George S. Mepham Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 18, 1948

78 N.L.R.B. 1081 (N.L.R.B. 1948)

In the Matter of GEORGE S. MEPHAM CORPORATION,` EMPLOYER and
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS , DISTRICT No. 9,
PETITIONER
In the Matter of GEORGE S. MEPHAM CORPORATION , EMPLOYER and.
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL NO.
309, AFL, PETITIONER
Cases Nos. 14-RC-70 and 14-RCD1, respectively.Decided
August 18,1948
DECISION
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
AND
ORDER
Upon separate petitions duly filed, a hearing in the above-consoli-
dated cases was held at St. Louis, Missouri, on February 12 and
February 13, 1948, before Harry F. Jones, hearing officer. The hear-
ing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error
and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds the following
undisputed facts :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
National Labor Relations Act.
2. The labor organizations named below claim to represent em-
ployees of the Employer.
In addition to the foregoing findings, the Board, upon the entire
record in this case, makes the following findings with respect to
the disputed issues of fact :
THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Employer and the International Chemical Workers Union,
Local No. 21, AFL, herein called the Intervenor, contend that either'
the contract which they executed for the period from December 4,1946,
to December 4, 1947, or their current contract signed on January 21,
1948, bars the present proceeding. This contention is without merit,
"Subsequent to issuance of the above Decision , Direction of Election , and Order, the
name of the Employer was changed to "C. B. Williams and Company."
78 N. L. R . B., No. 152.
1081
1082 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
because timely notice given by the Intervenor on October 4, 1947, of
its desire to modify the 1946 contract effectively forestalled automatic
renewal of that contract and made timely the petitions filed by the
International- Association of Machinists, District No. 9, herein called
the IAM, and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
Local No. 309, AFL, herein called the IBEW, respectively. More-
over, even if the contracting parties undertook to continue the 1946
contract in effect' pending completion of the current one, such action
rendered the 1946 contract, at best, one of indefinite duration. Nor
would the current contract appear to be a bar, having been signed
after the filing of the petitions herein.'
We find that a question affecting 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.
THE APPROPRIATE UNIT; THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
The IAM desires a unit consisting of all employees in the mechani-
cal department engaged in making, erecting, assembling, maintaining,
and dismantling all dies, machinery, or parts thereof, including ma-
chinists, millwrights, helpers, apprentices, oiler mechanics and oilers,
but excluding supervisors and all other employees. The IBEW re-
quests a unit consisting of all maintenance electricians, helpers, and
instrument men, excluding supervisors and all other employees. The
Employer, whose business is the manufacture, sale, and distribution of
earth pigments consisting chemically of iron oxide, and the Intervenor
urge that the units proposed by the IAM and the IBEW are not true
crafts and that a 12-year history of collective bargaining on an over-
all basis in the plant and the history of over-all bargaining in the
industry make appropriate only a production and maintenance unit.
The craft' character of the unit proposed by the IAM
The IAM is seeking a unit which is essentially a residual group of
maintenance department employees, in that it would include all em-
ployees in the maintenance or mechanical department except the
electricians, instrument men, and painters. The machinists' duties are
confined to - machining operations in the maintenance shop. The
majority of the employees in the proposed unit are designated as mill-
wrights. The classification millwright, as used by the Employer, is
apparently a broad term for craftsmen such as welders, lead burners,
and carpenters whose primary skills are utilized in their particular
' Matter of S'tewartstown Furniture Company, 75 N L. It. B. 344 ; Matter of Thomas Truck
and Caster Company, 72 N. L . R. B. 847; Matter of Continental Gin Company, 72.N. L. it. B.
1208.
GEORGE S. MEPHAM CORPORATION 1083
craft work, but who must possess secondary skills required for the
performance of other types of millwright work. The Employer as-
serts that the volume of any one type of craft work has never been
sufficient to occupy fully the time of any one millwright and all mill-
wrights are hired because they can do more than one class of work.
These men may be required to work as pipe fitters, iron workers, sheet-
metal workers, carpenters, bricklayers, welders, steam fitters, boiler-
makers, lead burners, machine oilers, and tenders, and in other related
occupations. Both machinists and millwrights have separate working
areas, although the work of the millwrights carries them throughout
the plant on specific jobs. The oiler mechanic and oiler are engaged
in oiling equipment throughout the plant.
We are of the opinion that the grouping sought by the IAM is
neither a pure craft unit nor a departmental unit, nor does it conform
with any functional division of the plant. The employees it seeks to
represent in a separate unit constitute an artificial group which lacks
the homogeneity requisite to a unit appropriate for the purposes of
collective -bargaining. We find that the unit sought by the IAM is
inappropriate.2 We shall, therefore, dismiss the petition filed in Casa
No. 14-RC-70.
The craft character of the unit proposed by the IBEW
The electricians are engaged in maintaining and repairing the plant
electrical system. The record shows they are highly skilled craft em-
ployees, whom the Board on numerous occasions has established as
separate units for purposes of collective bargaining.3 The instrument
men, on the other hand, perform a variety of duties unrelated to those
of the electricians. Because the duties of the instrument men are not
substantially allied to those of the electricians,' we believe the instru-
ment men should be excluded from any unit of electricians which may
be found appropriate in this proceeding.
We turn no* to the question of the appropriateness of a unit of
electricians as such. The Employer contends that the long history of
collective bargaining in its plant and the fact that practically the
R Matter of Atlantic Creosoting Company, Inc., 72 N. L. R B. 1154 ; Matter of Spicer
Manufacturing Division of Dana Corporation, 71 N L R B 1249; Matter of Manhattan
Rubber Manufacturing Division of Raybestos -Manhattan, Inc, 71 N. L. R. B 673 ; Matter
of Atlanta Oak Flooring Company, 60 N L. R. B. 1343 ; Matter of Monsanto Chemical
Company, 55 N L R. B 1452
3 Matter of B. F. Goodrich Chemical Company ( Geon Plant ), 75 N L R. B. 1142; Matter
of E. I Dupont de Nemours and Company, 73 N L R B 1240; Matter of Heyden Chemical
Corporation, 72 N L. R. B 1240 ; Matter of International Minerals and Chemical Corpora-
tion, 71 N- L. R. B 878 ; Matter of Carbide and Carbon Chemical Corporation, 56
N. I, R. B. 778.
* Matter of Mathieson Alkali Works ( Inc.), 67 N. L. R. B . 716 ; Matter of Standard Oil
Company of New Jersey, 61 N. L. R. B. 1344.
1084 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
entire pigment industry is organized on a non-craft basis 5 make ap-
propriate only a comprehensive production and maintenance unit.
When only the bargaining history of an Employer in its- own plant is
involved, this factor has not precluded severance of a well-recognized
craft group. The Employer urges, however, that severance is not
permissible where, as here, in addition to its own history of collec-
tive bargaining there, is a history of industry-wide bargaining on an
over-all basis. While the Board in denying craft severance has con-
sidered, among other factors, the existence of an industry-wide pattern
of over-all bargaining," we believe that over-all bargaining history
alone, whether of the Employer only or in conjunction with that of
the industry concerned, is not in itself sufficient under present circum-
stances to prevent application of the usual principles of craft sever-
ance. In conformity with these principles, the Board will ordinarily
sever a craft group where it is a recognized craft and there appear
to be similar craft units recognized in the industry as appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining. Although there are appar-
ently no recognized craft units of electricians in the pigment indus-
try as such, they are prevalent in the chemical industry 7 of which the
pigment industry is a part." In view of the existence of similar craft
units throughout the chemical industry, we believe that the electricians
may, if they so' desire, constitute a separate unit notwithstanding their
previous inclusion in a broader unit. However, the Board will not
make any unit determination until it has first ascertained the desires
of the employees involved.
6 The Employer asserts that it has contacted directly each of the iron oxide pigment
manufacturers in the United States having more than 25 employees and found that none
of them had separate craft representation in their plants A survey conducted by the
Employer of 90 percent of the entire pigment industry showed that a similar situation
prevailed
Cf. Matter of National Tube Company, 76 N. L R B 1199, where the Board denied
severance to craft employees because, among other factors, there was a history of industry-
wide bargaining on a non -craft basis . In that case , however, unlike the present one, the
Board also predicated its decision upon the high degree of integration between the craft
employees and the production process
7 See cases cited in footnote 3, supra.
It is the Employer 's contention that the pigment industry is separate and distinct from
any other industry and is treated as such by the trade as well as the Bureau of Mines
Census Department . Apparently the Bureau of Mines in its Mineral Yearbook does list the
pigment industry separately for statistical purposes. However, the Bureau of Census in
its book on manufactures in the United States (16th Census of the United States-1940-
Manufactures-1939, Vol IT, Part I-page 740 ) classifies industries in several broad cat-
egories . Its group 9 covers industries producing chemicals and allied products while the
pigment industry is recognized as embracing establishments primarily engaged in the manu-
facture of colors and pigments other than bone black, carbon black and lampblack, it Is
grouped by the Bureau of Census with the chemical industry. The latter industry manu-
factures chemicals and chemical products. Since the process of manufacturing pigments
involves the use of predominantly chemical operations resulting in the production of a
particular kind of chemical product , it is logical to conclude that the pigment industry is
belt it segment of the over-fII chemical industry.
GEORGE S. MEPHAM CORPORATION 1085
We shall direct that an election be held among all maintenance elec-
tricians and their helpers employed by the Employer at its East
St. Louis, Illinois, plant, excluding instrument men and supervisors
as defined,in the Act. If, in this election, the employees select the
IBEW, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to constitute
a separate bargaining unit.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION 9
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
purposes of collective bargaining with the Employer, an election by
secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than
30 days from the date of this Direction, under the direction and super-
vision of the Regional Director for the Region in which this case was
heard, and subject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62 of National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 5, among the em-
ployees in the voting group described above, who were employed dur-
ing the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of this Direc-
tion of Election, including employees who did not work during said
pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation or temporarily
laid off, 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, and also excluding employees on strike who
are not entitled to reinstatement, to determine whether they desire
to be represented, for purposes of collective bargaining, by Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local No. 309, AFL, or by
International Chemical Workers Union, Local 21, AFL, or by neither.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for investigation and certifica-
tion of representatives of certain employees of George S. Mepham
Corporation, East St. Louis, Illinois, filed in Case No. 14-RC-70 by
the International Association of Machinists, District No. 9, be, and
it hereby is, dismissed.
MEMBER GRAY took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision, Direction of Election, and Order.
"Any part cipant in the election directed herein may , upon its prompt request to, and
approval tbereof by , the Regional Director. have its name removed from the ballot.