E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 29, 1960

126 N.L.R.B. 885 (N.L.R.B. 1960)

E. I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY
V. THE REMEDY
885
Having found that the Respondent engaged in certain unfair labor practices, it
shall be recommended that the Respondent cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action which it is found necessary to effectuate the policies of
the Act.
Inasmuch as Respondent 's antiunion activities are not so extensive in manner and
scope and are not of such an aggravated character as to indicate an attitude of general
opposition to employees' rights, it will be recommended that Respondent only be
required to cease and desist from in any like manner interfering with, restraining,
or coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7
of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the
case, the Trial Examiner makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
2. The Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
3. By interrogating employees as to their union activities and sympathies , warning
and threatening employees with economic and other reprisals for such activities,
thereby interfering with, restraining , and coercing them in the exercise of their
rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, Respondent has engaged in and is engag-
ing in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.
4. The activities set forth in paragraph 3 above are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company ( Houston , Texas,
Plant ) and Oil , Chemical & Atomic Workers International
Union, AFL-CIO, Petitioner.' Case No. 23-IBC-1440. Febru-
ary 29, 1960
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Howard I. Hatoff, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record 2 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. Questions affecting commerce exist 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.
i The name of the Petitioner appears as amended at the hearing.
9 The Employer 's request for oral argument is denied as the record , including the
briefs, adequately presents the issues and the positions of the parties.
126 NLRB No. 103.
886 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
4. The appropriate units :
The Petitioner seeks an overall production and maintenance unit
including machinists, or, in the alternative, a production and main-
tenance unit excluding machinists. The Intervenor, International
Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO, as its primary position, seeks
a unit of "all outside and inside machinists." The Employer contends
that a separate unit of machinists is inappropriate, on the grounds
that the employees sought are neither craftsmen exercising the skills
of their craft, nor a functionally separate and distinct homogeneous
group comprising a department, and on the further ground that they
do not include all employees exercising similar skills.' The Petitioner
took no position as to the appropriateness of such a separate unit.
The Employer is engaged at its Houston plant, which is involved
in the instant case, in the production of a large variety of chemicals,
including dry fungicides and herbicides for agricultural use, and
liquid intermediates which are used in the production of its dry chem-
icals in the plant and which are shipped to industrial customers for
their use.
The two types of dry agricultural chemicals are produced in sepa-
rate sets of closed systems, in which liquid chemicals are reacted, then
filtered, dried, milled, blended, and packed for shipment. The liquid
intermediates are reacted in closed systems including some 5 miles
of piping, under heat and pressure. The production processes, par-
ticularly in the manufacture of the dry chemicals, include a wide va-
riety of power-driven automatic machinery and equipment. These
processes are normally continuous, except for shutdowns for cleaning
of the systems or changeovers to a different product.
The production employees are located in various production build-
ings in the three separate production areas. The maintenance em-
ployees are principally located in five areas separated from production
employees, i.e., a central shop building and four field areas. There has
been no bargaining history affecting any of the employees at this
plant, which commenced operations in 1946.
There are 13 machinists in the requested craft unit. The four inside
machinists are located in the machine shop area of the central shop.
The nine outside machinists are part of three groups 4 located in the
The Employer also contends that the establishment of a separate "machinists"
unit is inappropriate because of the integrated nature of the Employer's operations and
the previous pattern of collective bargaining on an industrial basis in the chemical in-
dustry In making this contention, the Employer relies on the decision of the Court
of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in N.L.R B. v Pittsburgh Plate Glass Company, 270
F. 2d 167, cert. denied 361 U.S 943. With all due respect to the opinion of the court in
that case, the Board has determined to adhere to its policy, as expressed in American
Potash & Chemical Corporation, 107 NLRB 1418, with respect to the severance of craft
units. Accordingly, we find no merit in this contention.
A Two of these machinists are located in the liquid intermediates area, where less
machinery is involved than in other production areas, and three and four, respectively, in
the herbicides and fungicides areas.
E. I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY 887
four field areas. There is interchange between the machinists in the
central shop and the field areas whenever help is needed or in times
of absence due to such causes as sickness and vacations. All these
machinists possess a class A machinist rating and are in a separate
seniority group. Although the inside machinists and the three groups
of outside *machinists *have different immediate supervisors over each
of their groups of which they are a part and the group including
inside machinists have one area supervisor while the groups including
outside machinists have another, they are all under the ultimate
supervision of the plant engineer, who is in charge of the entire main-
tenance group. Further, all the machinists are assigned to produc-
tion areas when and as needed by the Employer, interchangeably.
Their duties consist of repairing pumps, reduction gears, motors and
belts, packing, and aligning to close tolerances, making brass bushings,
and boring impellers. In addition, their jobs in the central shop
include machinist work, according to blueprints, on various types of
major repairs and construction of plant machinery and equipment,
and, in the field areas, machinist work in maintaining and repairing
compressors, refrigeration equipment, chain-driven equipment, belt
drives, screw conveyors, and bearing work. In the performance of
their duties, the machinists use such tools as milling machines and
lathes, micrometers, dial indicators, snap dials, and feeler or thread
gauges. No other group of employees operates these tools. They also
use grinders and drill presses which are, on occasion, used by other
employees such as pipefitters, riggers and structural steel workers,
and sheet metal workers.
The Employer contends, in effect, that none of the employees are
craftsmen since all of them have been trained by the Employer as
specialists and all do idential work as a team with other maintenance
or production employees.'
On occasion, a pipefitter with machinist experience has done ma-
chinist work on a lathe on which two machinists in one of the field
areas regularly work. Also, certain hand tools are available in the
field areas for all production and maintenance employees, including
machinists. During shutdowns of the systems and on other infre-
quent occasions, these tools are used by some of the machinists. Oc-
casionally, some machinists help other maintenance employees and
production operators to patrol the pipes for leaks, but such patrolling
is done most of the time only by the production operators. Only as
to periods outside regular working hours are machinists frequently
asked to share overtime work identical with work done by other
categories of employees, if they wish. There is only occasional per-
The fact that machinists perform some nonmachinist but related work does not
render a unit of machinists inappropriate . See Bethlehem Pacific Coast Steel Corp ., etc.,
117 NLRB 579, 581.
888 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
formance of work identical with other classifications of employees
during regular working hours.'
Although the Employer does not maintain an apprenticeship or
formalized training program for all the machinists, all of them have
worked on the machine tools in the central shop at one time or another
or on machinists tools in the field areas, all of them were either hired
for machinist work because of their machinist experience prior to hire
or received progression training on the job through the various grades
of machinist or millwright to machinist, class A. We are satisfied
on the record as a whole that the machinists here sought possess and
a majority of their time exercise the skills normally associated with
the machinists' craft, and that they are therefore craftsmen.'
We find that the Employer's machinists, being a homogeneous craft
group, may constitute a separate unit if they so desire. It is clear, and
we find that the production and maintenance unit requested by the
Petitioner may also be appropriate, or that a separate unit of pro-
duction and maintenance employees, excluding machinists, may be
appropriate. Accordingly, we shall direct self-determination elec-
tions in voting groups of machinists and of production and mainte-
nance employees.
We shall direct elections in the following voting groups of em-
ployees at the Employer's Houston, Texas, plant, excluding from each
voting group the employees in the other voting group, office clerical
employees, laboratory employees, professional employees, guards, and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
(1) All machinists, including inside and outside machinists.
(2) All production and maintenance employees, including store-
room employees and janitors but excluding machinists.
If the employees in the machinist voting group vote for the Inter-
venor, they will be taken to have voted for separate representation,
and the Regional Director conducting the election is instructed to
issue a certification of representatives to the Intervenor for a sep-
arate unit of machinists, which the Board, in these circumstances,
finds tobe appropriate for the purpose of collective bargaining. And,
in that event, should a majority of the employees in the production
and maintenance voting group select a bargaining representative, the
Regional Director is instructed to issue a certification of representa-
tives to such bargaining representative for a unit of production and
maintenance employees, excluding machinists, which the Board in
these circumstances finds to be appropriate for purposes of collective
bargaining. On the other hand, if a majority in the machinist voting
group do not select the Intervenor, the ballots of the employees in the
E The fact that other employees on occasion do the same or similar work is not grounds
for including them in a machinists' unit. See Certain-Teed Products Corporation, 101
NLRB 1110, 1116.
1 See Hoppers Company, Ino., etc., 117 NLRB 422.
NORTHWESTERN MONTANA DISTRICT COUNCIL, ETC. 889
machinist voting group will be pooled with those of the employees
in the production and maintenance voting group .8 If the employees
in the pooled group select a bargaining representative , the Regional
Director is instructed to issue a certification of representatives to
such bargaining representative for a unit of production and main-
tenance 'employees, including machinists, which the Board in such
circumstances finds to be an appropriate unit for the purposes of
collective bargaining.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.]
MEMBERS JENKINS and FANNING took no part in the consideration
of the above Decision and Direction of Elections. '
8 If the votes are pooled, they shall be tallied in the following manner : The votes for
the Intervenor shall be counted as valid votes, but neither for nor against the Petitioner ;
all other votes are to be accorded their face value whether for or against representa-
tion by the Petitioner.
Northwestern Montana District Council of Carpenters ' Unions
and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America,
Local Union No. 911 , AFL-CIO [Glacier Park Company] and
Robert Eugene Wellman. Case No. 19-CB-630. February 29,
1960
DECISION AND ORDER
On November 3,1959, Trial Examiner James R. Hemingway issued
his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding finding that
the Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair
labor practices and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action as set forth in the copy of the Inter-
mediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondents filed
exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a brief in support thereof.
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-member
panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Rodgers and Jenkins].
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions, and brief, and the entire record in the
case, and hereby adopts the Trial Examiner's findings, conclusions,
and recommendations.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in this case and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that Respondents, Northwestern Montana Dis-
126 NLRB No. 106.