Anderson, Clayton & Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 31, 1953

106 N.L.R.B. 533 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

MRS. TUCKER'S PRODUCTS 533
In view of this disposition of the case, it becomes unnecessary
to discuss the contract-bar issues raised by the Intervenor.
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
MRS. TUCKER'S PRODUCTS. DIVISION OF ANDERSON,
CLAYTON & COMPANY, INC.'and OIL WORKERS INTER-
NATIONAL UNION, CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 13-RC-3308.
July 31, 1953
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 Rush F. Hall,
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hear-
ing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Y
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 Houston, Murdock, and
Peterson].
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 mean-
ing of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner seeks a unit of all production and mainte-
nance employees at the Employer's Jacksonville, Illinois, plant,
including truckdrivers and plant clericals, but excluding all
office clerical employees, guards, professional employees, and
supervisors as defined in the Act. The Employer generally
agrees with the appropriateness of a production and mainte-
nance unit but would exclude from the unit all office and plant
clerical employees, mail-truck drivers, guards, watchmen,
gatemen, professional and technical employees, such as
chemists, junior chemists, analysts, engineers, junior engi-
neers, engineer trainees, supervisory trainees, and super-
visors as defined in the Act.'
i The Employer's name appears as amended at the hearing.
2 The hearing officer reserved for the Board's determination the motion of United Brother-
hood of Carpenters and Joiners, Local No. 904, AFL, to intervene at the hearing For reasons
hereinafter set forth, the motion to intervene is hereby denied.
International Chemical Workers Union, AFL, International Union of Operating Engineers,
Local No 7, AFL, and United Association of Journeyman Plumbers and Steamfitters, Local
553, AFL, although served with notice, did not appear at the hearing.
3The Employer also requested that temporary construction and maintenance employees be
excluded from the unit. As the record indicates that these individuals are not employed by
the Employer but are employed by independent contractors, they are excluded from the unit.
106 NLRB No. 89.
534 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Employer is engaged in the manufacture of vegetable
oil food products from crude vegetable oils . Its plant in
Jacksonville , Illinois , which is the only plant herein involved,
has been under construction since 1951. This plantis, however,
rapidly nearing completion and is scheduled to have its formal
opening approximately the middle of August 1953. At the date
of the hearing there were 59 hourly paid employees on the pay-
roll and an undetermined number of other employees whom the
Employer would exclude.
Plant clericals : At the time of the hearing the Employer had
7 plant clerical employees on its payroll. Although these em-
ployees have the same job classifications as the office clerical
employees and work under the general supervision of the
office division , they will be assigned desks or office space in
the plant area and will keep records of the various plant
processes and perform other related functions.
In view of the fact that plant clerical employees will per-
form their duties in the plant among the production employees,
we find that they have a sufficient community of interest
with production and maintenance employees in the terms and
conditions of employment to warrant their inclusion in the unit
in accordance with well -established Board practice.
Professional and technical employees : The Employer and the
Petitioner are in general agreement that professional and
technical employees should be excluded from the unit. However,
the Petitioner , while apparently having no objection to the ex-
clusion of chemists , engineers , junior engineers , and engi-
neer trainees , does not agree with the Employer that junior
chemists and analysts should be excluded from the unit. As the
evidence in the record is inadequate to enable us to ascertain
the exact duties and responsibilities of the junior chemists
and analysts , we shall not make any specific unit determinations
concerning these employees . We, however, shall exclude from
the unit chemists , engineers , junior engineers , and engineer
trainees and permit the junior chemists and analysts to vote
subject to challenge in the election hereinafter directed.
Supervisory trainees : The Employer would exclude, while
the Petitioner would include, employees classified as super-
visory trainees . The record discloses that the supervisory
trainees at the time they are hired are not necessarily required
to possess any special qualifications ; in fact, the Employer
indicated that it is attempting to select "bright high school
graduates " for these positions . These employees may become
supervisors after undergoing training courses for the super-
visory positions which in some instances extend over a period
of approximately a year and a half. During this training period
the trainees are transferred from department to department
and are assigned to actual production work alongside other
production employees. The Employer stated that during the
training period the supervisory trainees perform no super-
visory functions or duties . Under these circumstances , we find
that the interests and working conditions of the supervisory
MRS. TUCKER'S PRODUCTS 535
trainees are not materially different from those of the Em-
ployer's other production employees. We, therefore, shall in-
clude them in the unit.4
Accordingly, we find that the following employees may
constitute an appropriate unit for the purpose of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act: All
production and maintenance employees at the Employer's
plant in Jacksonville, Illinois, including truckdrivers,s plant
clericals, and supervisory trainees, but excluding office
clericals, professional and technical employees, guards, watch-
men, gatemen , ' and supervisors as defined in the Act.
5. The Employer contends that an election should not be
held at this time because its plant has not yet been completed
and it does not currently employ a substantial and representa-
tive complement of employees. It is agreeable , however, to the
holding of an election about 2 weeks after the formal opening
of the plant, which is expected to take place approximately the
middle of August 1953. At that time, the Employer asserts that
it will have approximately 156 employees which will represent
slightly over one-half of the anticipated total complement of
291 employees not expected to be reached for at least a year.
The record discloses that at the time of the hearing no em-
ployees had been employed in the packing, shipping, and
transportation departments. The Employer asserts that by
the opening date of the plant it will have in the packing depart-
ment approximately 25 employees out of an estimated ultimate
total of 57; in the shipping department, about 12 employees
out of a total of 16; and in the transportation department,
approximately, 7 employees out of a total of 37.
In view of the foregoing, we find that the Employer will not
have a substantial and representative number of employees in
its employment until about the middle of August 1953. There-
fore, we shall not direct an immediate election but, instead,
shall direct that an election be held at such time after the
middle of August 1953, as the Regional Director determines
that a substantial and representative number of employees
have been employed, subject to submission by the Petitioner
of a sufficient current showing of interest in such enlarged
group.
The Carpenters sought to intervene in this proceeding for
the purpose of representing a craft unit of carpenters and
millwrights or general mechanics , or, in the alternative, all
employees in the maintenance department. The Employer, at
the date of the hearing, had not yet hired any carpenters,
millwrights , or general mechanics or a representative com-
plement of maintenance department employees. By the middle
4The Plastex Corporation, 72 NLRB 1341; Peal Manufacturing Company, 80 NLRB 827.
5 The Employer apparently does not oppose the inclusion of truckdrivers However. it re-
quests the exclusion of mail-truck drivers As the hiring of such employees is speculative,
we shall make no unit determination with respect to them.
6 The record indicates that watchmen and gatemen perform generally the same duties as the
guards
536 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of August 1953, it expects to have a representative complement
of about 4 employees in the Carpenters' proposed craft group
and about 19 employees in the maintenance department group.
The Carpenters submitted no showing of interest in support of
its motion to intervene . In these circumstances , we deny the
Carpenters ' motion to intervene , without prejudice , however,
to its right to file a petition or petitions before the date of the
election herein directed, covering either or both of the above-
described groups of employees , supported by a proper showing
of interest . In such event , the employees so affected will be
permitted to vote subject to challenge pending processing of the
petitions by the Board.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
J. O. RHUDE AND GILBERT CORPORATION , a Joint Ven-
ture 1 and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGI-
NEERS, LOCAL NO. 49, AFL, Petitioner
GILBERT CORPORATION and UNITED STEELWORKERS OF
AMERICA, CIO, Petitioner . Cases Nos . 18-RC-1940 and.
18-RC-1957. July 31, 1953
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held
before Clarence A. Meter, hearing officer. The hearing offi-
cer'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 these cases
to a three -member panel [ Members Houston, Styles, and
Peterson].
Upon the entire record in these cases , the Board finds:
1. J. O. Rhude and Gilbert Corporation, a joint venture, and
Gilbert Corporation, which are hereinafter found to constitute
a single employer , are engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing 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.
1 The name of this Company appears in the caption as amended at the hearing.
2 At the hearing, the Steelworkers, the Petitioner in 18-RC-1957, moved to dismiss the
petition of the Operating Engineers in 18-RC-1940 , on the ground that the unit sought therein
was inappropriate . The hearing officer referred the motion to the Board . For the reasons
stated in paragraph numbered 4, infra, the motion is denied.
106 NLRB No. 100.