American Cyanamid Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 2, 1961

130 N.L.R.B. 1 (N.L.R.B. 1961)

American Cyanamid Company 1 and Pensacola Building and
Construction Trades Council ,2 Petitioner
American Cyanamid Company and Textile Workers Union of
America, AFL-CIO,3 Petitioner. Cases Nos. 15-RC-2175 and
15-RC-2179. February °L, 1961
DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9(c) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before
Fallon W. Bentz, 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 em-
ployees of the Employer.'
3. A 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.
4. The Council seeks to represent a unit of the maintenance em-
ployees at the Employer's Santa Rosa plant, near Milton, Florida.
TWUA petitions for a unit of production and maintenance employees
at this plant. Chemical Workers and UMW intervened for the pro-
duction and maintenance unit. The Employer agreed to the appropri-
ateness of TWUA's requested unit and moved to dismiss the Council's
petition on the ground that a maintenance unit is inappropriate.
TWUA and Chemical Workers joined in the motion.
The Employer manufactures acrylic fibers at' its Santa Rosa plant.
There is no history of collective bargaining for any of the plant em-
ployees. Under the plant manager are five departments : engineering,
technical, production, personnel relations, and accounting. The engi-
neering department has four sections : engineering, purchasing, in-
' The Employer 's name appears as amended at the hearing.
2 Herein called the Council.
s Herein called TWUA.
International Chemical Workers Union , AFL-CIO, and District 50, United Mine Work-
ers of America , herein referred to as Chemical Workers and UMW, Intervened. TWUA
moved to dismiss the Council's petition on the ground that the Council is not a labor
organization . However, as we find, upon the record, that the Council is a labor organiza-
tion as defined in the Act, the motion to dismiss on this ground is denied
130 NLRB No. 1.
597254-61-vol. 130-2 1
2 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
dustrial engineering, and maintenance. The production department
consists of stores and traffic, chemical area, fiber area, and utilities.
The employees sought by the Council work in the maintenance and
utilities sections of these two departments. These employees perform
maintenance and utility functions for the plant and have separate
supervision. Although other employees in the technical and produc-
tion departments perform certain maintenance functions on their ma-
chinery and equipment, they are not primarily maintenance employees.
The record also indicates that many of the requested maintenance
employees work in close conjunction with production employees. Also,
maintenance employees receive the same benefits as production
employees.
The Employer contends, inter alia, that its operations are so inte-
grated and the interrelationships between its production and main-
tenance employees are so close that no basis exists for establishing a
separate unit of maintenance employees herein on a departmental
basis. In the past we have rejected similar contentions in cases in-
volving operations like the Employer's and followed the policy of
permitting the separate representation of maintenance employees in
the absence of a bargaining history for production and maintenance
employees.-' However, we have concluded that where a question con-
cerning representation has been raised by a labor organization seeking
to represent all the production and maintenance employees involved,
no sound basis exists for finding that a narrower unit limited to main-
tenance employees may be appropriate. Therefore, as TWUA by its
petition seeks to represent a unit of production and maintenance em-
ployees at the Employer's Santa Rosa plant, we find that the main-
tenance unit sought by the Council is inappropriate and that the re-
quested broader unit is alone appropriate herein.6 Accordingly, we
shall dismiss the Council's petition and we shall direct an election in
the following unit which we find to be appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act :
All production and maintenance employees at the Employer's Santa
Rosa plant, located near Milton, Florida, excluding office clerical em-
ployees, plant clerical employees, technical employees, professional
employees, watchmen and/or guards, and supervisors as defined in the
Act.'
5 See Allied Chemical & Dye Corporation , Nitrogen Division, 120 NLRB 03 , 67; and
cases cited therein
9 To the extent inconsistent herewith , the cases of Armstrong Cork Company, 80 NLRB
1328; Allied Chemical & Dye Corporation , Nitrogen Division, supra; and others similar
thereto, are hereby overruled The policy modification we adopt is not to be construed as
barring the establishment of a separate unit of maintenance employees in industries like
the Employer ' s where such employees alone are sought and there is no bargaining history
on a broader basis
7 There was no dispute as to the composition of this unit
AMERICAN CYANAMID COMPANY 3
The Council stated at the hearing that it wished to participate in the
election in any unit which the Board found appropriate , and we shall
place its name on the ballot for the election.'
[The Board dismissed the petition in Case No . 15-RC-2175.]
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
CHAIRMAN LEEDOM , dissenting :
My colleagues , it seems to me, are changing Board policy of long
standing without indicating the need for the change . While readily
conceding that a unit of maintenance employees in industries like the
Employer 's is appropriate where such employees alone are sought and
there is no bargaining history, they reach a conclusion that the same
unit is inappropriate in the circumstances of this case . The fact that
another union here seeks the more comprehensive production and
maintenance unit should not , ipso facto , obliterate an otherwise appro-
priate unit . This obliteration cannot be justified in my judgment by
the generality that "no sound basis exists for establishing a narrower
unit." Accordingly, I would adhere to past practice , and direct two
elections , namely, in a voting group of maintenance employees and in
a voting group of the remaining plant employees.
MEMBER FANNING , dissenting :
I cannot agree that the long-established Board policy 9 of permitting
self -determination elections among maintenance employees, where
there has been no history of bargaining on a broader basis, should be
overruled , as the majority is doing here.
It is my opinion that the primary advantages in the performance of
governmental functions by administrative agencies are flexibility and
the capacity of expert specialists to meet new problems in specialized
areas with new solutions . However, I am also firmly convinced that
an agency such as the National Labor Relations Board has the re-
sponsibility of establishing guideposts , which are as clear and under-
standable as the circumstances and the Board 's organic Act permit.
Once such guides have been established they should not be obliter-
ated without good, sufficient, and carefully weighed reasons. Particu-
larly in the area of "appropriate unit' '-in itself a technical and
difficult area in which to chart a consistent course-is this discretion
required . Employers and labor organizations alike should be able to
follow the Board 's guideposts with some degree of assurance that they
are on the right road . It should not be a game of chance.
8 Moreover, wherever we deny a petition for a maintenance unit we shall treat it as a
request for intervention in a petition for a broader unit and for a place on the ballot in
any election directed therefor , unless a contrary request is made.
8 See, for example, Electro Metallarpacat Company, 56 NLRB 1464.
4 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Has the majority here demonstrated the wisdom, necessity, or ad-
visability of its reversal of Board policy ? I think not.
As concerned as I am about capricious change in policy, I am more
disturbed about the violence being done to one of the most explicit and
emphatic directives set forth in the Act. Section 9(b) directs the
Board to decide which of several possible units is appropriate "in
order to assure to employees the fullest freedom in exercising the
rights guaranteed by this Act." Certain limitations and amplifi-
cations of this congressional mandate are set forth in Section 9 (b) and
(c) (5), but,they are not-germane'to the issue involved herein. The fact
is that Congress could not have been more emphatic. It prescribed
that the Board in each case make such appropriate unit finding as.
would assure to employees the "fullest freedom" in exercising the
rights guaranteed by the Act. It is elementary to point out that one
of those rights is the right to self-organization.
It is further noted that in footnote 6 the majority implies that, if
there were no petition filed at the present time for the overall unit, it
might direct an election in the maintenance group. The majority,
therefore, seems to recognize that the Council's petition is for an appro-
priate unit, but that the fortuity of the filing of another petition
renders such appropriate unit inappropriate. I cannot accept this.
I believe that the maintenance employees in this case constitute a
distinct and homogeneous group, such as the Board has long per-
mitted-in the absence of bargaining history on a broader basis-to
be, separately represented if they so desired, and that they are'entitled
to a self-determination election.
Keystone Floors, Inc. d/b/a Keystone Universal Carpet Com-
pany and Retail Clerks International Association , Retail Store
Employees Union , Local 1407, AFL-CIO. Case No. 6-CA-1932.
February 6, 1961
DECISION AND ORDER
On September 19, 1960, Trial Examiner John P. von Rohr issued
his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair
labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Inter-
mediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed ex-
ceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
130 NLRB No. 6.