, Order, and Direction of Elections
Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before
Eugene M. Levine, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made
at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed 2
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 3
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. Questions affecting commerce exist concerning 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 to sever from an existing production and
maintenance unit at the Employer's Bound Brook, New Jersey, plant,
1 The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing.
2 At the hearing the Petitioner amended the petitions in Cases Nos. 4-RC-2272 and
4-RC-2282 to include the employees which were the subject of the petitions in Cases Nos.
4-RC-2289 and 4-RC-2292 , and moved that it be permitted to withdraw the latter two
petitions . The motion is hereby granted.
The hearing officer referred to the Board a motion by the Intervenor to dismiss the
petitions on the ground that the Petitioner ' s ultimate purpose is to establish itself as the
representative of the maintenance department employees . The Intervenor relies on Mills
Industries, Incorporated, 108 NLRB 282 . However, in that case , the Board held that the
Petitioner was attempting to utilize the Board 's craft severance doctrine to reestablish
itself as the representative of a production and maintenance unit which it formerly rep-
resented , rather than to establish itself as a craft representative . Here , no such situation
is present . The Petitioner at no time in the past represented these employees on any
basis. We therefore regard the facts relied on by the Intervenor as irrelevant to our
determination , and deny the motion.
8 The Petitioner 's request for oral argument is denied because the record and the briefs
adequately present the issues and the positions of the parties . In denying the Petitioner's
request for oral argument , the Board did not rely on the Intervenor 's reply brief, which
the Petitioner moved to strike as improper under the Board 's Rules and Regulations.
110 NLRB No. 17.