Copolymer Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 31, 1947

74 N.L.R.B. 921 (N.L.R.B. 1947)

In the Matter of COPOLYMER CORPORATION, EMPLOYER and INTER-
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, PETITIONER
Case No. 75-R-2077.Decided July, 31, 1947
Messrs. C. M. Hlulings and F. L. Atkinson, both of Baton Rouge, La.,
for the Employer.
Mr. John W. Carlton, of Fort Worth, Tex., and 111r. J. T. Farr,
of New Orleans, La., for the Petitioner.
111essrs. Aubrey B. Hirsh, James R. Brignac, and J. D. Parker, all
of Baton Rouge, La., for the Intervenor.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Baton
Rouge, Louisiana, on May 21, and 22, 1947, before C. Paul Barker,
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
Copolymer Corporation, a Louisiana corporation, is engaged in the
manufacture of synthetic rubber at a plant located at Baton Rouge,
Louisiana, which it operates as agent for the Office of Rubber Re-
serve of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation. Annually, the
Employer processes about 25,000 tons of synthetic rubber, all of which
is delivered to the Office of Rubber Reserve for its account and is,
in turn, shipped outside the State of Louisiana.
The Employer admits, and we find, that it is engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
74 N L It. B., No. 145.
921
922 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The Petitioner is a labor organization, claiming to represent em-
ployees of the Employer.
American Federation of Labor, herein called the Intervenor, is a
labor organization, 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.
The Baton Rouge plant commenced operations in early 1943, and
following an election held about 6 months later, the Board certified
the Intervenor as the exclusive bargaining representative of the Em-
ployer's production and maintenance workers.' Subsequent bargain-
ing relations between the Employer and the Intervenor resulted in a
series of contracts; one of these agreements was dated August 25,
1945, and was to continue until December 31, 1946, and from year
to year thereafter unless either party gave notice of a desire to cancel
or modify the contract 60 days before any anniversary date. The
Petitioner notified the Employer of its representation claim on Octo-
ber 30, 1946; the Employer received this claim on the following day,
and the Petitioner filed its petition on November 7, 1946, within 10
days of its claim. Subsequently, the Employer and the Intervenor
agreed to reopen and renegotiate their contract, and finally, on Janu-
ary 17, 1947, executed an entirely new agreement.
No party appears to argue that the 1945 agreement is a bar to the
instant proceeding. Nor would such an argument be tenable, since
the Petitioner notified the Employer of its claim to representation
prior to the 1946 effective date of the agrement's automatic renewal
clause and filed its petition within 10 days of its claim. Moreover,
while the petition was on file, the parties to the contract reopened it.3
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Employer, within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT; THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
The Petitioner seeks a separate bargaining unit limited to inside
and outside machinists, machinists' welders, leadermen, and their
helpers and apprentices working at the Baton Rouge plant, excluding
1 Matter of Copolymer Corporation , 52 N. L. R B 578
2 See Matter of General Electric X-Ray Corporation, 67 N. L. R B. 997.
3 See Matter of Honolulu Rapid Transit Company, Limited , 71 N. L. R. B. 172.
COPOLYMER CORPORATION 923-
office, clerical, and supervisory personnel. The Intervenor and the
Employer oppose this request, contending that the existing plant-
wide unit, which was originally established pursuant to a Board-
directed election ,4 should not be disturbed.
At the time that the Board found appropriate a unit comprising
all the Employer's production and maintenance workers, no individual
craft union or group, whether or not affiliated with the Intervenor,.
requested a different unit and no consideration was given by the,
Board to propriety of a craft or other unit less than plant-wide in
scope. At that time the Petitioner was affiliated with the Intervenor
and, by reason of such affiliation, its members participated fully in
the election, which was won by the Intervenor.
During subsequent bargaining relations between the Employer and
the Intervenor, the employees maintained their membership in their
respective affiliated crafts. It has been the general practice for the
Employer to hire all needed workers, who have almost always been
skilled craftsmen, through the respective craft unions, including the
Petitioner, rather than through the A. F. L. (the Intervenor) as an
entity. Furthermore, any grievances or individual problems affecting
only the members of a particular craft have been handled by the Em-
ployer and the international representative or local business agent of
the craft union having jurisdiction. The members of each craft choose
their own shop steward, whose function has been limited to the han-
dling of grievances and other problems with the immediate foreman.5
The Petitioner and its individual members have always participated in
these phases of industrial relations at the Employer's plant.
In the early part of 1946, the Petitioner's affiliation with the Inter-
venor was severed. Nevertheless, the Petitioner continued to repre-
sent the machinists in the Employer's plant just as if it were still
affiliated with the Intervenor. However, when the 1947 contract was
being negotiated, the Intervenor declined to grant the Petitioner's re-
quest for specific recognition under the contract. For this reason,
alone, the Petitioner decided to press the instant petition, which it had
previously filed.
The parties stipulated that the employees sought by the Petitioner
constitute a true craft group. Similar craft groups have been found
appropriate among other companies in the synthetic rubber industry.6
The only question remaining, therefore, is whether the Board's prior
determination that a production and maintenance unit was appropri-
4 See footnote 1, supra.
These shop stewards have not been dealt with in any other manner
Matter of The Goodyear Synthetic Rubber Corporation , 74 Ni L R B 419 , Matter
of The B F. Goodrich Rubber Company , 55 N L R B 338, Matter of B. F Goodrich Com-
pany ( Copolymer Plant ), 51 N L R B. 872.
924 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ate, and the bargaining history based thereon, preclude a finding now
that the Petitioner's request for an opportunity to establish a separate
craft unit should be granted. As stated above, the Board gave no
consideration to the propriety of a craft unit at the time of its 1943
finding of a plant-wide unit, and this issue is now before us for the
first time. In addition, it is clear that the bargaining relations pre-
vailing among the Employer, the Intervenor, the latter's various craft
constituents, and the Petitioner have been of such a nature that the
separate interests of the Petitioner as well as the other craft groups
were not entirely merged during the bargaining history following the
Intervenor's certification. In fact, these interests have been carefully
and intentionally preserved. In view of all these circumstances, we
are of the opinion that the employees whom the Petitioner seeks to
"represent should now be given the opportunity to demonstrate in a
Board election whether or not they desire separate representation.7
Accordingly, we shall direct an election among the Employer's ma-
chinists, machinists' welders, leadermen, and their helpers and appren-
tices working in the Baton Rouge plant, excluding office and clerical
personnel and all supervisory employees.
We shall make no determination of the appropriate unit at this time.
Such determination will depend, in part, upon the results of the elec-
tion. If the employees in the voting group select the Petitioner, they
will be taken to have indicated a desire to constitute a separate bar-
gaining unit; if they choose the Intervenor, they will be taken to have
indicated a desire to remain part of the existing production and
maintenance unit.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION 8
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining with Copolymer Corporation, Baton
Rouge, Louisiana, 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 Fifteenth 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 voting group described in Section
IV, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately
preceding the date of this Direction, including employees who did not
° See Matter of Kaiser Company , Inc. (Iron and Steel Division ), 73 N. L. R B 931;
Matter of The American Fork & Hoe Company, 72 N. L. R. B 1025.
B Any participant in the election herein may, upon its prompt request to and approval
thereof by the Regional Director , have its name removed from the ballot.
COPOLYMER CORPORATION 925
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 they desire to be represented by Inter-
national Association of Machinists, or by American Federation of
Labor, for the purposes of collective bargaining, or by neither.
CHAIRMAN HERZOG took no part in the consideration of the above De-
,cision and Direction of Election.