Corn Products Refining Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 18, 1948

80 N.L.R.B. 362 (N.L.R.B. 1948)

In the Matter of CORN PRODUCTS REFINING COMPANY, EMPLOYER and
LOCAL #34, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORK-
ERS, PETITIONER
In the Matter of CORN PRODUCTS REFINING COMPANY, EMPLOYER and
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF FIREMEN AND OILERS #8, A. F. L.,
PETITIONER
In the Matter Of CORN PRODUCTS REFINING COMPANY, EMPLOYER and
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, LOCAL 8, PETI-
TIONER
Cases Nos.13-R-4403,13-R-4403, and 13-R-4404, respectively,
Decided November 18, 1948
DECISION
AND
ORDER
Upon petitions duly filed, a consolidated hearing was held on Febru-
ary 11, 1948, before a hearing officer of the National Labor Relations
Board. At the hearing, the hearing officer erroneously limited the
intervention of America Federation of Grain Processors, Federal
Union 18851, A. F. L., herein called the Intervenor, to proof of mat-
ters relating to the contract bar issue, because the Intervenor had not
complied with Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) of the amended Act. On
June 29, 1948, the Board reversed the hearing officer's ruling and
directed that the record be reopened and that a further hearing be
held for the purpose of affording the Intervenor an opportunity to
intervene fully in the proceeding.
Thereafter, a further hearing was held on August 17, 1948, at which
the Intervenor was afforded an opportunity to introduce evidence
concerning all issues in the case. The rulings made by the hearing
officer at both hearings are free from prejudicial error, and, with the
exception noted above, are hereby affirmed. All parties were afforded
opportunity to file briefs in support of their respective positions.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:.
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the National Labor Relations Act.
80 N. L. R. B., No. 78.
362
CORN PRODUCTS REFINING COMPANY 363
2. The Petitioners and the Intervenor are labor organizations
claiming to represent employees of the Employer.
3. The Employer and the Intervenor both moved at the original
hearing to dismiss the petitions herein on the following grounds :
(1) that their contract, executed on November 7, 1947, to become
effective December 1, 1947, is a bar to this proceeding; (2) that past
bargaining history on a plant-wide production and maintenance
basis, in the plant here involved and in the wet-milling industry gen-
erally, precludes the severance of smaller bargaining units; and (3)
that the units here sought are inherently inappropriate for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining.
With respect to the first point raised by the Employer and the
Intervenor, the record discloses that the petitions herein were timely
filed on April 25, 1947. On June 4, 1947, the Board's Regional Direc-
tor advised all the parties that he was dismissing the petitions, and
that appeals from his dismissal might be taken by filing, within 10
days thereafter, a request therefor with the Board in Washington,
D. C., and filing a copy of such request with the Regional Director.
The Petitioners made timely appeals in accordance with the Board's
Rules and Regulations, but neither the Employer nor the Intervenor
was formally notified of this action. After June 4, 1947, the Inter-
venor and the Employer resumed earlier contract negotiations which
they had suspended when the instant petitions were filed. They
reached agreement 5 months later, and on November 7, 1947, executed
the contract which they now urge as a bar. On November 6, 1947,
the Board granted the appeals from the Regional Director's dismis-
sals and reinstated the petitions, but the record does not show that
either of the contracting parties was notified of the Board's action
until November 12, 1947.
The Board's 5-month delay in ruling on the Petitioners' appeals
is regrettable, but it cannot serve as a basis for dismissing petitions
which were timely filed. Moreover, no contract bar could arise under
the circumstances of this case as the Employer was notified of the
reinstatement of the petitions more than 2 weeks before the effective
date of its current contract with the Intervenor.' The Board never-
theless grants the motions to dismiss by the Employer and the Inter-
venor, as we find, for the reasons noted below, that no question affect-
ing commerce exists concerning the representation of employees of
the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section
2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner, Local No. 34, International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, herein called the I. B. E. W., seeks to represent
1 See Matter of Commercial Printing Company, Inc., 73 N. L. R. B 159.
364 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the electricians in the electrical department of the Employer 's Pekin,
Illinois , plant, but would exclude change and alteration electricians
and probationary helpers. The Petitioner , Local No. 8, International
Brotherhood of Firemen and Oilers , A. F. L., herein called the Fire-
men, seeks to represent the Employer 's boiler room employees. The
Petitioner , Local No. 8, International Union of Operating Engineers,
herein called the Engineers , seeks to represent the Employer 's engine
room employees. As noted above , the Employer and the Intervenor
both oppose the severance of any group from the existing plant-wide
production and maintenance unit.
In 1944, the Petitioners filed petitions covering units at the Pekin
plant similar to those which they now seek to represent , and the
International Association of Machinists , which is not currently a peti-
tioner, filed a petition covering the plant's machinists . The Board
dismissed all these petitions ,2 finding : (1) that the Employer and
the Intervenor had bargained for 4 years on a plant-wide production
and maintenance basis; ( 2) that the history of bargaining in the
wet-milling industry generally seemed to have followed the same
pattern ; ( 3) that there appeared to be functional integration and
interrelation of interest among all the production and maintenance
employees ; and (4 ) that, except for the electrical unit , the proposed
units overstepped craft or departmental lines . The units presently
sought by the Firemen and Engineers do not cross departmental
lines , but the record reveals that the integration and interrelation
of interest among the Employer 's production and maintenance em-
ployees have remained unchanged since the Board 's earlier decision,
and that in 1947 all 57 of the jobs which were available in the units
sought were filled from within the plant through plant -wide bidding.
Moreover , the wet-milling industry generally , like the plant here in
question , has continued to bargain on a plant-wide production and
maintenance basis.
The Petitioners failed to adduce at the hearing any evidence that
apprentice training is required of any of the employees in the units
which they seek to represent . Although the Board on occasion has
severed groups similar to those sought by the Engineers and Firemen
from larger bargaining units, it has been reluctant to do so where the
employees concerned constitute a closely integrated part of the
production process.3 Electricians are generally held to be a rec-
ognized craft , but in this case the I . B. E. W. would exclude from
its proposed unit both the probationary helpers , who are the least
skilled members of the electrical department , and the change and
2 Matter of Corn Products Refining Company, 60 N L. R B. 92.
3 See Matter of Marine Iron and Shipbuilding Company, 78 N. L. R. B. 309.
CORN PRODUCTS REFINING COMPANY 365
alteration electricians, who, though not employed in the electrical
department, are the most skilled electricians in the plant and are
usually drawn from the personnel in the unit sought. We customarily
find inappropriate for severance a craft group from which are arbi-
trarily excluded the most skilled members of the craft, or other em-
ployees who might normally expect to achieve craft status after
serving a probationary period.4
As the electrical unit is thus inappropriate, and as no persuasive
evidence was adduced at the hearing that the Engineers and Firemen
are any less an integral part of the production process now than they
were at the time of the Board's earlier decision, we conclude, on the
basis of a complete re-evaluation of the situation, that the factors
there relied upon continue to present compelling reason for the existing
over-all bargaining unit. We therefore find that the units sought by
the several Petitioners are inappropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining, and we shall order that the petitions be dismissed.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the entire record in this case, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the petitions filed in this pro-
ceeding be, and they hereby are, dismissed.
MEMBER REYNOLDS took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Order.
See Matter of Northwest Paper Company, 79 N. L . R. B. 1130; Matter of Teletype
Corporation, 79 N. L. R B. 1044 ; Matter of Monsanto Chemical Company, 78 N. L. R. B.
1249.