Columbia-Southern Chemical Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 6, 1954

110 N.L.R.B. 1189 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

COLUMBIA-SOUTHERN CHEMICAL CORPORATION 1189
parties to an overall collective-bargaining contract necessarily contem-
plated might be added in the regular operation of the plant. In any
event, they were expressly included in the coverage of the contract,
by written agreement, before the IAM made any claim to represent
them. Although the contract, as clarified, does not specify the wage
rates for the tool- and die-makers and the machinists, it details the
other conditions of employment. In these circumstances, we are satis-
fied, contrary to the contention of the IAM, that the resultant contract
fully stabilizes labor relations between the parties as to all the produc-
tion and maintenance employees.' Accordingly we find that the pres-
ent contract is a bar to this proceeding. We shall therefore dismiss the
petition.
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
3 Rillboa7d Publishing Company, 108 NLRB 182
'COLUMBIA-SOUTHERN CHEMICAL CORPORATION and HARRY E. ROBERTS,
AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL., PETITIONER and INTERNATIONAL CHEMICAL
WORKERS UNION, LOCAL #45, AFL. Case No. 6-RD-106. Decem-
ber 6, 1954
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 Sidney Lawrence, 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 this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The Petitioner, an employee of the Employer, asserts that the
Intervenor, International Chemical Workers Union, Local #45, AFL,
herein called the Union, is no longer the bargaining representative
of the guard employees designated in the petition, as defined in Sec-
tion 9 (a) of the Act.
3. A question concerning commerce exists concerning the represen-
tation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section
9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
The Union has been the collective-bargaining representative of the
Employer's production and maintenance employees and of the Em-
ployer's guard employees since 19461 These two groups of employees
1 The Board certified the Union as the exclusive bargaining representative for the unit
of production and maintenance employees in August 1952 following a consent election.
The guard unit has never been certified.
110 NLRB No. 195.
1190 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
have always been represented in separate units and covered by sepa-
rate contracts. The only unit in issue here is that of the guard
employees.
The Union contends that its most recent contract covering the
guards operates as a bar to the instant petition, which was filed on
July 22, 1954.2 We do not agree . Section 9 (b) (3) of the Act
provides that the Board shall not decide that any unit is appropriate
for purposes of collective bargaining "if it includes, together with
other employees, any individual employed as a guard to enforce
against employees and other persons rules to protect property of the
employer or to protect the safety of persons on the employer's prem-
ises; but no labor organization shall be certified as the representative
of employees in a bargaining unit of guards if such organization admits
to membership, or is affiliated directly or indirectly with an organi-
zation which admits to membership, employees other than guards."
The Union, however, is requesting here that the Board apply its con-
tract-bar rules where such application will result in sustaining the
contract of a union in a unit which the statute prohibits the Board
from certifying as an appropriate unit for purposes of collective
bargaining.
In the recent Monsanto case's the Board was confronted with the
question of whether a contract covering a unit which included both
production and maintenance employees and guards could constitute
a valid bar to a petition for an election among the guard employees
only. The Board there viewed the language of Section 9 (b) (3),
precluding it from establishing as appropriate a unit containing
guards as well as other employees, as requiring it to hold such a con-
tract not to be a bar insofar as the guards were concerned. The Board
pointed out, inter alia, that it was thereby giving recognition to the
basic intent of Congress that guards should not be included in the
same unit with other employees.
In our opinion, similar considerations are operative here. Thus,
while the Act merely forbids the Board from certifying as a represent-
ative of a guard unit a union which admits to membership employees
other than guards or which is affiliated directly or indirectly with such
a union, holding the contract not to be a bar here gives recognition
to the basic intent of Congress that guards should not be represented
by unions which admit to membership employees other than guards,
or which are affiliated directly or indirectly with unions which admit
8In our view of the case , we find it immaterial to our decision to determine whether
the effective date of the contract for bar purposes is June 25 or July 14, 1954. We also
deem it unnecessary to pass upon any other of the grounds advanced by the union in
support of its contention that the contract between it and the Employer constitutes a bar
to this proceeding
8 Monsanto Chemical Company, 108 NLRB 870.
RAYONIER, INC. 1191
to membership employees other than guards.' In view of the fore-
going, we find that the Union's contract with the Employer is not a bar
to the present proceeding.-5 .
4. We find, in accord with the stipulation of the parties, that all
guards employed at the Employer's Natrium plant in New Martins-
ville, West Virginia, excluding corporals and supervisors as defined
in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election 6 omitted from publication.]
4 In Mack Manufacturing Corporation , 107 NLRB 209 , the Board held that Congress
clearly intended by Section 9 (b) (3) that the union representing guards should be com-
pletely divorced from that representing nonguard employees . See also Legislative History
of the Labor -Management Relations Act, 1947, volume 2, p. 1544, wherein Senator Taft
stated that the provisions as to plant guards provided that they could have the protec-
tion of the Wagner Act only if they had a union separate and apart from the union of
the general employees.
5 Monsanto Chemical Company, supra ; Nash Kelvinator Corporation, 107 NLRB 644;
Pittsburgh Plate G lass Company ( Milwaukee Paint Division ), 104 NLRB 900.
$ Although the fact that the Union admits to membership employees other than guards
would, under Section 9 (b) (3) of the Act , preclude certification of the Union as the
representative of the guards , it does not prevent the Board from conducting a decertifi-
cation election in the unit of guards . In the event the Union wins the election , therefore,
we shall certify only the arithmetical results of the election . Western Electric Company,
87 NLRB 544 ; Westinghouse Electric Corporation, 78 NLRB 10.
RAYONIER, INC. and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF PULP, SULPHITE
AND PAPER MILL WORKERS, AFL AND INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION
OF MACHINISTS , AFL, AND UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN
AND APPRENTICES OF THE PLUMBING AND PIPE FITTING INDUSTRY
OF THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA, LOCAL 177, AFL, PETITIONERS.
Cases Nos. 10-RC-2781, 10-RC-2793, 10-RC-2794, 10-RC-9795,
and 10-RC797. December 6,1954
Decision and Direction of Election
Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before
Lloyd R. Franker, 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 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 representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section
9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
110 NLRB No. 199.