E. I. du Pont de Nemours Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 31, 1945

64 N.L.R.B. 639 (N.L.R.B. 1945)

In the Matter of E. I . DU PONT DE NEMOURS COMPANY, SPRUANCE
WORKS, RAYON DIVISION and L. U. #1434, INTERNATIONAL BROTHER-
HOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, A. F. L.
Case No. 5-R-1892.-Decided October 31, 1945
Mr. P. B. Collins, of Wilmington, Del., for the Company.
Mr. H. F. Adair, of Charlotte, N. C., and Mr. Robert E. Stewart, of
Richmond, Va., for the IBEW.
Mr. R. J. Francis, of Petersburg, Va., for the ARWI.
Mr. Herbert C. Kane, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon an amended petition duly filed by L. U. #1434, International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, A. F. L., herein called the IBEW,
alleging that a question aflectirg commerce had arisen concerning the
representation of employees of E. I. du Pont de Nemours Company,
Spruance Works, Rayon Division,' Richmond, Virginia, herein
called the Company, the National Labor Relations Board provided for
an appropriate hearing upon due notice before Herman Goldberg,
Trial Examiner. Said hearing was held at Richmond, Virginia, on
June 29, 1945. The Company, the IBEW, and Ampthill Rayon
Workers, Incorporated, herein called the ARWI, appeared and par-
ticipated. All parties were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to
examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bear-
ing on the issues. The Trial Examiner's rulings made at the hearing
are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. All parties
were afforded an opportunity to file briefs with the Board.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
E. I. du Pont de Nemours Company, a Delaware corporation, is
engaged at Richmond, Virginia, in the manufacture of rayon yarn.
' The name appears as amended at the hearing.
64 N. L. R. B., No. 108.
639
640 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
0
During the year 1944 the Company used at its Richmond operations
raw materials having an approximate value of $8,400,000, of which 50
percent represented shipments from points outside the Commonwealth
of Virginia. During the same period, the Company's manufactured
products at these operations were valued at about $28,000,000, of which
approximately 89 percent. represented shipments to points outside the
Commonwealth.
For the purpose of this proceeding, the Company admits that it is
engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
L. U..-+,..- 1434, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, af-
filiated with the American Federation of Labor, is a labor organization
admitting to membership employees of the Company.
Ampthill Rayon Workers, Incorporated, is an unaffiliated labor or-
ganization admitting to membership employees of the Company.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Company refuses to grant recognition to the IBEW as the
exclusive bargaining representative of its electricians on the ground
that the ARWI is the recognized bargaining representative for all
employees of the Company.
A statement of a Board agent, introduced into evidence at the hear-
ing, indicates that the IBEW represents a substantial number of em-
ployees in the unit hereinafter found appropriate.2
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the
representation of employees of the Company within the meaning of
Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IN. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The IBEW contends that a unit of all employees in the electrical
maintenance department including electrical craft foremen, but ex-
cluding clerical workers and supervisors, is appropriate. The Com-
pany and the ARWI urge that the requested unit is inappropriate for
the reason that since 1937 they have been bargaining on the basis of
a unit of all non-supervisory employees in the Spruance Works, in-
2 The Field Examiner reported that the IBEW submitted 53 membership application
cards ; that the names of 52 persons appearing on the cards were listed on the Company's
pay roll of May 14, 1945, which contained the names of 53 employees in the alleged appro-
priate unit; and that the cards were all dated between January and May 1945 except for
8 which were undated
The ARWI, as proof of its interest, relies on the fact that dues for employees in the
alleged appropriate unit are being deducted by the Company in its behalf At the hearing,
it was stipulated between the parties that the Company was making 40 such dues deduc-
tions among the affected employees
E. I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS COMPANY 641
eluding the employees in the electrical maintenance department.-
They also oppose the inclusion of electrical craft foremen in any unit
found appropriate.
The Company's Spruance Works consists of three rayon plants, one
cellophane plant, and one experimental plant, known as the Semi-
Works. The electrical maintenance department, a section of the Power
Department, does all the electrical servicing and installation work
throughout the Spruance Works, save for the installation on large
construction jobs which is done by independent contractors. Em-
ployees in this department include electricians, mechanics, helpers, and
one oiler .3 While the Company employs mechanics, helpers and oilers
in other maintenance departments, it is clearly established that those
here involved are the only ones in such classifications who are engaged
in electrical work ; they perform functions typical of apprentices in the
electricians craft and are apparently in the process of becoming skilled
electricians. The shop work of the electrical maintenance department
is confined to a distinct area, separate from areas occupied by the
Company's other craft employee groups. When not in the shop area,
these employees are installing or servicing electrical equipment
throughout the Company's operations; they are at all times subject to
the immediate supervision of the four electrical craft foremen in their
department. It thus appears that the employees sought by the IBEW
comprise a highly skilled, identifiable, homogeneous group. More-
over, we have previously held that electricians, such as those here in-
volved constitute a well-defined craft group. Accordingly, we are of
the opinion that the electricians, helpers, mechanics, and oiler of the
electrical maintenance department constitute, prima facie, an appro-
priate separate bargaining group.
As indicated above, the Company and the ARWI advert to their long
bargaining history on the basis of the unit consisting of all plants at
the Spruance Works, including the electrical maintenance department,
and contend that for this reason the unit is inappropriate. The Com-
pany entered into bargaining relations with the ARWI in 1937. Since
then the Company has dealt with the ARWI as the exclusive bargain-
ing representative of all its non-supervisory employees at the Spru-
ance Works 4 The Company -and the ARWI have met at regular in-
tervals and have bargained concerning wages, hours, conditions of
work, and a grievance procedure. No written agreement has ever
been entered into between the parties. Instead, the Company has
embodied their understandings in "bulletins" issued in loose-leaf form
to virtually all its supervisors and the ARWI. These "bulletins"
3 The remaining employees are clerical workers whom the IBEW does not wish to
represent.
& Included in the unit are production, maintenance , clerical , technical , professional, and
militarized plant protection employees.
670417-46-vol. 64-42
642 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
have been incorporated into the Company's Manual of Rules and
Regulations5 setting forth its policies and regulations with reference
to wages, hours, and working conditions. The use of the Manual and
the practice of issuing "bulletins" was, in all respects, a continuation of
the procedures established by the Company many years before the
advent of the AR' WI.
Neither the Company nor the ARWI asserts that the bargaining con-
ferences and the subsequent incorporation of their understanding in
the Manual constitutes a contract in bar of these proceedings; they do
urge, however, that the bargaining relations between them constitute
a pattern of collective bargaining on the basis of the entire operations
at the Spruance Works which would preclude the Board from setting
apart the employees in the electrical maintenance department as an
appropriate unit. We do not agree. While the Board has held that
where there is present a long history of collective bargaining on a
plant-wide basis, it will normally refuse to direct an election among
employees in a smaller group, the doctrine is not without exception.
Thus, we have also found, after scrutinizing certain histories of col-
lective bargaining, that they fail to disclose a relationship precluding
the establishment of bargaining upon a narrower but otherwise appro-
priate basis.6 In the instant case, the Company and the ARWI have
never executed a written contract for a fixed term covering wages,
hours, and other conditions of work for the Company's employees.
Such bargaining as has occurred, has been of an informal nature and,
in our opinion, has not achieved true stability of labor relations. We
are, accordingly, not convinced that the appropriateness of the bar-
gaining unit should be predicated upon the Company's informal bar-
gaining arrangements with the ARWI. On the other hand, for the
reasons set forth above, and upon the entire record in the case, we find
that a unit limited to employees in the electrical maintenance de-
partment is appropriate.
The IBEW would include the four electrical craft foremen in the
unit, while the Company and the ARWI would exclude them., The
electrical craft foremen have the authority to direct and assign work
to the electricians and, except in emergencies, do no work with tools;
they keep time records of the employees under them, make effective
recommendations regarding discipline and rate increases, and are paid
on a salary basis. It is clear that they are supervisory employees
within our usual definition. Accordingly, we shall exclude them from
the unit. -
Copies of the Manuals are held by the supervisors and the ARWI.
Matter of Sangamo Electric Company, 59 N. L. R. B. 364; Matter of Corn Products
Refining Company, 52 N. L. It. B. 1234.
E. I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS COMPANY 643
We find that all employees of the electrical maintenance depart-
ment of the Company at its Spruance Works, including electricians,
mechanics, helpers, and oilers, but excluding clerical employees, elec-
trical craft foremen, and all other supervisory employees with au-
thority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect
changes in the status of employees or effectively recommend such ac-
tion, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
We shall direct that the question concerning representation which
has arisen be resolved by an election by secret ballot among the em-
ployees in the appropriate unit who were employed during the pay-
roll period immediately preceding the date of the Direction of Elec-
tion herein, subject to the limitations and additions set forth in the
Direction.
The IBEW and the ARWI have submitted evidence to indicate that
each represents a substantial number of employees in the bargaining
unit found appropriate. For this reason we shall provide that both
participate in the election. In the event the ARWI wins the election,
we shall, if that organization so desires, dismiss the petition filed by
the IBEW rather than certify the ARWI as collective bargaining
representative of employees in the craft unit herein found appropriate
for bargaining.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National Labor
Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations
Act, and pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of National Labor Rela-
tions Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3, as amended, it is hereby
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representa-
tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with E. I. du Pont de
Nemours and Company, Spruance Works, Rayon Division, Richmond,
Virginia, 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 Direc-
tor for the Fifth Region, acting in this matter as agent for the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board, and subject to Article III, Sections 10
and 11, of said Rules and Regulations, among the employees in the
unit found appropriate in Section IV, above, who were employed
during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of this
Direction, including employees who did not work during the said
pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation or temporarily
644 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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 L. U. #1434,
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, A. F. L., or by
Ampthill Rayon Workers, Incorporated, for the purposes of collec-
tive bargaining, or by neither.