Courtaulds (Alabama) Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 24, 1953

102 N.L.R.B. 1609 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

COURTAULDS (ALABAMA ) INC. 1609
organizations , to join or assist the TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, CIO,
or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representa-
tives of their own choosing , and to engage in other concerted activities for
the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to
refrain from any or all such activities except to the extent that such right
may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organiza-
tion as a condition of employment as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the
National Labor Relations Act.
GRIFFIN HOSIERY MILLS, INC.,
d/b/a DOVEDOWN HOSIERY MILLS,
Employer.
By ---------------------------------------
(Representative ) (Title)
Dated------------------------------
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must not
be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
COURTAULDS (ALABAMA) INC. and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 505, AFL; INTERNATIONAL CHEMICAL
WORKERS , AFL; INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, LODGE
No. 261, AFL ; AND TEAMSTERS , CHAUFFEURS , WAREHOUSEMEN AND
HELPERS, LOCAL UNION No. 991, AFL, JOINT PETITIONERS. Case
No. 15-RC-864 . February 24, 1953
Decision and Direction of Election
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a consolidated 1 hearing was held before Paul A.
Cassady, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the
hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed 2
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-mem-
bel panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Murdock].
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 em-
ployees of the Employer.3
1 During the hearing one of the Joint-Petitioners , International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, Local 505, AFL , requested withdrawal of its separate petition in Case No.
15.-RC-849. The motion is granted.
f Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers, Local Union No. 991 , AFL, moved
to join the proceeding as a Joint-Petitioner. As none of the other parties objected, the
hearing officer properly granted the motion.
$ Textile Workers ' Union of America , CIO, and International Brotherhood of Pulp,
Sulphite and Paper Mill Workers, AFL, moved to participate in the proceeding as Inter-
venors and such motions were granted.
102 NLRB No. 172.
1610 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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 parties agree generally to a plantwide production and mainte-
nance employee unit at the Employer's Le Moyne (Mobile County),
Alabama, plant. They disagree, however, as to the following em-
ployees, all of whom the Employer would exclude over objection of
the participating unions. This plant produces viscose rayon staple
fiber.
Chauffeurs: Three chauffeurs are assigned to the traffic department
and, like other traffic department employees, work under supervision
of the traffic manager and the traffic clerk. The chauffeurs drive
passenger cars, transporting plant officials and visitors to, from, and
about the plant. On these facts, we do not agree with the Employer's
assertion that the interest of the chauffeurs is so different from those
of other plant employees, particularly those in the traffic department
who are included by agreement, to warrant their exclusion from the
overall unit. Accordingly, we shall include the chauffeurs in the
Unit .4
Laboratory: The dispute as to these employees raises the question
whether any of them are either professional or technical employees,
the Employer contending that all of them fall in one or the other
category, and the unions asserting that some, at least, fall in neither.
The laboratory is located in a separate room of the plant and is under
separate supervision. In general the laboratory employees perform
physical and chemical tests on company products to determine quali-
tative contents and methods of improvement. The skills and train-
ing of these employees vary from highly trained graduate chemists
to employees who require only a certain amount of manual dexterity
in conducting routine tests. Some of them are clearly professionals.
Thus, the analyst is a graduate chemist and has supervisory charge of
the laboratory room, and the standard solutions employee, who is re-
sponsible for the preparation of basic chemical solutions used in the
laboratory for tests, has had extensive technical laboratory training
as a chemist. The two raw materials men regularly run tests on all
incoming materials under the supervision of chemists performing
specialized functions in the laboratory. They are not required to
have a college degree in chemistry, but must have at least some col-
lege chemistry or the equivalent in order to do the job satisfactorily.
The three junior and four senior laboratory assistants work as a team
on shifts conducting chemical tests on the company's product at
various stages of manufacture. Some of these assistants have a mas-
' National Cash. Register Company, 95 NLRB 27.
COURTAULDS (ALABAMA) INC. 1611
ter's degree in chemistry and others have college degrees in scientific
fields. They all have a chemical background. On these facts it is
clear, and we find, that the analyst, the standard solutions employees,
the raw materials men, and the laboratory assistants are either pro-
fessional employees or technical employees within the Board's usual
definition of the term. Accordingly, as the Employer objects to their
inclusion with the production and maintenance employees, we shall,
consistent with Board policy, exclude them .5
There are also five female testers who work in a special laboratory
set up adjacent to and connected with the principal laboratory. With
the use of testing apparatus, they conduct routine physical tests on
the fibers during the course of manufacture to determine whether the
sample meets minimum specifications. Three of these quality testers
are high school graduates, one never completed high school, and the
other has had some college schooling. As these laboratory testers
perform only routine tests, and are not required to be highly educated,
we find they are not technical employees.6 We shall therefore include
them in the unit.
Leading men: Contrary to the Joint-Petitioners, the Employer re-
quests exclusion of 3 leading men assigned to the engineering depart-
ment, on the ground that they are supervisors. The Intervenors take
no position as to their status. The maintenance leading man directs
the work of approximately 12 men, including millwrights, pipefitters,
and other maintenance employees. The electrical leading man has 6
workers under his immediate direction, and the machinist leading
man oversees the work of 2 employees. All 3 have essentially the
same authority over their crew members. They assign employees to
their jobs, direct them in their work, and are responsible for the
proper performance of the duties involved. They may not discharge
employees but have power effectively to recommend the hire, dis-
charge, or discipline of employees under them, subject to independent
investigation by the personnel department. The leading men are
paid on a salary basis and are responsible for on-the-spot settlement
of minor grievances; they also attend supervisory meetings. Only a
minor portion of their time is devoted to manual work. We are satis-
fied on this evidence that these leading men have an effective voice in
personnel matters affecting their crews. Upon the basis of the fore-
going, and upon the entire record in the case, we find that they are
supervisors as defined in the Act, and we shall, therefore, exclude
them from the unit.7
5 Bell Aircraft Corporation, 98 NLRB 1277.
The record shows that none of the participating unions desires to represent professional
or technical employees on any basis except as part of the plantwid unit.
E Chase Aircraft Company, Inc., 91 NLRB 288.
'Monsanto Chemical Company, Si NLRB 6,25 ; Continental Oil Co., 98 NLRB No. 8'1.
1612 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Accordingly, we find that all production and maintenance em-
ployees8 at the Employer's Le Moyne (Mobile County), Alabama,
plant, including chauffeurs and the laboratory testers, but excluding
office employees, clerical employees (other than plant clerks in the
service division of the engineering department), guards, all other
laboratory employees, technical employees, professional employees,
leading men, and all other supervisors as defined in the Act, con-
stitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
5. The Employer moved to postpone the election on the ground that
the unit is expanding and that therefore a present election is unwar-
ranted. At the time. of the hearing on December 17, 1952, the activi-
ties of the plant, recently constructed, consisted largely in the experi-
mental operation of 1 of 4 eventual identical production units, and in
other preliminary work, such as installing additional machinery for
the other units, and procuring and training a nucleus of production
personnel. There were then approximately 165-170 employees. By
the time the plant gradually reaches the proposed capacity produc-
tion, sometime in March 1953, the Employer expects to double the
number of production and maintenance workers. However, the Em-
ployer's witness said that this objective, as well as the possible cre-
ation of new job classifications, was dependent on unforeseen condi-
tions of production or operational developments.
As the present group of employees in the unit constitutes a sub-
stantial and representative segment of the eventual complement to be
employed, and as the Employer's plan to create new job categories is
uncertain and speculative, we see no reason for departing from the
Board's usual policy of directing an immediate election.°
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
8 Contrary to Petitioners ' request, the Employer would limit the unit to "hourly paid"
production and maintenance employees . In accordance with Board policy, we have deleted
this phrase from the unit description . Ford Motor Company, Aircraft Engine Division,
96 NLRB 1075.
P Precision Manufacturing Co., 88 NLRB 509 ; Watson Brothers Transportation Company,
Inc., 89 NLRB 71.
MERCK AND CO., INC. and UNITED GAS, COKE & CHEMICAL WORKERS
OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER. Case No. 2-RC-5030. February 24,
1953
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 I. L. Broadwin, hearing
102 NLRB No. 163.