Mallinkrodt Chemical Works

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 31, 1948

76 N.L.R.B. 1055 (N.L.R.B. 1948)

In the Matter of MALLINKRODT CHEMICAL WORKS,' EMPLOYER and
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF FIREMEN AND OILERS AND MAINTE-
NANCE MEN, LOCAL UNION 6, AFL, PETITIONER
Case No.14-RC-1O.-Decided March 31,19118
Cobbs, Logan, Roos d Armstrong, by Mr. George B. Logan, and Mr.
Norman Knowlton, both of St. Louis, Mo., for the Employer.
Bartley and Bartley, by Mr. Malcolm L. Bartley, and Mr. Edward J.
l4Teber, both of St. Louis, Mo., for the Petitioner.
Messrs. Rudolph K. Schurr and Robert Paul Walbridge, both of
St. Louis, Mo., for the Intervenor.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this -ease was held at St . Louis,
Missouri , on December 19, 1947, before Glenn L. Moller , hearing offi-
cer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in the case , the National Labor Relations
Board 2 makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Mallinkrodt Chemical Works is a Missouri corporation with plants,
warehouses, and offices located in St. Louis, Missouri, New York City,
Jersey City, New Jersey, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and Chicago,
Illinois. Only the St. Louis plant is involved in this proceeding. At
this plant the Employer is engaged in the manufacture and sale of fine
chemicals for medical, industrial, and other purposes. The Employer
annually receives and uses at its St. Louis plant raw materials valued
I The designation of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing.
2 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers In connection with this case to a
three -man panel consisting of the undersigned Board Members [ Houston, Murdock, and
Gray].
76 N. L. It. B., No. 154.
1055
1056 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
in excess of $10,000,000 , of which approximately 75 percent is shipped
from points outside the State of Missouri . The Employer annually
produces at its St. Louis plant products in excess of $10,000,000, of
which approximately 75 percent is shipped to points outside the State
of Missouri.
The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
IT. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with the American
Federation of Labor, claiming to represent employees of the Employer.
Independent Union of Chemical Plant Workers, herein called the
Intervenor , is a labor organization , claiming to represent employees of
the Employer.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Employer refuses to recognize the Petitioner as the exclusive
bargaining representative of employees of the Employer until the
Petitioner has been certified by the Board in an appropriate unit.
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.
IV. TILE APPROPRIATE 'UNIT
The Petitioner seeks a unit composed of 18 employees in the Em-
ployer's two powerhouses, excluding clerical employees , licensed engi-
neers , and supervisors . The Employer and the Intervenor both con-
tend that the unit sought is inappropriate because of a long history
of bargaining on a plant -wide basis , in the course of which the interests
of- powerhouse employees have been represented. The Employer and
the Intervenor further contend that the powerhouse employees do not
constitute a homogeneous, identifiable group, but are integrated in the
production process.
The Employees involved are responsible for the operation of two
powerhouses generating heat, power, and related facilities for use
by the production departments . In addition they maintain machin-
ery and equipment located in the powerhouses or scattered throughout
the plant but controlled from and dependent upon the powerhouses.
Included in the group are : (1 ) powerhouse firemen, who watch the
fires and all control equipment , and act as assistants to the operating
stationary engineers , ( 2) powerhouse operators , who assist the fire-
MALLINKRODT CHEMICAL WORKS 1057
men, (3) powerhouse maintenance men, who maintain and repair
powerhouse equipment, and (4) powerhouse coal unloaders, who
unload coal, remove ashes, and perform general janitorial services
in the powerhouses. In their briefs both the Employer and the Inter-
venor conceded that the firemen are skilled personnel and that the
maintenance men are semi-skilled, but maintained that the operators
and coal unloaders are unskilled. At the same time the official of the
Employer responsible for the hiring of powerhouse employees testi-
fied that lie would require that anyone hired as a fireman have a mini-
inn of 5 years' experience in that work; that 3 years would be the
minimum experience required in the case of maintenance men; 6
months in the case of operators. As a matter of general practice, how-
ever, the Employer has hired all powerhouse employees as coal un-
loaders. permitting them to advance through the other classifications
to the position of fireman.
The powerhouse employees work under the separate direct super-
vision of three operating stationary engineers. The powerhouses are
physically separated from the rest of the plant, and the men employed
therein have their own washing and dressing facilities. Although
they are permitted to eat in the plant cafeteria, they invariably take
their meals in the powerhouses. There is virtually no interchange
of personnel between the powerhouses and the other departments of
the plant. Although the powerhouses are charged with responsibility
for inspecting the various systems, such as heating, sprinkler, refrig-
eration, and distilled water, which emanate from the powerhouses but
run through the rest of the plant, it appears that this equipment is
regularly inspected by only one powerhouse employee and requires
only about an hour a day. On occasion maintenance men from the
Employer's mechanical department are called in to assist in power-
house maintenance work. On other occasions powerhouse mainte-
nance employees are required to use tools and equipment in the gen-
eral plant maintenance department. Such occasions, however, con-
sume a negligible amount of time. It is clear that powerhouse em-
ployees do not have frequent contact with other employees.
The Intervenor has been recognized by the Employer since 1937 as
collective bargaining agent for all the production and maintenance
employees,3 excluding clerical, supervisory, and technical employees.4
3 However , all licensed stationary engineers are represented by Local No 2 of the Inter-
national Union of Operating Engineers pursuant to a Board -directed election . In addition
there is evidence that the Employer employs about five truck drivers who are members of
an A F of L Teamsters Local , although this local apparently has never attempted to bar-
gain for these men.
i At the time the present petition was filed, the Intervenor had a contract with the
Employer which was to expire on Febi nary 1, 1948 There is no contention that this con-
tiact bars a present determination of iepresentatives
1 058 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Powerhouse employees have served on bargaining committees, and the
interests of these employees have been represented in bargaining and
in the processing of grievances. However, the Intervenor has never
been certified by the Board, and the powerhouse employees have had no
opportunity to indicate in an election whether or not they desire
separate representation.
Under all these circumstances we believe that the employees sought
to be represented by the Petitioner constitute a homogeneous, readily
identifiable, functionally coherent group, having a community of in-
terest, and of a type which we have frequently held appropriate either
for separate representation or for inclusion in a broader unit.' Em-
ployees such as are here involved have traditionally been represented
by locals of the Petitioner's international where, as in this case, these
employees are segregated from the production employees. In the
absence of any prior opportunity of selecting separate representatives,
the history of bargaining on a broader basis in this plant is not suffi-
cient in itself to deprive these employees of an opportunity of deciding
at this time whether they desire to be represented in a separate unit
or as part of the plant-wide unit. Accordingly, we shall make no unit
determination, pending the outcome of the election., hereinafter di-
rected. If, in this election, the employees select the Petitioner, they
will be taken to have indicated their desire to constitute a separate
bargaining unit. If, on the other hand, they select the Intervenor,
they will be taken to have indicated their desire to continue to be
represented in the plant-wide unit.
There remains for consideration the question of whether the election
should be conducted among the employees of both powerhouses. The
Employer operates one powerhouse in connection with its main plant,
the other in connection with a so-called "Project Plant." The latter
is under the jurisdiction of the Atomic Energy Commission, but its
employment policies are controlled by the Employer. The "Project
Plant" powerhouse employs 4 of the 18 powerhouse employees. It is
fired by gas and oil, whereas the powerhouse at the main plant is fired
by coal. The two powerhouses are some distance from each other,
and the Employer maintains that there is no community of interest
between the two groups of powerhouse employees. We note, however,
that both groups are under the same general supervision, that the work
of both groups is substantially similar, that the wage rates and work-
ing conditions are the same; and that there has been some interchange
of personnel. In addition, the Board has previously determined that
6 Matter of L E. Shunk Latex Products, Inc., 67 N. L. R . B. 552 ; Matter of E. I. Du Pont
de Nemours & Company, Inc., 73 N. L. R. B . 439; Matter of American Fork & Hoe Co., 72
N. L. R B. 1025 , Matter of E. W. Bliss Company, 76 N. L R. B 475.
MALLINKRODT CHEMICAL WORKS 1059
the two powerhouses constitute an appropriate unit in an election di-
rected on behalf of the stationary engineers s Accordingly we shall
permit the employees of both powerhouses to vote in the election here-
inafter directed.
We shall direct that an election by secret ballot be held at the Em-
ployer's St. Louis, Missouri, plant among the employees in the two
powerhouses, including powerhouse firemen, powerhouse maintenance
men, powerhouse operators, and powerhouse coal unloaders, but ex-
cluding clerical employees, all stationary engineers, and other super-
visors.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
purposes of collective bargaining with Mallinkrodt Chemical Works,
St. Louis, Missouri, an election by secret ballot shall be conducted as
early as possible, but not later than thirty (30) clays from the date
of this Direction, under the direction and supervision of the Regional
Director for the Fourteenth Region, and subject to Sections 203.61
and 203.62 of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-
Series 5, among the employees in the voting group described in Section
IV, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately
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, but excluding those employees who have since
quit or been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or rein-
stated 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 by International Brotherhood of Firemen
and Oilers and Maintenance Men, Local Union 6, AFL, or by Indepencl-
eut Union of Chemical Plant Workers, for the purposes of collective
bargaining, or by neither.
6Matter of Matlinkrodt Chemical 1Poiks, 70 N L R B. 905
Any participant in the elections directed heiein may, upon its pionipt request to and
approval theicof by the Regional Diiectoi, have its name removed from the ballot.
781902-48-vol 76-68