American-Marietta Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 18, 1958

121 N.L.R.B. 912 (N.L.R.B. 1958)

912 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ness only if such international union or intermediate body is a party
signatory to the contract
e Conclusions
As we have found that the current contract with the Employer is
not a bar because of a schism, we find that a question affecting com-
merce exists concerning the representation of employees of the Em-
ployer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and
(7) of the Act, and we shall therefore direct an immediate election az
4 The parties agree that the existing unit as described in the con-
tract is appropriate Accordingly, we find that all production and
maintenance employees and teamsters at the Employer's Hershey,
Pennsylvania, plant, the Lebanon Cieamery, and branch milk-receiv-
ing stations, excluding office employees, executives, attorneys, travel-
ing and outside salesmen, engineers, professional employees, watch-
men, guards, superintendents, supervisors, foremen, assistant fore-
men, all other supervisors as defined in the Act, or any persons ex-
cluded by law, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication ]
MEMBER JENSSNS, dissenting in part
Since I believe the only issue raised in a "schism" conflict to be that
of the identity of the true bargaining agent I would limit the choice
on the ballot to the two contending factions I would not confuse
this issue by permitting the intervention of third parties or rejection
of the bargaining agent.
2' As there is no evidence that any of the assets of BCW Local 464 have been disbursed
to the advantage of ABC Local 464, we find no merit in the contention of BCW that no
election should be held until pending litigation involving such assets has been concluded
The Great Atlantw and Pacific Tea Company, 120 NLRB 656, footnote 10
American-Marietta Company and United Steelworkers of
America, AFL-CIO, Petitioner2
American -Marietta. Company, Petitioner and United Mine Work-
ers of America , District 50, Region 16 and United Steelworkers
of America, AFL-CIO. Cases Nos 6-BC-20142 3 and 6 RM 157.
September 18, 19.58
DECISION 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
1 The. name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing
2 Herein called the Steelworkers
3 United Mine Workers of America, District 50, Region 16, herein called the Mine
Workers, intervened in Case No 6-RC-2142 on the basis of a showing of interest
121 NLRB No 120
AMERICAN-MARIETTA COMPANY 913
Charles H. Weintraub, 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 Rodgers, Jenkins, and Fanning].
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 represen-
tation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section
9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Steelworkers and'the Mine Workers both seek to represent
the production and maintenance employees at both the Employer's
Bridgeville and Neville Island, Pennsylvania, plants. The Mine
Workers contend that the only appropriate unit is a combined unit
of the production and maintenance employees at both plants, while
the Employer and the Steelworkers contend that separate units for
each plant are appropriate.
The Employer's district manager testified that : The 2 plants have
always been considered by the Employer as separate units; each plant
handles its own hiring and firing; the 2 plants have separate payrolls;
they have never interchanged employees; each has its own plant
manager, plant superintendent, and hierarchy of foremen; there is no
seniority policy common to both plants; and the 2 plants are a distance
of approximately 20 to 25 miles from each other. He also testified
that whereas the Bridgeville plant is a machine plant operation, the
Neville plant is a cast operation. Moreover, there is no bargaining
history on a two-plant basis. In view of the foregoing, we,find that a
single overall unit of production and maintenance employees is not
appropriate, but that the employees of each plant properly constitute
a separate appropriate unit 4
We find that the following employees of the Employer constitute
separate appropriate units for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act:
(a) All production and maintenance employees at the Employer's,
Bridgeville, Pennsylvania, plant, excluding office clerical employees,
professional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
(b) All production and maintenance employees at the Employer's
Neville Island, Pennsylvania, plant, excluding office 'clerical em-
a Rheem Manufacturing Co., 112 NLRB 52.
487926-59-vol . 121-59
914 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ployees, professional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in
the Act.
5. The Steelworkers and the Mine Workers contend that employees
in a laid-off status at both plants are only temporarily laid off and
eligible to vote. The Employer contends that these employees have
been permanently laid off and are ineligible to vote. The Employer's
district manager testified that while there are seasonal layoffs in the
concrete products industry, this has not occurred in the 2 plants in
question for the 2 previous seasons; and that the seasonal decrease in
business normally occurs in the late fall, whereas the present layoff
was motivated by general business conditions, which conditions show
no indication of change in the near future to justify the reemployment
of these employees.
At the Bridgeville plant 7 employees were laid off recently, and the
Employer testified that 7 more were to be laid off during the week fol-
lowing the hearing. He also testified that there might be an inde-
pendent seasonal layoff in the fall which would only be temporary.
At the Neville Island plant about 32 employees have been laid off
since April 15, 1958. The Employer's district manager testified that
the majority of these employees were laid off because of the comple-
tion of an exceptionally large order of sewer pipe, and the possibility
of obtaining a comparable order is extremely remote; and that the
remaining employees were laid off because of general business condi-
tions. And, as at the Bridgeville plant, a seasonal decrease in business
may necessitate a temporary layoff in the fall in addition to the
present layoff.
Although the Employer indicated that should conditions warrant,
the laid-off employees from both plants would be recalled, there ap-
pears to be no reasonable expectancy of their recall in the near future.
Accordingly, we find that the employees in a laid-off status, including
the seven additional employees at Bridgeville, if they have been laid
off as expected, are not eligible to vote in the election.'
[Text of the Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
5 See Brown-Forman Drostillera Corporation, 118 NLRB 454.
United Stone and Allied Products Workers of America, Local
No. 24, AFL-CIO, and Harold Etchison , Its Agent and Gibson-
burg Lime Products Company. Case No.,8-CB-248. Septem-
ber 19, 1958
DECISION AND ORDER
On April 9,1958, Trial Examiner Arthur Leff issued his Intermedi-
ate Report in the above-entitled proceeding , finding that the Respond-
121 NLRB No. 122.