Jefferson Chemical Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 11, 1949

81 N.L.R.B. 1393 (N.L.R.B. 1949)

In the Matter of JEFFERSON CHEMICAL COMPANY, EMPLOYER and OIL
WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, CIO, PETITIONER
Case No. 16-RC-54
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION
ORDER SETTING ASIDE DIRECTION OF ELECTION
AND
SECOND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
March 11, 1949
On September 10, 1948, the Board issued its Decision and Direction
of Election in the above -entitled proceeding,' directing that an elec-
tion be held among all production , maintenance , and laboratory em-
ployees at the Port Neches , Texas, plant of the Employer , excluding
office, professional, plant-protection employees, and supervisors as
defined in the Act. Thereafter , on September 21, 1948, the Port
Arthur Building and Trades Council filed a motion for reopening the
record and a request for leave to intervene ; on September 22, 1948,
International Association of Machinists , one of the Intervenors, filed
a motion for reconsideration ; and, on September 28, 1948, United
Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and
Pipefitting Industry , Local 195, AFL, another of the Intervenors,
filed a motion for rehearing . The Board , having duly considered the
matters, ordered , on September 29, 1948, that the record in this pro-
ceeding be reopened and that a further hearing be held for the purpose
of adducing additional evidence with respect to all the issues involved.a
Accordingly, a further hearing was held at Beaumont , Texas , on Octo-
ber 19, 20, and 21, 1948, before Edmund Donald Wilson , hearing
officer.' The hearing officer 's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
1 79 N L R B. 584.
' The Board further ordered that the motion for leave to intervene filed by the Port
Arthur Building and Trades Council be denied because of its failure to comply with Section
9 (f), (g), and ( h) of the Act , without prejudice , however , to renewing its motion before
the hearing officer in the event it complied at the time of the reopened hearing
3 Shortly after the hearing began, the Port Arthur Building and Trades Council, having
complied with the affidavit and filing requirements , was permitted to intervene by the
81 N. L. R. B., No. 229.
1393
1394 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the entire record in this case, including the hearing of Octo-
ber 19, 20, and 21, 1948, the Board finds :
1. The Petitioner and the International Association of Machinists
and the Port Arthur Building and Trades Council, herein collectively
called the Intervenor, are labor organizations which claim to repre-
sent employees of the Employer.
2. As at the earlier hearing, the Petitioner and the Employer con-
tinue to agree in urging that only a plant-wide unit is appropriate.
The Intervenor seeks a unit of all maintenance mechanics, their
helpers, trainees and laborers, in the Employer's maintenance and
instrument maintenance sections, excluding clerical employees and
supervisors.4
The Employer's maintenance work is handled by two sections, which
are designated as the instrument maintenance section 5 and the main-
tenance section. All employees in these sections still are called either
maintenance mechanics, maintenance mechanics' helpers, maintenance
mechanics' trainees or laborers. The classification "maintenance
mechanic," as used by the Employer, continues to be a broad term
applied to maintenance employees who are primarily skilled in cer-
tain types of craft work, such as that of electricians, pipe fitters, car-
penters, and painters. Each maintenance mechanic is required to
perform any work that the Employer considers him capable of doing.
There are in the maintenance section four foremen each of whom is
in charge of a group of employees possessing similar predominantly
craft skills.e The foremen in charge of the several groups of mainte-
nance employees in this section are responsible to the master mechanic
who, in turn, reports to the plant engineer. The instrument mainte-
nance section has its own supervisor who is also responsible to the plant
engineer.7
hearing officer on behalf of the IBEW, Pipefitters , Carpenters , and Painters ( each of which
had intervened individually at the earlier hearing ) Subsequently , the International
Association of Machinists and the Port Arthur Building and Trades Council intervened
as a single labor organization All other labor organizations which had theretofore inter-
vened, including the International Association of Machinists as such and the Port Arthur
Building and Trades Council as such , then withdrew their interventions.
4 As the various intervenors that sought units of their particular crafts have withdrawn,
the question regarding the appropriateness of any craft group, which was before us in
the earlier hearing, has been eliminated.
5 At the first hearing the Employer inadvertently omitted to set up in its organizational
chart this section which has been in existence since the Employer began operations at
the plant
6 The Employer has changed its organizational set-up in this respect, since the earlier
hearing. At that time , maintenance mechanics who possessed similar craft skills appar-
ently did not work under the same foreman ; instead, each foreman had an area in the
plant where he supervised maintenance work.
4 The plant engineer stated at the hearing that the reason the instrument maintenance
section is under the instrument supervisor rather than the master mechanic is because
the work performed by the instrument maintenance mechanics is intimately related to
JEFFERSON CHEMICAL COMPANY 1395
The plant contains two operating units one of which is called the
"A" unit and the other the "F, G & H" unit. With respect to these
units, the Employer has created, since the date of the earlier hearing,
a new position titled "operating supervisor in charge of maintenance
or assistant unit supervisor." Each operating unit has one of these
supervisors. Apparently maintenance mechanics are often tempo-
rarily assigned to one or the other of the operating units. The Em-
ployer maintains that at such times the assistant unit supervisor tells
them what work is to be done and requires that it be performed to his
satisfaction.8 However, they are responsible to their particular fore-
man for the manner in which the work is done and if they do not
know how to handle a job, they receive their instructions from him.
Although as a matter of routine, the maintenance mechanics do some
work which the Employer considers to be part of operations, such
work is of a minor nature and is incidental to their principal main-
tenance functions. Moreover, although the operators do "running
maintenance" and perform certain functions which the Employer be-
lieves to be maintenance work, the maintenance work thus done by the
operators requires no great amount of skill and is clearly distinguish-
able from the work performed by the maintenance mechanics. There
is apparently no'appreciable interchange between operators and main-
tenance employees other than during short periods of plant shut-down
for the purposes of "turn-arounds." "
The unit sought by the Intervenor is essentially a multi-craft group
of maintenance employees comprising all employees doing maintenance
work. Under the circumstances, and on reconsideration of all of the
facts, particularly the fact that there is no previous history of col-
lective bargaining at the plant involved herein, we are of the opinion
that the members possess interests in common, distinct from those of
the production employees and sufficient to warrant their establishment
as a separate bargaining unit. 10 While the maintenance mechanics in
the instrument and maintenance sections do not have the same super-
the operation of the units. The record indicates that these mechanics work more often
with the operators than they do with any other employees in the plant . However, during
these occasions , the mechanics perform only maintenance work.
8 The assistant unit supervisor cannot hire or discharge a maintenance mechanic. While
he could recommend that a mechanic be discharged and his recommendation would be
considered , the approval of the plant engineer would be required before it could be made
effective.
8 During the "turn-around" held in July of 1948, 28 of approximately 80 operators did
maintenance work. Twenty-seven of them were operator helpers who were paid the full
scale of a maintenance mechanic because they did work ordinarily performed by mainte-
nance mechanics , although not requiring the highest skills of such mechanics. The
Employer considered them able to do maintenance work because of their backgrounds.
The remaining operators "stood by" for safety and test purposes.
10 Matter of Armstrong Cork Company , 80 N. L. R. B. 1328 ; Matter of Goodyear
Tire & Rubber Company ( Special Products Plant "C"), 80 N. L . R. B. 1347.
829595-50-vol. 81-89
1396 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
visors, they are under the same over-all supervision. We find there-
fore that the employees in the maintenance and instrument mainte-
nance sections may constitute a separate unit appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining.:" However, we shall make no final
unit determination at this time, but shall first ascertain the desires
of the employees as expressed in the election hereinafter directed.
We shall direct elections among the following groups of employees at
the Employer's Port Neches, Texas, plant, excluding temporary em-
ployees,12 office, clerical, professional and plant-protection employees,,
and supervisors as defined in the Act :
(a) All maintenance mechanics, their helpers, trainees and laborers.
in the maintenance and instrument maintenance sections.
(b) All production and laboratory employees.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Direction of Election issued on Sep-
tember 10, 1948, be, and it hereby is, vacated and set aside.
SECOND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS 13
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining with the Employer, separate elections
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
supervision of the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region, and
subject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62 of National Labor Relations
Board Rules and Regulations-Series 5, as amended, among the em-
ployees in the voting groups described in paragraph numbered 2,
above, who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately
preceding the date of this Direction of Elections, 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 em-
ployees on strike who are not entitled to reinstatement, to determine :
(1) Whether the employees in voting group "(a)" desire to be rep-
resented, for purposes of collective bargaining, by International Asso-
11 Board Member Murdock feels impelled to concur herein as he deems himself bound
by the decision in Matter of Armstrong Cork Company, footnote 10, supra, a case in which
he did not participate.
12 In accordance with the agreement of the parties , the word "temporary" employees is
not intended to exclude employees who have worked for the Employer for a period of 90
days prior to the date of the election.
11 Any participant in the elections directed herein may , upon Its prompt request to,
and approval thereof by , the Regional Director , have its name remo.ad from the ballot.
JEFFERSON CHEMICAL COMPANY 1397
ciation of Machinists and the Port Arthur Building and Trades Coun-
cil,14 or by Oil Workers International Union, CIO, or by neither.
(2) Whether or not the employees in voting group "(b)" desire to
be represented, for purposes of collective bargaining, by Oil Workers
International Union, CIO.
14 The compliance status of the Port Arthur Building and Trades Council has lapsed
since the hearing in this matter. The Regional Director is herewith instructed to delete
the International Association of Machinists and the Port Arthur Building and Trades
Council from the ballot in the elections directed herein if the Port Arthur Building and
Trades Council has not, within 2 weeks from this date, renewed its compliance with Section
9 (f), (g), and (h) of the Act.