Chas. Lennig & Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 14, 1947

73 N.L.R.B. 389 (N.L.R.B. 1947)

In the Matter Of CHAS. LENNIG & CO., INC., EMPLOYER and INTER-
NATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, LOCAL 541, PETITIONER
Case .Yo. 4-R-24173.-Decided April 14, 1947
Mr. J. Arvid Jonsson, of Philadelphia, Pa., for the Employer and
for Resinous Products.
Mr. Albert J. Persichetti, of Philadelphia, Pa., for the Petitioner.
Miss Muriel J. Levor, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Phila-
delphia, Pennsylvania, on January 7, 1947, before Helen Humphrey,
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are
free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations
Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Chas. Lennig & Co., Inc., is a Pennsylvania corporation with its
principal place of business at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, where it
operates its Bridesburg plant. It is there engaged in the manu-
facture, sale , and distribution of heavy chemical specialties . During
the year 1945, the Employer purchased raw materials, consisting of
ammonia, sulphur, methanol, sodium chloride, and copper, valued in
excess of $500,000, of which approximately 80 percent was shipped
to the plant from points outside Pennsylvania. During the same
period, the Employer sold manufactured products valued in excess
of $1,000,000, of which more than 75 percent was shipped to points
outside Pennsylvania.
The Employer is a subsidiary of Rohm & Haas Company, which
also operates chemical plants in its own name. Affiliated with Rohm
& Haas Company is Resinous ' Products and Chemical Co., called
Resinous Products, herein. Resinous Products, a Delaware corpora-
tion with its principal place of business at the Bridesburg plant at
73 N. L. R B.. No. 74. 389
390 DECISIONS OF NATTONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Philadelphia, which it operates jointly with the Employer, is engaged
in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of synthetic resins. During
the year 1945, Resinous Products purchased raw material consisting
of phenol, formaldehyde, castor oil, rosin, glycerine, butyl-alcohol,
and pythalic anhydride, valued in excess of $500,000, of which ap-
proximately 70 percent was shipped to the plant from points outside
Pennsylvania.
The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with the American
Federation of Labor, claiming to represent employees of the
Employer.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Employer refuses to recognize the Petitioner as the exclusive
bargaining representative of employees of the Employer until the
Petitioner has been certified by the Board in an appropriate unit.
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Employer, within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Employer and Resinous Products, the subsidiary and affiliate,
respectively, of Rohni & Haas Company, as noted above, jointly oc-
cupy a site of about 50 acres, on which are situated many buildings
devoted to the manufacture of chemicals and chemical specialties,
collectively called the Bridesburg plant. A plant manager heads
their joint operations. Under him are two assistant plant managers,
one in charge of the Employer's operations, and the other in charge
of the operations of Resinous Products. Maintenance and power-
house employees service the entire plant, but are listed solely on the
Employer's pay roll. There are no maintenance and powerhouse
employees on the pay roll of Resinous Products.
The Petitioner seeks a unit limited to maintenance and powerhouse
employees on the Employer's pay roll at the Bridesburg plant. The
Employer, urging that the Employer and Resinous Products to-
gether operate the one plant as a single "Company," and that work-
ing conditions of all production and maintenance employees are
similar, contends that production and maintenance employees at
the joint plant, on the pay rolls both of the Employer and of Resin-
CHAS. LENNIG & CO., INC. 391
ous Products, excluding research, salaried, supervisory, office, and
plant-protection employees, constitute a single appropriate unit.
Approximately 750 production, 200 maintenance, and 35 power-
house employees, having uniform working conditions such as, vaca-
tions, holidays, bonuses, etc., work in this joint plant. Production
employees, however, work on a shift basis while maintenance em-
ployees work only 1 shift. In addition to their strictly production
work, production employees perform minor maintenance tasks and,
on those rare occasions when some large job is undertaken, they
work side by side with maintenance employees to assist them in the
less skilled work. There is, however, little interchange of employees
between the production and maintenance departments. Maintenance
men do the work of electricians, carpenters, riggers, machinists, pipe
welders, pipe fitters, and lead burners.
The powerhouse and maintenance employees are headed by a chief
engineer, under whom is a powerhouse engineer in charge of the
powerhouse, and a plant engineer with six to eight engineers assisting
him in the supervision of maintenance employees. Below these super-
visors are foremen, whom both parties desire to exclude, and working
leaders, whom they desire to include.'
There has been no previous collective bargaining history at this
plant to bear on the appropriateness of the proposed unit.2 The Peti-
tioner has not sought to organize the production employees at the joint
plant nor is any labor organization seeking to represent them. The
proposed unit, however, is similar to the unit of maintenance employees
found appropriate for employees at a plant of Rohm & Haas Com-
pany,3 of whom the Employer is a subsidiary.
Although the Bridesburg plant operations are integrated and a
unit composed of production and maintenance employees working
there for both concerns might be appropriate, nevertheless, the inainte-
nance and powerhouse employees comprise a clearly identifiable and
homogeneous group such as we have previously held to constitute an
appropriate unit' Moreover, no labor organization has attempted to
organize the employees on a broader basis. Under all the circum-
stances, we are of the opinion that maintenance and powerhouse em-
ployees listed on the Employer's pay roll may constitute a unit appro-
priate for collective bargaining at this time.
'Working leaders do not have supervisory authority within our definition of the term
'In Matter of Resinous Products and Chemical Company, Charles Lena g and Com-
pany, Inc, 50 N L R B 991, where a unit of "operators and helpers" was sorght by the
Independent Chemical Workers Organization, the Board dismissed the petition because the
unit was inappropriate
3 Matter of Rohm if Maas Company, 51 N L R B 1232 The Petitioner herein was there-
after selected as collective bargaining representative by the maintenance employees
4 Matter of Wilhain R. Warner if Co , Inc, 65 N L R B 1350 ; Matter of Rohm if Baas
Company, supra.
392 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Petitioner would include in the maintenance unit the locomotive
engineer, the crane man and helper, and a switchman. The Employer
would exclude them. Since these employees are production employees,
working under the supervision of production foremen, we shall exclude
the locomotive engineer, crane operator and helper, and the switchmen
from the maintenance unit.
We find that all maintenance and powerhouse employees listed on
the Employer's pay roll at the Bridesburg plant, including working
leaders, but excluding production and clerical employees, the locomo-
tive engineer, the crane operator and helper, switchman, foremen, and
all other supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, dis-
charge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of em-
ployees, or effectively recommend such action, constitute a unit appro-
priate for the 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 pur-
poses of collective bargaining with Chas. Lennig & Co., Inc., Philadel-
phia, Pennsylvania, an election by secret ballot shall be conducted as
early as possible, but not later than thirty (30) days from the date of
this Direction, under the direction and supervision of the Regional
Director for the Fourth Region, acting in this matter as agent for the
National Labor Relations Board, and subject to Sections 203.55 and
203.56, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-
Series 4, among-the employees in the unit found appropriate in Section
IV, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately
preceding the date of this Direction, including employees who did not
work during said pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation
or temporarily laid off, and including employees in the armed forces of
the United States who present themselves in person at the polls, 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, to determine whether or not they desire to be represented by
International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 541, for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining.
CHAIRMAN HERZOG took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Election.