Batesville Casket Co., Inc. And Hill-Rom Co., Inc., Employer-Petitioners

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 30, 1987

283 N.L.R.B. 795 (N.L.R.B. 1987)

BATESVILLE CASKET CO.
Batesville Casket Company, Inc. and Hill-Rom Com-
pany, Inc., Employer-Petitioners and Furniture
and Casket Workers Local Union No . 525, a/w
United Steelworkers of America (Upholstery Di-
vision), AFL-CIO. Case 25-UC-137
30 April 1987
DECISION ON REVIEW AND ORDER
By CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS
JOHANSEN, BABSON, STEPHENS, AND
CRACRAFT
On 21 April 1986 the Regional Director for
Region 25 issued a Decision and Order in the
above-entitled proceeding in which he dismissed
the instant unit clarification petition, which sought
to separate the existing single unit of employees of
the Batesville Casket Company, Inc. and Hill-Rom
Company, Inc.,' represented by the Union at
Batesville, Indiana, into two separate units . There-
after, in accordance with Section 102.67 of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board's Rules and Regula-
tions, the Petitioners filed a timely request for
review of the Regional Director's decision on the
grounds, inter, alia, that the Regional Director
erred in his application of the principles set forth in
Rock-Tenn Co., 274 NLRB 772 (1985), by failing to
clarify the unit.
By unpublished order dated 18 July 1986, a
three-member panel of the Board (Member Babson
dissenting) granted, the Petitioners' request for
review with respect to that issue.2 Thereafter, the
Union filed a brief on review.3
The Board has considered the entire record in
this case, including all submissions by the parties
with respect to the issue under review, and makes
the following findings.
In 1947, in Cases 11-R-1192 and 11-R-1198, the
Board certified the Union as representative of all
production, and maintenance employees of Bates-
ville Casket Company and Hill-Rom Company,
combined into a single unit.4 At that time, Bates-
I Hereinafter referred to as Petitioners.
2 The panel majority (Chairman Dotson and Member Babson) denied
review of the Petitioners' contention that Batesville Casket Company,
Inc. and I-Iill-Rom Company, Inc. are separate employers and hence
cannot 1be compelled to engage in continued multiemployer bargaining.
Membet Johansen would have granted review of this issue; however, he
regards himself as institutionally bound by the vote of the panel majority.
2 By letter dated 24 July 1986, the Petitioners requested that their re-
quest for review be treated by the Board as their brief on review.
° In 1939, and again in 1947, the Board found that the Petitioners con-
stituted a single employer and, based on the agreement of the unions and
the Petitioners' failure to object (in 1939), and the agreement of the par-
ties (in 1947), that the appropriate bargaining unit was one composed of
employees of both Companies. See Batesville Casket Co., 72 NLRB 650
(1947); Hillenbrand Industries, 13 NLRB 167 (1939). See also Hillenbrand
Industries, 14 NLRB 316 (1939).
In both instances , the Board expressly found that Hillenbrand Indus-
tries was a trade name designating Petitioners. Hillenbrand Industries was
795
ville Casket (a manufacturer of burial caskets) had
235 employees, and Hill-Rom (a manufacturer of
hospital room furniture) had 15 employees; their
work "complex" consisted of 3 adjacent and inter-
connected buildings where space and equipment
were shared. The three Hillenbrand brothers were
each officers of both Companies, and G.C. Hillen-
brand was responsible for all manufacturing oper••
ations . The Companies had common personnel and
labor relations policies and shared administrative„
accounting, and purchasing functions. In addition,
the employees of each Company accrued unitwide
seniority, frequently performed work on the other
Company's product, and could bid into positions
with either Company.
In the early 1950s, additional production build-
ings were constructed and the Companies' manu-
facturing functions were moved into separate build-
ings . There is no evidence of any day-to-day inter-
change of either employees or supervisors since
that time, although, as will be discussed, "tranfers"
or "moves" between the Companies are not infre-
quent. The Hillenbrand complex now includes
three buildings containing Hill-Rom operations,
two buildings containing Batesville Casket oper-
ations, and several additional buildings which are
shared by the Companies, including an administra-
tion building, a medical facility, and a vehicle
garage.
In the mid-1970s, the Companies established sep-
arate' human resources (personnel) departments
and, as with Hillenbrand's other subsidiaries, both
now have separate boards of directors, officers,
personnel managers, etc. At the time of the hearing
in 1985, Hill-Rom employed 615 employees in
Batesville, with additional production facilities lo-
cated in Canada; Batesville Casket employed 575
employees in Batesville, with additional production
locations in 3 other States.
Hillenbrand Industries prescreens all applications
for employment at the main corporate office and
acceptable applicants are referred to one or the
other Company for interviews; the individual Com-
panies then make the final decision as to selection
or rejection of an applicant. Thereafter, discipline,
termination, and promotion is handled by the indi-
vidual Company. The Companies independently
process grievances up to the third level, at which
time the union grievance committee (consisting of
one plant steward from each of the five manufac-
turing buildings) and Hillenbrand's senior counsel
meet with the management of the particular Com-
pany involved. Decisions to proceed to arbitration
incorporated following the 1947 certification, and the Petitioners are
presently two of its five wholly owned subsidiaries.
283 NLRB No. 118
796 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
are made by the individual Company; however,
Hillenbrand's, counsel ,selects the arbitrators on
behalf of management and generally tries any arbi-
tration, although outside counsel also, has been em-
ployed.
The record shows that an employee of one Com-
pany may apply for an opening at the other Com-
pany and, if hired, will be credited with overall se-
niority on completion of a probationary period.
Similarly, . although bumping is not permitted be-
tween these two employers, employees laid off by
one of the two Companies may "move" to the
other Company-if there -is an opening. After com-
pleting a probationary period, that- employee will
become a permanent employee with seniority rights
carried over from the Company for which he origi-
nally worked. The evidence presented showed 23
such "transfers" or "moves" in the 6 months pre-
ceding the hearing alone.
The employees of Batesville Casket and Hill-
Rom share similar pay scales, and many job classi-
fications are common to both Companies. The av-
erage earnings of the employees at the two plants
are approximately equal; employees receive identi-
cal Christmas bonuses and identical benefits, with
the exception that -Hill-Rom allows its employees
to take vacation a day at a time if they desire while
Batesville Casket does not. Plant and safety rules
are issued by Hillenbrand and thus are identical- for
all of the production buildings, and , employees
from the two Companies participate together in
Hillenbrand-sponsored social and athletic activities,
as well as in union affairs and community events,
The parties have negotiated a series of consecu-
tive contracts covering this bargaining unit over
the past 50 years, and at no time prior to the in,-
stant proceeding has any party sought to modify or
change the unit, even though Hillenbrand's vice
president of human resources serves as spokesman
of the Petitioners' bargaining committee, and Hil-
lenbrand's senior counsel is a member of that com-
mittee as well.
The Regional Director dismissed the petition on
the ground that the Board's clarification process is
intended for recent and not historical changes. The
Petitioners contend, however, that significant
changes in the organizational structure and oper-
ations of the two Companies demonstrate that
there is no longer any community of, interest be-
tween the two groups of employees; thus, a com-
bined unit of both. Batesville Casket and Hill-Rom
employees is no longer appropriate,. Further, Peti-
tioners. contend that such changes need not be
recent in order to justify the separation of the
single unit into two separate units, relying on the
Board's decision in Rock-Tenn.
It is well established that the Board's unit clarifi-
cation process is not appropriate .for upsetting an
agreement of a union and -an employer or an estab-
lished practice of - such parties concerning unit
placement of various individuals or classifications.5
The Board determined in Rock-Tenn, however, to
clarify an existing multiplant unit to constitute two
separate single-plant units when it,- found that
"compelling circumstances" existed for, disregard-
ing the bargaining history on a two-plant basis, and
that the historical unit- no longer conformed reason-
ably well to the normal standards of appropriate-
ness.6
In Rock-Tenn, the union had been representing a
combined unit of employees working at a paper
mill and a partition plant since the purchase of the
plants by the Clevepak Corporation in 1968, and
the parties had negotiated successive collective-bar-
gaining agreements covering- employees in the
combined unit. During both the 1978 and 1980 ne-
gotiations, Clevepak proposed bargaining for the
employees as separate plant units. On both occa-
sions, 'the union rejected the proposals. After Cle-
vepak sold the paper mill and the partition plant to
separately incorporated operating divisions of
Rock-Tenn Company in 1983, the two corporations
jointly requested separate negotiations at each plant
for a new contract. The union refused, ' and the
companies filed the unit clarification petition. '
The Board found that, at the time of the 1983
purchases, there were few remaining factors of
commonality between the two plants. Thus, each
plant was engaged in a totally different operation
with - different manufacturing processes, ' each plant
had separate and distinct corporate management
and supervisory staff, labor relations control had
been completely decentralized,,, and 'grievances
were handled separately. There were many dissimi-
larities in working conditions, including different
hours of operation, separate hiring, no job bidding
between plants, no carryover of seniority if an em-
ployee transferred, and separate layoff and recall
policies. The collective-bargaining agreement was
administered on a separate basis for each plant, and
the Board noted that an ambiguous contract provi-
sion might be interpreted in one way in one plant
and in an entirely different way in the other.
The ' Board ` concluded that the significant
changes in the organizational structure and oper-
ations-of the two plants negated any community of
interest that may have existed previously among
employees of the two plants, and constituted "com-
5 See Union Electric Co., 217 NLRB 666 (1975); Columbia Gas Trans-
mission Corp., 213 NLRB 111 (1974).
6 274 NLRB at 773
BATESVILLE CASKET CO. 797
pelling circumstances" for disregarding the bar-
gaining history on a two-plant basis. Accordingly,
the Board clarified the unit as requested by the
companies to -find that only separate plant units
were appropriate. In so doing, the Board specifical-
ly noted that -the Rock-Tenn corporations had ac-
quired the plants "only recently," and although
they continued to abide by the predecessor's col-
lective-bargaining agreement for the "brief period"
prior to its expiration, "shortly" after, commencing
operations they requested the union to bargain on a
separate plant basis. Hence, the Board concluded
that their "interim adoption" of the two-plant
agreement did not preclude resolution of the dis-
pute. 7
Contrary to the Petitioners' contention that the
Regional Director erred in his application of Rock-
Tenn, we find that the Regional Director properly
applied that case and other relevant Board prece-
dents to the facts of the instant case. Further,
while in Rock-Tenn the Board adopted former
Chairman Miller's concurring opinion in Columbia
Gas,s' neither that concurring opinion nor the
Board's decision in Rock-Tenn indicated that the
Board should or would interfere with the composi-
tion of long-established bargaining units in the ab-
sence of recent, substantial changes. -
In the instant case, as in Rock-Tenn and Colum-
bia Gas, there is no ambiguity or dispute regarding
the parties' long history of collective bargaining in
the combined unit. Unlike the situation in Rock-
Tenn, however, here there have been no recent,
significant changes in the Petitioners' operations,
and at no time before the instant' petition was filed
did either party seek to modify the existing unit or
split it into two units as Petitioners now contend is
appropriate.
The record clearly shows that the only "signifi-
cant" operational changes involving the existing
unit were the establishment of separate ' manufactur-
ing plants and elimination of day-to-day inter-
change of employees, which occurred nearly 30
years ago, and the creation of separate personnel or
human resources departments, which occurred
over 10 years ago. No party disputes these facts.-10
Further, the same employees continue to perform
the same functions in the same locations under the
same immediate supervision, and the changes have
had no practical effect at all on several significant
areas of personnel policy or labor relations because
Hillenbrand Industries remains directly involved
with screening all applicants and approving then
for hire and with grievances and arbitrations on
behalf of these two subsidiaries, as well as with the
actual negotiation and execution of all collective-
bargaining, agreements.
In addition; the Companies have continued to ne-
gotiate as one with the Union as representative of
their employees in a single combined unit, and suc-
cessive agreements all have been agreed to on the
same unit basis. Lastly, we note that, at this time,
no party seeks an election among employees in the
established unit or questions the staitus of the Union
as the bargaining representative of the combined
unit' i or of either Company's work force.
We fired -that, although these, two Companies
function separately and autonomously in many re-
spects, -there continues to exist a high 'degree of
commonality due to the relationship of the parent
Company to its subsidiaries and the long history of
bargaining as a combined unit. Thus, the great ma-
jority of the changes which the Petitioners rely on
to support their request for separate plant units are
not recent, having occurred over 31) years ago; it is
obvious that such changes in no way have de-
stroyed the stability of the bargaining relationship
between these parties.
Accordingly, inasmuch as Petitioners have not
shown that there have been recent, substantial
changes in their operations, or that other compel-
ling circumstances exist which would warrant dis-
regarding the long-existing bargaining history of
the two-plant unit, and as the single unit of Peti-
tioners' employees is not contrary to the provisions
of the Act, we find it would not further the Act's
purpose of promoting industrial stability to clarify
this . established unit to constitute two separate
units, merely because Petitioners now have asked
us to do so. Accordingly, we affirm the Regional
Director's dismissal of the instant petition.
7 274 NLRB at 774 fn 7.
The, Regional Director also relied on Silnar Hauserman , 273 NLRB
fl176 (1984); and Union Electric Co., 217 NLRB 666 (1975).
9 Former Chairman Miller stated that " [i]f the two units proposed
were shown to be appropriate units by our usual standards , and if the ex-
isting single unit had been rendered inappropriate by reason of organiza-
tional changes, I would grant the petition" for clarification ., 213 NLRB at
112. He concurred in the result reached by the majority , however, as he
found that the two separate units proposed by the Employer were not
appropriate, and that the existing unit had been rendered appropriate by
bargaining history.
10 There is evidence, however, that the latter change , creation of sepa-
rate human resources departments , resulted in little or no change in
"labor policy" or "the, procedure and process of collective-bargaming."
ORDER
The Regional Director's dismissal of the petition
is affirmed.
CHAIRMAN DOTSON, dissenting.
Contrary to my colleagues, I would grant the
Employers' petition to clarify the existing two-
plant unit to constitute two separate units. It is
11 National Education Assn., 206 NLRB 893 (1973).
798 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
clear that the historical (combined) unit is no
longer appropriate when measured against the
Board's usual standards. Thus, Batesville Casket
and Hill-Rom are now entirely separate Compa-
nies, each with its own board of directors, manage-
ment, and supervisory hierarchy. Their manufac-
turing facilities and equipment are separate and dis-
tinct, and there is no interchange of employees or
supervisors. Each Company.has its own administra-
tive and human resources (personnel) departments,
and handles its own promotions, discipline, and,ter-
mination. Grievances are handled within the sepa-
rate Company up to the third level, and it is the
individual, Company that makes the decision
whether to pursue a grievance to arbitration.
Contrary to the "recency -of change" require-
ment, which my colleagues purport to enunciate
today, the standard articulated by Chairman Miller
in his concurrence in Columbia Gas Transmission
Corp., 213 NLRB 111, 112 (1974), subsequently and
specifically adopted by the Board as its standard, in
Rock-Tenn Co., makes no mention of recency.1
Thus, it is immaterial that the changes which oc-
curred in this case are not recent. It is undisputed
that these changes did take place, and that the sep-
arate corporate and operational structure of these
Companies, together with the lack of functional in-
tergration, the decentralization of labor policies,
and the absence of employee interchange, have ne-
' "If the two units proposed ... were shown to be appropriate units
by [the Board's] usual standards , and if the existing single unit had been
rendered inappropriate by reason of organizational changes, [the Board
should] grant the petition for clarification " 274 NLRB 772, 774 fn. 7
(1985).
gated the community of interest which once existed
between the employees of the Companies, and
hence have rendered a combined unit inappropriate
for purposes of meaningful and effective collective
bargaining.
Section 9 of the Act mandates that the -Board de-
termine in each case what unit is appropriate for
the purposes of collective bargaining. In my, view,
the majority is both' abdicating this statutory re-
sponsibility and ignoring the realities of business
and industry. Whether a single sudden or recent
organizational change of enormous impact has oc-
curred should be immaterial to the Board's consid-
eration. The organizational result is the same re-
gardless of whether the changes are sudden and
recent or, instead, as in this case, evolved slowly
over a longer period of time-the Board must take
the case as it is presented and make its ' determina-
tion based on the facts before it.
Finally, I note that the decision in Rock-Tenn,
changing Board policy, was announced barely a
year before the instant petition was filed. Thus, I
find it inappropriate to fault the Employers for not
seeking to clarify sooner the historical and, in my
view, now clearly inappropriate unit. Accordingly,
as the two units proposed are shown to- be appro-
priate units by the Board's usual standards, and as
the existing single unit has been rendered inappro-
priate by reason of organizational changes,2 I
would grant the Employers' petition and clarify the
unit into two separate, single-plant units, as_ request-
ed.
2 See Rock-Tenn , supra.