Celanese Corp. of America

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 28, 1949

81 N.L.R.B. 1041 (N.L.R.B. 1949)

In the Matter of CELANESE CORPORATION OF AMERICA, EMPLOYER and
OIL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, PETITIONER
Case No. 39-RC-17.-Decided February 08, 1949
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before a hearing
officer of the National Labor Relations Board. 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 National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-man panel consisting of the undersigned Board
Members. *
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The business of the Employer :
The Employer, a Delaware corporation, is engaged in the manufac-
ture, production, sale, and distribution of plastics, textiles, and chemi-
cals in several States of the United States. The Employer's chemical
division includes a chemical plant located at Bishop, Texas, a labora-
tory in connection with its Newark, New Jersey, plant, and a research
plant located at Clarkswood, Texas. The Clarkswood research plant
is the only operation directly involved in this proceeding. The
Employer does not concede that it is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the Act in the operation of its Clarkswood research plant.
The Employer devotes its Clarkswood research plant entirely to
experimental and research projects in the chemistry of hydrocarbons
or petroleum products. At this plant, it produces no products for
the commercial market. All experimental projects are approved by
the Employer at its main office in New York City. The reports and
results of all such projects are forwarded to the Employer's main
office. The experimentation at the Clarkswood plant has resulted in
proposals for changes at the Employer's Bishop, Texas, plant, but, up
to the time of the hearing, no proposals as a result of these experiments
'Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Gray
81 N. L. K. B., No. 161.
1041
1042 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
have been made for plants located outside Texas. The Clarkswood
research plant, however, is but one phase of the Employer' s numerous
integrated operations.
We find, contrary to its contention, that the Employer's operations
at its Clarkswood, Texas, research plant affect commerce within the
meaning of the Act."
2. The labor organization named below claims to represent employ-
ees 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 appropriate unit :
The Employer and the Petitioner agree that a unit of all produc-
tion, maintenance , and laboratory employees at the Employer's re-
search plant at Clarkswood, Texas, including assistant chemists, but
excluding chemists, office and clerical employees, guards, and super-
visors, constitute an appropriate unit. The parties are in dispute
over the status of the following classifications of employees : (1)
warehouse supervisor, (2) assistant warehouse supervisor, (3) pilot
plant supervisors, and (4) laboratory technicians. The Employer
contends they should be excluded as supervisors or professional em-
ployees, and the Petitioner contends that they should be included in
the bargaining unit as production or maintenance workers.
1. Warehouse supervisor. The warehouse supervisor, under the
Employer's business manager, has the sole responsibility for the main-
tenance of the warehouse from all angles, including the supervision
of the checking of incoming and outgoing supplies and the main-
tenance of an inventory of supplies. He directs the work of six
warehouse employees, the assistant warehouse supervisor, a helper,
a clerical employee, and three custodial employees.
According to the Employer, the warehouse supervisor has authority
to recommend the dismissal or demotion of warehouse employees, but
he has had no occasion to exercise this authority. His recommenda-
tions, if made, would go directly to the Employer's business manager,
who would make an independent investigation, and ultimately to the
director of research, who has the final authority on dismissals. The
business manager testified that he would rely on the recommenda-
tions of the warehouse supervisor and, in most cases, it would be
upheld. We find that the warehouse supervisor is a supervisor within
the meaning of the Act and shall, therefore, exclude him from the unit.
1 Matter of Celanese Corporation of America , 78 N. L R . B. 1047 ; Matter of Celanese
Corporation of America, 72 N. L R B 1194, and Matter of Celanese Corporation of
America, 60 N. L. R. B. 1144.
CELANESE CORPORATION OF AMERICA 1043
2. Assistant warehouse supervisor. The assistant warehouse super-
visor has no authority to discharge or to recommend effectively the
discharge of employees. On occasions, however, when the ware-
house supervisor is absent, the assistant warehouse supervisor assumes
his authority. The assistant warehouse supervisor has the responsi-
bility for the direction of employees only when the warehouse super-
visor is absent. Because the assistant warehouse supervisor exer-
cises directive authority only sporadically during the absence of the
warehouse supervisor, we find that he is not a supervisor within the
meaning of the Act and we shall include him in the Unit .2
3. Pilot plant supervisors. A pilot plant is an experimental unit
or large scale plant model. Upon beginning operations at the Clarks-
wood plant, the Employer started with 1 pilot plant and with approxi-
mately 10 employees, among whom was a pilot plant supervisor. As
the Employer expanded its work, it increased the number of its pilot
plants and extended their operation to 24 hours per day and 7 days
per week.
Before July 1948, there were at the plant 1 pilot plant superintendent
and 2 pilot plant supervisors. A chief pilot plant operator was in
charge of each pilot plant with a pilot plant operator assistant or
helper under him. The parties agree that before July, the 4 em-
ployees classified as chief pilot plant operators were not supervisors
within the meaning of the Act .3 The parties further agree that the
2 pilot plant supervisors and the pilot plant superintendent were
supervisors.
In July 1948, due to expansion, the Employer made changes in its
pilot plant personnel. It promoted the four employees who were
then serving as chief pilot plant operators over individual pilot plant
units to positions as pilot plant supervisors or shift supervisors, giv-
ing them charge of four pilot plant units each. The pilot plant
operator-helpers, reclassified as pilot plant operators, were placed in
charge of operating individual plant units under the direct and
immediate supervision of a pilot plant supervisor. The Employer
discontinued the classification of chief pilot plant operator and pilot
plant operator-helper.
The four employees reclassified as pilot plant supervisors, who are
in dispute, correlate the data of the four experimental units under
their charge and they assist, and train the less skilled pilot plant
operators under their immediate direction. It is their responsibility
to keep these men on training schedules for a maximum time to give
2 Matter of The Ohio Power Company ( Canton Division ), 80 N. L. R B. 582.
8 Additional temporary supervisors were appointed for shift work.
829595-50-vol. 81-67
1044 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Employer the maximum results of their work. A pilot plant
supervisor cannot transfer employees. As the Employer operates its
plant on a 7-day, 24-hour program, it works on day, night, and week-
end shifts. On the day shift the pilot plant superintendent is in
charge of the pilot plant work. During the night shifts and on the
week-end shifts, the pilot plant supervisor is in charge not only of the
four experimental pilot plant units assigned to his immediate super-
vision, but for the direction of the maintenance mechanic and labora-
tory employees if their supervisor is absent.
According to the Employer, a pilot plant supervisor may make an
effective recommendation for the dismissal of an employee to his
immediate supervisor who makes an independent investigation and
then forwards a report to his immediate supervisor. Final authority
for dismissal rests in the director of research. No pilot plant super-
visor has so far had an occasion to recommend dismissal. The hiring of
employees is effected through the Employer's personnel office. Sev-
eral persons may interview a prospective employee, including the pilot
plant superintendent.
The parties agree that the position of pilot plant supervisor prior
to July 1948 was supervisory. The record does not indicate that there
are any differences between the position in July 1948, concerning
which there is no dispute and the position at the present time. The
record indicates that the expansion of the Employer's research opera-
tions requires six pilot plant supervisors rather than the two pilot
plant supervisors supplemented by temporary supervisors on shifts.
We conclude that pilot plant supervisors are supervisors within the
meaning of the Act and we shall exclude them from the appropriate
unit.
4. Laboratory technicians. There are two laboratory technicians
employed at the Clarkswood plant. The Employer contends that these
technicians are professional employees and should be excluded. One
of the technicians had 2 years of college training and worked for the
Employer for 6 months as a laboratory assistant before he was pro-
moted to laboratory technician. The other laboratory technician had
7 years of laboratory experience before he was employed by the Em-
ployer as laboratory technician. Both laboratory technicians perform
a variety of laboratory tests and use independent judgment in attempt-
ing to improve laboratory methods. In most instances, the experi-
ments performed are suggested by their supervisor and results are
usually checked by their supervisor. All results are reexamined by
the chief chemist. Due to the nature of the research work being done,
there is change and improvement in the experiments performed. It
does not appear, however, that the laboratory technicians have or re-
CELANESE CORPORATION OF AMERICA 1045
quire the qualifications of professional employees within the meannig
of Section 2 (12) of the Act. Therefore, we find that the laboratory
technicians are not professional employees, and we shall include them
in the unit
We find that all production, maintenance, and laboratory employees
at the Employer's Clarkswood, Texas, research plant, including as-
sistant chemists, assistant warehouse supervisor, and laboratory tech-
nicians, but excluding chemists, office and clerical employees, guards,
the warehouse supervisor, pilot plant supervisors, and all other super-
visors within the meaning of the Act, constitute a unit appropriate
for purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section
9 (b) of the Act.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
purposes of collective bargaining with the Employer, an election by
secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than
.30 days from the date of this Direction, under the direction and super-
vision of the Regional Director for the Region in which this case was
heard, and subject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62 of National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 5, as amended, among
the employees in the unit found appropriate in paragraph numbered
4, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately
preceding the date of this Direction of Election, including employees
who did not work during said pay-roll period because they were ill
or on vacation or temporarily laid off, but excluding those employees
who have since quit or been discharged for cause and have not been
rehired or reinstated prior to the date of the election, and also excluding
employees on strike who are not entitled to reinstatement, to determine
whether or not they desire to be represented, for purposes of collective
bargaining, by Oil Workers International Union.
4 Matter of American Window Glass Company, 77 N. L R. B 1030 and Matter of Alpine
Trailing Co. and Eutectic Welding Alloy Corp ., 77 N. L. R. B. 766.