Jefferson Chemical Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 26, 1961

134 N.L.R.B. 1552 (N.L.R.B. 1961)

1552 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Jefferson Chemical Company, Inc. and Lodge 1792 of District 31,
International Association of Machinists , AFL-CIO and Local
305, International Brotherhood of Boilermakers , Iron Ship
Builders, Blacksmiths , Forgers and Helpers, AFL-CIO, Peti-
tioners. Cases Nos. 23-RC-1657 and 23-RC-1658. December 26,
1961
DECISION, DIRECTION OF ELECTION, AND ORDER
Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9(c) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before
John F. Burst, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at
the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in these cases , 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. The Employer contends that no 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 Employer manufactures chemicals at its Port Neches, Texas,
plant, here involved. In 1949, the Board certified Lodge 1792 of Dis-
trict 31, International Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO, herein
referred to as the IAM, and the Intervenor, herein referred to as the
Building Trades Council, as the joint representative of a certain unit
of the plant's maintenance department employees. Local 305, Inter-
national Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Black-
smiths, Forgers and Helpers, AFL-CIO, herein referred to as the
Boilermakers , is a participating member of the Building Trades
Council. The IAM and the Building Trades Council continued until
recently to act as the joint representative of these maintenance em-
ployees, the most recent joint bargaining contract having expired
June 23,1960.
On December 5,1960, the IAM filed the petition in Case No. 23-RC-
1657 seeking sole certification for the unit of maintenance employees.
On December 6, 1960, the Boilermakers filed the petition in Case No.
23-RC-1658, in which it sought to sever boilermakers from this same
unit in the event that an election was directed as a result of the IAM
petition.
The Employer contends that the Petitioners, IAM and Boiler-
makers, participated in collective bargaining during the same period
' Building and Construction Trades Council of Poit Arthur and Vicinity intervened at
the hearing.
134 NLRB No. 162.
JEFFERSON CHEMICAL COMPANY, INC. 1553
and at the same time that they were attempting to establish the exist-
ence of questions concerning representation; that the Petitioners were
thereby taking wholly inconsistent positions; and that therefore the
petitions should be dismissed.
To support its proposition of law, the Employer cites Hollings-
worth d Whitney, Division of Scott Paper Company, 115 NLRB 15,
and International Paper Company, 115 NLRB 17. However, the peti-
tioners in the cited cases bargained for a production and maintenance
unit after filing petitions seeking certification in a smaller craft or
departmental unit, included within the production and maintenance
unit. Thus, the petitioners inconsistently requested recognition from
the employer as the collective-bargaining representative of an in-
clusive unit, while at the same time seeking Board certification in a
different, smaller unit. The cited cases hold only that where a union
thus seeks to represent inconsistent units at the same time, the union is
acting so inconsistently that its petition for crafts or departmental
severance must be dismissed.
A majority of the Board is of the opinion that as the IAM in Case
No. 23-RC-1657, seeks only the historical maintenance unit, it is not
petitioning for an inconsistent unit within the meaning of the cited
cases. Accordingly, the Board finds that a representation question
exists, and the Employer's motion to dismiss the petition is denied.
However, the Board finds that the petition in Case No. 23-RC-1658,
seeking to sever boilermakers, does not raise a representation question.
Chairman McCulloch and Member Brown are of the opinion that the
entire record shows that the unit sought is not an appropriate Unit .2
Accordingly, we shall grant the 'Employer's motion in Case No.
23-RC-1658, and dismiss the petition.
4. The following employees of the Employer have historically
constituted and now constitute a unit appropriate for the purpose of
collective bargaining within Section 9 (b) of the Act :
All maintenance employees at the Employer's Port Neches, Texas,
plant, excluding all production employees, all electrical employees
covered by certification in Case No. 39-RC-394, all pipefitting em-
ployees covered by certification in Case No. 39-RC-390, office clerical
employees, professional employees, guards, and supervisors as de-
fined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
[The Board dismissed the petition in Case No. 23-RC-1658.]
2 Members Leedom and Fanning would find that the requested unit is an appropriate
craft unit and would , therefore , direct elections in a voting group of boilermakers and in
a voting group of maintenance employees excluding boilermakers . However, since there
is no majority for an election among the boilermakers , they are joining Chairman McCulloch
and Member Brown in directing an election in the existing unit of maintenance employees.
630849-62--vol. 134-99
1554 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
MEMBER RODGERS, dissenting in part :
I believe that both the IAM and the Boilermakers are acting in-
consistently with the joint certification of the IAM and the Trades
Council, and with their previous bargaining positions. Accordingly,
for the reasons stated in Hollingsworth ct Whitney, 115 NLRB 15, and
International Paper Company, 115 NLRB 17, I would dismiss both
petitions herein.
Long-Lewis Hardware Company and Teamsters Local Union 612,
affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America , Petitioner.
Case No. 10-RC-4897. December 26, 1961
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 Kathryn M. Rossback, hear-
ing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
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 McCulloch and Members Leedom and Brown].
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. The Petitioner seeks to represent in one unit employees currently
represented by the Intervenor at the Employer's wholesale hardware
establishment at Birmingham, Alabama, and office clericals who are
presently unrepresented at the same location. The Employer contends
that a contract between it and the Intervenor covering the above rep-
resented employees and effective from April 14, 1960, for 1 year with
provision for automatic renewal is a bar to the petition, which was
filed on January 16,1961. As the petition was filed more than 60 days
but not over 150 days before the terminal date of April 14, 1961,
provided in the contract, we find it was timely filed.'
We find that questions affecting commerce exist 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.
1 Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, AFL-CIO, hereinafter called the Inter-
venor, was permitted to intervene at the hearing on the basis of a contracual interest. As
indicated hereinafter , it currently represents a unit of inside salesmen, buyers, sales pro-
motion employees , and clerks who are under the supervision of the wholesale division.
2 Del,uae Metal Furniture Company, 121 NLRB 995, 1000.
134 NLRB No. 142.