Lever Brothers Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 24, 1947

74 N.L.R.B. 628 (N.L.R.B. 1947)

In the Matter of LEVER BROTHERS COMPANY, EMPLOYER and SOAP,
GLYCERINE & EDIBLE OIL WORKERS UNION ORGANIZATION, UNITED
CHEMICAL WORKERS OF AMERICA, C. I. 0., PETITIONER
In the Matter of LEVER BROTHERS COMPANY, EMPLOYER and INTER-
NATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF FIREMEN AND OILERS, POWERHOUSE
EMPLOYEES, OPERATORS AND MAINTENANCE MEN, A. F. L., PETITIONER
Cases Nos. 13-R-42-31 and 13-R-4358, respectively. Decided
July 04, 1947
Austin M. Fisher Associates, by Messrs. Austin M. Fisher and John
J. Cuneo, of New York City, for the Employer.
' Mr. Benjamin C. Sigal, of Washington, D. C., and Mr. Howard
Jones, of Chicago, Ill., for the United.
Messrs. Isaiah S. Dorfman and Michael J. Costello, of Chicago, Ill.,
for the Firemen.
Daniel D. Carmell, by Messrs. Lester Asher and Joseph E. Gubbins,
of Chicago, Ill., for the International.
` Mr. Edmund J. Flynn, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
AND
ORDER
Upon separate petitions duly filed, hearing in this proceeding 1 was
held at Chicago, Illinois, on April 7, 8, and 9, 1947, before Robert T.
Drake, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hear-
ing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. * The
Employer and the International moved to dismiss the Firemen's peti-
tion on the ground, among others, that the unit sought by the Firemen
is inappropriate. For reasons set forth in Section IV, below, the
motion is hereby granted. The Employer and the International also
moved to dismiss the United's petition because of the alleged inappro-
priateness of the unit sought by the United.2 For the reasons set forth
These cases were consolidated by order of the Board dated April 7, 1947.
s We find no merit to the other motions to dismiss which were advanced by the Inter-
national.
74 N. L. R. B., No. 123.
628
LEVER BROTHERS COMPANY 629
in Section IV, below, the motion is hereby denied. The International's
request for, oral argument is hereby denied inasmuch, as the entire
record, in our opinion, adequately presents the issues'and positions of
the parties.
Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations
Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Lever Brothers Company, a Maine corporation having its principal
offices at Cambridge, Massachusetts, operates six production plants
and many branch and sales offices throughout the United States. At
its plant in Hammond, Indiana, which is primarily involved in this
proceeding, the Employer manufactures soap products, glycerine, and
edible products. During the past yearly period, the Employer pur-
chased for use at its Hammond plant raw materials valued in excess
of $1,000,000, of which approximately 90 percent was shipped from
points outside the State of Indiana. During the same period, the
Employer sold manufactured products valued in excess of $1,000,000,
of which approximately 90 percent was shipped outside the State.
The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Soap, Glycerine & Edible Oil Workers Union Organization, United
Chemical Workers of America, herein called the United, is a labor
organization affiliated with the Congress'of Industrial Organizations,
claiming to represent employees of the Employer.
International Brotherhood of Firemen and Oilers, Powerhouse Em-
ployees, Operators and Maintenance Men, herein called the Firemen,
is a labor organization affiliated with the American Federation of
Labor, claiming to represent employees of the Employer.
International Chemical Workers Union, herein called the Inter-
national, is a labor organization affiliated with the American Federa-
tion of Labor, claiming to represent employees of the Employer.
III. THE QUESTIONS CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Employer refuses to recognize the United or the Firemen as
the exclusive bargaining representative of employees in the respective
units asserted to be appropriate by these labor organizations until each
has been certified by the Board.
630 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
We find that in Case No. 13-R-4231, a question affecting commerce
has arisen concerning the representation of employees of the Em-
ployer, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and
(7) of the Act.
Inasmuch as the bargaining unit sought to be established by the
Petitioner in Case No. 13-R-4358 is hereinafter found to be inappro-
priate, we find in that case that no question concerning the represen-
tation of employees of the Employer has arisen in an appropriate
unit within the meaning of Section 9 (c) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT; THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
The United seeks a unit of all production and maintenance em-
ployees at the Employer's plant at Hammond, Indiana, including,
among others, the mechanical department employees, but excluding
all supervisory personnel. The Firemen seeks a separate unit of the
Hammond mechanical department employees, excluding draftsmen
and supervisory personnel. The Employer and the International are
in accord with the composition of the unit sought by the United, but
contend that a bargaining unit restricted to Hammond production and
maintenance employees is inappropriate; it is their position that the
appropriate unit should include employees of the Employer's plants
at Hammond, Indiana, Cambridge, Massachusetts, Edgewater, New
Jersey, and Baltimore, Maryland. The Employer, the International,
and the United 3 oppose the unit sought by the Firemen ; they request
that employees of the mechanical department should be included in
the same unit which embraces other Hammond production and mainte-
nance employees.
We shall first consider the petition of the United for a unit of
Hammond employees, postponing for later consideration the pro-
priety of including within that unit the Hammond mechanical depart-
ment employees whom the Firemen seeks to represent separately.
Over-all management, production, and labor relations policies re-
specting the Employer's plants are formulated at the Employer's Cain-
bridge executive offices which are located apart from the Cambridge
production plant. These policies are applied locally by the plant
managers who exercise discretion in accommodating them to peculi-
arly local problems. Thus, although the Hammond plant manager
must act within certain prescribed policy limits, he is clothed with
authority to exercise independent judgment in many important
3 At the hearing the United indicated approval of the unit requested by the Firemen
insofar as it did not object to a suggested self-determination election among the mechan-
ical department employees However, upon the entire record, we interpret the United's
position as contrary to that of the Firemen.
LEVER BROTHERS COMPANY 631
respects, including, among others, the hiring and discharge of em-
ployees. Likewise, insofar as the Employer's actual production is
concerned, there is a mixture of centralization with plant level inde-
pendence. Thus, while each plant, for the most part, wholly produces
finished products ready for distribution and sale, there is some func-
tional interdependence between plants. For example, the Hammond
plant ships a portion of one of its products, refined oil, to another of
the Employer's plants; and the Hammond plant receives a catalyst
for its'own production use fron-1 another of the Employer's plants.
And although production processes and-equipment and job classifica-
tions at the Hammond, Cambridge, Edgewater, and Baltimore plants
are similar, we note that there is virtually no interchange of employees
between these plants, that the number of employees and the wages
paid at each plant vary, and that the plants, especially the Hammond
plant, are widely separated from each other.
The history of collective bargaining as to the employees in question
further accentuates the balance between multi-plant integration and
single-plant independence. The first collective bargaining contract'
covering Hammond employees was executed in 1934. It was a single
plant contract and was periodically renewed or renegotiated until 1946.
These Hammond contracts as well as the single-plant contracts cover-
ing maintenance and production employees at the Cambridge, Edge-
water, and Baltimore plants were negotiated by the International, its
predecessor, or their respective affiliated locals.4 In March 1946, cul-
minating several years of negotiations, the Employer and the Inter-
national, acting in behalf of the plant locals at Hammond, Cambridge,
Edgewater, and Baltimore, signed a master agreement covering all
production and maintenance employees at these four plants. This con-
tract provided that questions of a local nature be settled by local
agreements. The four-plant contract expired on March 14, 1947, and
was renegotiated on a three-plant basis effective March 15, 1947, ex-
empting the Hammond plant ostensibly because of the filing of the
representation petitions herein.5 The recent multi-plant contracts ne-
gotiated by the Employer and the International indicate an effort to
gain broad collective bargaining stability by consolidating the plant
units effectively into a multi-plant unit. However, the long history of
single-plant bargaining at Hammond together with the substantial
representative interest shown by the United among Hammond em-
4 In Matter of Leier Brothers Company, 57 N L R B 139, an affiliated local of the
Firemen was certified as bargaining representative of the Cambridge powerhouse employees.
The record shows that the International in January 1947 , suspended the executive
committee of its affiliated Hammond local' This led to a breakdown in the bargaining
process at Hammond and precipitated the petitions filed in this proceeding.
632 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ployees military against a definitive unit resolution based on the 1946
and 1947 contracts in favor of multi-plant bargaining..
Under all the circumstances it appears that either a unit confined to
the Hammond production and maintenance employees or a unit com-
posed of all production and maintenance employees of the Hammond,
Cambridge , Edgewater , and Baltimore plants would be feasible. In
view of the foregoing and in view of the fact that the Hammond em-
ployees have had no opportunity to express their desires in this matter,
we shall make no final determination as to the scope of the unit at the
present time ; instead we believe that the determination of the unit
should depend, in part, upon the desires of the employees themselves
as expressed in the election hereinafter directed.
As hereinbefore noted, the Employer, the International , and the
United would include Hammond mechanical department employees
within the unit embracing Hammond production and maintenance em-
ployees. The Firemen , however, contends that such employees may
function separately as a collective bargaining unit. The 90 employees
of the mechanical department fall into 6 definite classifications, each
under the direction of a foreman : ( 1) powerhouse employees, (2)
steamfitters , welders, tinsmiths and their helpers, ( 3) electricians and
their helpers , ( 4) machinists , junior mechanics , and oilers , ( 5) store-
room employees , and (6 ) painters , carpenters , and service employees;
unclassified are 2 metermen and 2 draftsmen . These employees per-
form work normally associated with their respective trades, and func-
tion as operational , maintenance , custodial , and janitorial employees.
It is urged that this lack of homogeneity as regards skills and func-
tions precludes carving out the proposed unit from a production and
maintenance unit embracing Hammond employees . We agree with this
contention . While it is true that the mechanical department employ-
ees are a readily definable group and are all under the ultimate super-
vision of the plant engineer , the record nevertheless shows that they
constitute an artificial grouping of employees , whose employment in-
terests are not reasonably interrelated to each other , nor clearly sepa-
rable from those of other production and maintenance employees. For
example, the functions and other interests of the powerhouse employ-
ees, who number about 15, are , in many respects , quite different from
those of other employees in the proposed mechanical department unit.
On the other hand, the proposed unit would exclude categories of em-
ployees similar to those in the mechanical department , such as machin-
ists, oilers , and junior mechanics.
The mechanical department employees have since 1934 been in-
cluded in all collective bargaining contracts covering Hammond pro-
duction and maintenance employees . In 1942 an unsuccessful effort
LEVER BROTHERS COMPANY 633
was made to secure representation for some of the mechanical depart-
ment employees. However, since that time mechanical department
employees have actively participated in plant-wide bargaining nego-
tiations with the Employer and have been responsible for numerous
benefits which have accrued to themselves as well as to other produc-
tion and maintenance employees. In view of this past bargaining
history and the artificial non-homogeneous grouping, we are of the
opinion that the employees sought to be represented by the Firemen
do not by themselves constitute an appropriate unit.6
Accordingly, we shall direct that an election be conducted among the
employees in the following voting group : all production and mainte-
nance employees at the Employer's Hammond, Indiana, plant, includ-
ing mechanical department employees, all regular hourly paid em-
ployees, non-supervisory laboratory employees, chauffeurs, the head
watchman, metermen, and factory clerks, but excluding draftsmen,
office and clerical employees, and all supervisory employees.' If a ma-
jority of these employees select the United as their bargaining repre-
sentative, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to constitute
a separate appropriate unit. If, however, they select the Interna-
tional, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to be part of the
multi-plant contract unit of production and maintenance employees.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION 8
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining with Lever Brothers Company, Ham-
mond, Indiana, 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 Thirteenth Region, acting in this matter as agent for the
National Labor Relations Board, and subject to Sections 203.55 and
03.56, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-
S,eries 4, among the employees in the voting group described in Sec-
tion IV, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period im-
mediately preceding the date of this Direction, including employees
who did not work during said pay-roll period because they were ill
or on vacation or temporarily 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
6 See Matter of Engineering and Research Corporation , 72 N. L. R. B 1471; Matter of
Atlantic Creosoting Company, Inc., 72 N. L. R. B. 1154; and Matter of Johnson and John-
son, 72 N. L. R. B. 1061.
This is substantially the Hammond unit as defined in the 1946 four-plant contract.
Any participant in the election herein directed may, upon its prompt request to and
approval thereof by the Regional Director, have its name removed from the ballot
634 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
discharged for cause and have not been rehired or reinstated prior to
the date of the election, to determine whether they desire to be rep-
resented by Soap, Glycerine & Edible Oil Workers Union Organiza-
tion, United Chemical Workers of America, C. I. 0., or by Interna-
tional Chemical Workers Union; A. F. L., for the purposes of collec-
tive bargaining, or by neither.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for investigation and certifi-
cation of representatives of certain of the employees of the Lever
Brothers Company at Hammond, Indiana, filed in Case No . 13-R-4358,
by International Brotherhood of Firemen and Oilers , Powerhouse
Employees , Operators and Maintenance Men, A. F. L., be, and it here-
by is , dismissed.