Lindsay Light & Chemical Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 25, 1942

40 N.L.R.B. 847 (N.L.R.B. 1942)

In the Matter of LINDSAY LIGHT & CHEMICAL COMPANY and INTER-
NATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF FIREMEN AND OILERS , AFFILIATED WITH
THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR
Case No. R-3566,9.-Decided April 05,1942
Jurisdiction : chemical and mantle manufacturing industry.
Investigation and Certification of Representatives : existence of question: re-
fusal to accord petitioner recognition until certified by the Board ; part-time
employees eligible to vote ; election necessary.
Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining : production and maintenance em-
ployees in the chemical and mantle divisions, including watchmen, by ex-
cluding working foremen and other supervisory employees , laboratory workers,
and office and clerical employees , held to constitute an appropriate unit.
Winston, Strawn d Shaw, by Mr. G. B. Christensen and Mr. Ray-
mond 0. Mitchell, of Chicago, Ill., for the Company.
Mr. Howard A. Plank, of Chicago, Ill., for the Union.
Mr. Marvin C. Wahl, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On February 14 and 26, 1942, respectively, International Brother-
hood of Firemen and Oilers, affiliated with the American Federa-
tion of Labor, herein called the Union, filed with the Regional
Director for the Thirteenth Region (Chicago, Illinois) a petition
and an amended petition alleging that a question affecting com-
merce had arisen concerning the representation of employees of
Lindsay Light & Chemical Company, West Chicago, Illinois, herein
called the Company, and requesting an investigation and certification
of representatives pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. On March 18,
1942, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board,
acting pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the Act and Article III, Section
3, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series
2, as amended, ordered an investigation and authorized the Regional
Director to conduct it and to provide for an appropriate hearing
upon due notice.
On March 19, 1942, the Regional Director issued a notice of
hearing, copies of which were duly served upon the Company and the
40 N. L. R B, No. 151.
847
848 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Union. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on March 25 and 26.
1942, at Chicago, Illinois, before Russell Packard, the Trial Examiner
duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The Company was
represented by counsel and the Union, by its representative; both
parties participated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard,
to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence
bearing on the issues was afforded all parties. During the course
of the hearing the Trial Examiner made various rulings on motions
and on objections to the admission of evidence. The Board has re-
viewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner-and finds that no preju-
dicial errors were committed. Thd rulings are hereby aflirfned.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Lindsay Light & Chemical Company, an Illinois corporation, is
engaged at West Chicago, Illinois, in the production of rare earth
chemicals and in the manufacture of incandescent mantles and gas
light fixtures. In 1941, the Company purchased raw materials valued
at approximately $800,000, of which amount approximately 65 per-
cent represented purchases received from sources outside the State of
Illinois. During the same period, the total value of the Company's
sales approximated $1,300,000, of which approximately $1,170,000
represented shipments to points outside the, State of Illinois.
The Company admits that it is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Brotherhood of Firemen and Oilers is a labor organi-
zation affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, admitting to
membership employees of the Company.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
On or about February 13, 1942, the Union requested the Company
to grant it recognition as exclusive representative of its employees, a
majority of whom the Union claimed to .represent. The Company
refused to grant such recognition until the Union was certified by the
Board.
A statement of the Trial Examiner which was introduced at the
hearing indicates that the Union represents a substantial number
of employees in the unit hereinafter found to be appropriate.'
' The statement shows that the Union submitted 108 designation cards, all of which
bore apparently genuine signatures and neie dated as follows one in January 1941, 43
LINDSAY LIGHT & CHEMICAL COMPAINY 849
We find that a question has arisen concerning the representation
of employees of the Company.
TV. THE EFFECT OF THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION UPON
COMMERCE
We find that the question which has arisen, occurring in connec-
tion with the operations of the Company described in Section I above,
has a close, intimate, and snsbtantial relation to trade, traffic, and
comlrierce among the several States, and tends to lead to labor dis-
putes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of
commerce.
V. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Union contends that the appropriate unit consists of all pro-
duction and maintenance employees in the mantle and chemical
divisions of the Company, including watchmen, but excluding work-
ing foremen and other supervisory employees, laboratory workers,
and office and clerical employees. The Company contends that each
division of the plant, i. e., the mantle division and the chemical
division, constitutes a separate appropriate unit. The Company
agrees to the inclusion of watchmen and the exclusion of supervisory
employees, other than working foremen, and office and clerical em-
ployees. ' However, it desires to include working foremen and certain
laboratory workers.
The record supports the Union's position that both divisions
should be combined in a single unit. It appears that the Company
manufactures incandescent materials and gas light fixtures in its
mantle division and produces various chemicals in its chemical divi-
sion. The divisions are located in adjoining buildings and are con-
nected by a door accessible to all employees. After the mantles are
assembled, they are dipped ill a solution which is prepared in the
chemical division. This "clipping" process usually occurs in the
mantle division itself, although, on occasion, mantles are sent to the
chemical division to be treated there. In addition, some wires which
are used in the manufacture of mantles are plated by employees in
the chemical division.' The entire plant is under the care of a single
maintenance crew. There is one general office and a single first-aid
room for all employees. One personnel director recommends hiring
for both divisions. While the extent of interchange of employees
in January 1 942, 32 in February 1642, 32 undated The Trial Examiner was unable to
compare the signatures with the Company s pay roll because one had not been furnished
by the Company During the hearing, a representative of the Company stated that these
were approximately 161 employees in the unit which the Union clauued to be appropriate
2 The recohd indicates that the bulk of the work of the chemical division is devoted to
nranufactui ing chemicals for other chemical plant and companies
455771-42-vol 40--54
850 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
between the divisions does not clearly appear, it is established that
some transfers of employees do occur.
Moreover, on February 6, 1937, by consent of the Company and
the'Union,' an election was held among "all production and main-
tenance employees on the pay roll 'of the employer . . . except
chemists, supervisors, and office employees," pursuant to an agree-
ment between the parties.3
Under the circumstances, we believe that the employees in the
chemical division should be grouped, for the purposes of collective
bargaining, with the employees in the mantle division.
The Union desires to exclude all working foremen 4 from, the
appropriate unit. The Company wishes to include them. The
record shows that they spend a portion of their time in directing and
instructing the groups of employees under their respective super-
vision. They have the power to recommend hire and discharge, or
to recommend discipline. We find that the interests of the working
foremen are more closely allied with those of the Company than with
the production and maintenance employees, and we shall exclude
them from the appropriate unit.
The status of one Deeter was 'also in issue. We find'th at'he is
a general laborer and should be included within the unit.
The Union requests the exclusion of all laboratory workers em-
ployed by the Company. The Company makes no express contention
as to the inclusion or exclusion of "laboratory workers" as a group,
but desires the inclusion of certain of them.-' Several of the labora-
tory workers whom the Company would include within the unit are
university graduates who receive a salary and vacation privileges.
While the others are paid an hourly rate and do not receive vacation
privileges, the nature of their work requires 6 months' preparatory
training. In view of the technical knowledge and training required
of the laboratory workers, and since there is no evidence that self-
organization has extended to employees in this group, we shall exclude
them from the unit.
We find that all production and maintenance employees in the
mantle and chemical divisions of the Company, including watchmen,
but excluding working foremen and other supervisory employees,
laboratory workers, and office and clerical employees, constitute a unit
'The results of the election showed that 64 ballots were cast , 27 of which were for
the Union, 35 against it, and 2 were challenged . The Company contends that it agreed
to the plant -wide unit in that election only because it feared a strike. In support of
this contention , the Company 's president testified that a union organizer had mentioned
the "possibility of there being a strike" However, he also testified that there was no
threat of strike by any "responsible" party
'The record does not contain a complete '- list of "working foremen" ; evidence was
adduced only with respect to Whitley , Smith , Hecht, and Marks.
5 Schacht , Gender, Rhodes , McCoy, and Bahr.
LPNDSAY LIGHT & CHEMICAL COMPANY 851
appropriate for' the purposes of collective bargaining and that such
unit will insure to employees of the Company the full benefit of their
right to self-organization and to collective bargaining and otherwise
will effectuate the policies of the Act. ' ' _
VI. DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
We find that the question concerning representation which has
arisen can best be -resolved by an election' by secret ballot. The
Union requested that eligibility to vote be determined by the pay
roll immediately preceding February 18, 1942, so that certain em-
ployees of the mantle division who were allegedly laid off following
that date would be permitted to vote. In the absence of a compelling
reason requiring us to depart from our usual practice, we shall direct
.that those eligible to vote in the election shall be the employees
within the appropriate unit who were employed by the Company
during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of this
Direction of Election, subject to the limitations and additions set
forth in the Direction.6
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire
record in the case, the Board makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. A question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the repre-
sentation of employees of Lindsay Light & Chemical Company,
West Chicago, Illinois, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) and
Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act.
2. All production and ma'iiitenance employees in the mantle and
chemical divisions of the Company, including watchmen, but exclud-
ing working foremen and other supervisory employees, laboratory
workers, and office and clerical employees, constitute a unit appropri-
ate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act. -
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 8, of National Labor Rela-
tions Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2, as amended, it is hereby
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation authorized by the Board
to ascertain representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining
6 It appears that the Company employs two part -time employees whose duties consist
of general cleanup work The Company requested, over the Union's objection, that they
be permitted to vote inasmuch as the nature of their duties required their inclusion
within the appropriate unit. We find that they are eligible to vote in the election
852 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
with Lindsay Light & Chemical Company, West Chicago, Illinois. ,
an election by secret ballot shall be conducted as soon as possible, but
not later than thirty (30) days from the date of this Direction, under
the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Thir-
teenth Region, acting in this matter as agent for the National Labor
Relations Board, and subject to Article III, Section 9, of said Rules
and Regulations; among all production and maintenance employees in
the mantle and chemical divisions of the/Company-who were employed
during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of this"
Direction of Election, including watchmen and employees who did
not work during such pay-roll period because they were ill or on
vacation or in the active military service or training of the United
States, dr temporarily laid off, but excluding working foremen and
other supervisory employees, -laboratory workers, office and clerical
employees, and employees who have since quit or been discharged for
cause, to determine whether or not they desire to be represented by
International Brotherhood of Firemen and Oilers, affiliated with the
American Federation of Labor, for the purposes of collective
bargaining.