Armstrong Cork Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 14, 1956

115 N.L.R.B. 1578 (N.L.R.B. 1956)

1578 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
have, or at which labor disputes would have a pronounced impact
upon the flow of interstate commerce.'°
.completely fails to accurately reflect the impact exerted on commerce
by a utility operation such as the Employer's.
Under the circumstances, it would not seem too much to expect that
a majority of the Board would take the necessary action to revise the
public utility standard to enable the $oard to assert jurisdiction in
cases such as this. But here, as in the recent Deskins Super Market
case," the majority curiously persists in perpetuating some of the more
fantastic aspects of the 1954 jurisdictional standards. In that case
the majority refused to change retail standards which rest on the
ridiculous premises that a chain of retail stores located in a single
'State has a more pronounced impact on interstate commerce than an
identical chain located in two or more States; and that the entirety
of an employer's operations exert a lesser impact on interstate com-
merce than a fractional part. Now the majority insists on adhering
to the premise that furnishing in excess of $100,000 of water to indus-
trial concerns who use it in their production processes has less pro-
nounced impact on interstate commerce than furnishing $100,000 of
window washing services or printed bill heads, either of which justifies
the assertion of jurisdiction. I cannot comprehend or follow such
distinctions.
The crowning irony in the dismissal of this case is the fact that the
State of Indiana has no equivalent machinery to enable employees to
choose or displace bargaining representatives (assuming, arguendo,
it could legally act) ; and that the employees are denied the election
facilities of this Board on the petition of a complying union to enable
them to choose between that union and a noncomplying union which
is the incumbent bargaining representative.
MEMBER PETERSON took no part in the consideration of the above
.Decision and Order.
10 Greenacich Gas Company and Fuels , Inc., 110 NLRB 564, 565. The authors of the
1954 standards used precisely the same language in each of the lead jurisdictional cases.
See Jonesboro Grain Drying Cooperative , 110 NLRB 481 ; Breeding Transfer Company,
110;.NLRB 493; Wilson Oldsmobile, 110 NLRB 534 ; Hogue and Knott Supermarkets,
110 NLRB 543; McKinney Avenue Realty Company , 110 NLRB 547 ; Maytag Aircraft
Corporation , 110 NLRB 597 ; The Daily Press, Incorporated, 110 NLRB 573; Hanford
Broadcasting Company, 110 NLRB 1257.
u.115 NLRB 1571.
Armstrong Cork Company and United Paperworkers of America,
AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 10-RC-3441. June 14, 1956
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 Philip B. Cordes, hearing
115 NLRB No. 256.
ARMSTRONG CORK COMPANY _ 1579
,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 organization involved claims 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 parties agree as to the appropriateness of the following unit,
which we find constitutes a unit appropriate for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act:
All production employees at the Employer's Macon, Georgia, plant,
including employees in the wood yard, board mill, converting, paint-
ing, finishing, and warehouse and shipping departments, spare em-
ployees for these departments and inspectors, but excluding mechani-
cal department employees,2 office employees, plant clerical employees,
professional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
5. The Employer is a Pennsylvania corporation engaged in the
'business of manufacturing insulating board, insulating sheathing, in-
sulating lath, panels, planks, and acoustical tile at its plant in Macon,
Georgia. The Employer is currently engaged in an expansion pro-
-gram which it estimates will be completed by August 1956, at which
time it will produce a line of new products in addition to those listed
above including aluminum siding backboard, fissured acoustical tile,
punched acoustical tile, expansion joint material, form board, and
perforated roof deck 3 This expansion entails the installation of
much new equipment in addition to the installation of more modern
equipment as replacements for equipment currently in use.
The Employer contends that an election should not be held at the
:present time because of its expansion program, and moves, therefore,
that the Board dismiss the instant petition as premature. In the al-
1 The hearing officer referred to the Board a motion made by the Employer at the
hearing that the instant petition be dismissed on the ground that it is premature, and
an alternative motion made by the Employer that the direction of an election in the
present case be postponed until August 1956 , on the ground that the unit petitioned for
is in the process of expansion . For reasons stated in paragraph numbered 5 of the text,
the motion to dismiss is denied and the alternative motion to postpone the election is
granted, in part, as explicated hereinafter.
The mechanical department is composed of the Employer's maintenance employees, and
was found to be an appropriate unit for bargaining purposes by the Board in Case No.
-10-RC-1426 in 1951. This group of employees is currently represented by Lodge 918,
tInternational Association of Machinists , AFL-CIO.
8 Other products to be produced in the new plant , but added in limited quantities
;before the expansion program got under way, include roof deck , roof insulation, and
molding. Construction of the original plant commenced in May 1946 , with full employ-
ment being reached during July 1948 , which was within 1 month of the Employer's
original schedule as to when its employee complement would be brought up to full strength.
1580 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ternative, the Employer requests that the Board delay directing an
election until August 1956, at which time it alleges that its expansion
program will have been completed.
The record indicates that the Employer is engaged in a major ex-
pansion program which it expects will be completed during August
1956.4 However, it appears that in the neighborhood of 700 of the esti-
mated total of approximately 960 production employees will be em-
ployed by July 1, 1956, at least in the capacity of trainees.' Further-
more, by such date, employee complements for 3 of the 6 production
departments will be at full strength,' while the 3 remaining production
departments, which comprise the fabricating operation, will have ap-
proximately 490 employees working of an expected maximum comple-
ment of about 750 such employees.' There is no evidence that the em-
ployees in the now vacant classifications will be required to exercise
any special skills other than how to operate the new equipment, in-
struction for which they will receive in on-the-job training.
In view of the foregoing, and on the record as a whole, we find that,
by July 1, 1956, more than 70 percent of the expected full complement
of production employees will be employed, and that these employees
will be distributed among the bulk of the classifications, present and
projected. We shall provide, therefore, for an election to be held by
July 15, 1956, or on such earlier date, but not earlier than July 1, to be
selected by the Regional Director, as it shall appear that a substantial
and representative number of employees are then employed.8 We be-
lieve that the working force which will be employed, when the election
6 The Employer commenced its expansion program in July 1955, and began hiring
small numbers of new employees as trainees in January 1956. Its schedules call for
completion of this program during August 1956 , at which time the plant will cover
14 6 acres and employ approximately 960 production employees as compared to the
original plant which , as of December 31, 1955, consisted of 6 9 acres under roof and a
production employee complement of 448.
8 During the 6-month period prior to the start of-hiring trainees under the expansion
program, the number of production employees remained stable at between 438 and 448.
On March 31 , 1956, this total had increased to 507. The Employer 's schedule for bring-
ing production employment up to full strength by August 1956 is to hire an additional
33 employees during April , 50 during May, 100 during June, 125 during July, and 139
during August
" The parties agreed that the unit consisted of employees in the wood yard, board mill,
warehouse and shipping , converting , painting, and finishing departments . The Employer
testified that the board mill department should be at full strength sometime during
May 1956 and that the wood yard and warehouse and shipping departments should have
their full complement of employees by the end of June or the first of July. These
3 departments , when all job openings are filled, will account for a total of approximately
210 production employees.
7 The fabricating operation consists of the converting, painting , and finishing depart-
ments Prior to expansion , there were approximately 300 employees in 10 classifications
working in these departments . Upon completion of the expansion program, the Em-
ployer's schedules call for approximately 680 employees in 21 classifications to be so
engaged. In addition , there will be approximately 45 spare employees and approximately
25 inspectors in the production departments, but the record does not indicate to which
specific department or departments they will be assigned. -
8 Eligibility shall be determined by the payroll period immediately preceding the
issuance of a notice of election by the Regional Director.
BREMAN STEEL COMPANY 1581
directed herein is held, will be a substantial and representative segment
of the employees to be employed in the voting group in the foreseeable
future.' Accordingly, the Employer's motion to dismiss the instant
petition is hereby denied.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
MEMBER PETERSON took no part in the ' consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Election.
°American Cyanamid Company, 107 NLRB 354; Cleveland Welding Company, 106
NLRB 1074.
M. W. Breman , d/b/a Breman Steel Company and Breman Iron &
Metal Company and Shopmen's Local Union 616 of the Inter-
national Association of Bridge , Structural and Ornamental
Iron Workers, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 10-RC-3184.
June 18, 1956
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND CERTIFICATION
OF RESULTS
On February 17, 1956, pursuant to a Decision, Order and Direction
of Second Election,' an election by secret ballot was conducted under
the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Tenth
Region among certain employees of the Employer. Upon the con-
clusion of the election, the parties were furnished with a tally of bal-
lots which shows that of 65 votes cast, 21 votes were for the Petitioner
and 44 against. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed timely objections to
conduct affecting the results of the election.
The Petitioner alleged, inter alia, that the election should be set
aside on the ground that the Employer had granted a general wage
increase to its employees on October 5, 1955, during the pendency
of the petition and before the second election was directed or held.
After investigation of the Petitioner's objections, the Regional Di-
rector issued his report on election, objections to election and recom-
mendations in which he found merit in the above objection of the
Petitioner and recommended that the election should be set aside
and a new election ordered 2 Thereafter, the Employer filed timely
exceptions to the Regional Director's report. The history of this
case may be briefly summarized as follows :
On August 15, 1955, the parties executed, and the Regional Direc-
tor approved, a stipulation for certification upon consent election.
1115 NLRB 187.
2 The Regional Director found no merit in certain other objections of the Petitioner
and recommended that they be overruled. As no exceptions were filed to this recom-
mendation, the Board hereby adopts it.
115 NLRB No. 257.