Mathieson Chemical Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 10, 1949

81 N.L.R.B. 1355 (N.L.R.B. 1949)

In the Matter Of MATHIESON CHEMICAL CORPORATION,1 LAKE CHARLES
OPERATION, EMPLOYER and LODGE 1317, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION
OF MACHINISTS , PETITIONER
In the Matter of MATHIESON CHEMICAL CORPORATION, LAKE CHARLES
OPERATION, EMPLOYER and LODGE 1317, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION
OF MACHINISTS, PETITIONER
Cases Nos. 15-RC-59 2 and 15-RC-60, respectively.-Decided March
10,19.49
DECISION
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
AND
ORDER
Upon separate petitions duly filed, a consolidated hearing was held
before a hearing officer of the National Labor Relations Board. 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 finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
National Labor Relations Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent employees
of the Employer .3
3. The question concerning representation :
MTC is a labor organization composed of various craft unions of
the American Federation of Labor at Lake Charles, Louisiana, and
was certified by the Board on September 15, 1944, as the bargaining
agent for employees of the Employer's Lake Charles operations. On
June 15, 1946, the Employer and MTC of which the Petitioner was
then a member, entered into a collective bargaining agreement to
1 The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing.
2 Petitioner 's motion made at the hearing to withdraw its petition in this case was
reserved by the hearing officer for decision by the Board. The motion is hereby granted.
a The Lake Charles Metal Trades Council , AFL, hereinafter referred to as MTC, was
allowed to intervene at the hearing on the ground of an existing contract between MTC and
the„Employer.
81 N. L. R. B., No. 220.
1355
1356 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
terminate May 1, 1948. This contract contained a 30-day automatic
renewal clause and a wage reopening clause. Pursuant to the re-
opening clause MTC notified the Employer on March 1, 1948, that
it wished to reopen the question of wages. On March 10, 1948, the
Petitioner requested that the Employer recognize it as the bargaining
representative for the employees described in the original petitions 4
and upon refusal, filed the present petitions March 15, 1948. The
petitions were timely filed .5
Meanwhile, on March 12, 1948, the Employer and MTC held a
meeting at which the Employer proposed certain revisions in the
contract and suggested that the contract be extended for another 2
years. During this meeting the Employer was notified of the Peti-
tioner's demand for recognition and the meeting was adjourned until
the position of the parties could be considered. On March 25, the
Petitioner sent a letter to the Employer stating that despite rumors
to the contrary it had no objection to any wage increase that might
be negotiated between the Employer and MTC. Another meeting be-
tween the Employer and MTC was held on April 23, at which the
Petitioner's business agent, Fitzgerald, was present. At the outset
of this meeting Fitzgerald indicated that he was there as a repre-
sentative of the Petitioner and that he had no objection to any wage
increase that might be negotiated between MTC and the Employer.
The memorandum quoted below was read, discussed and signed by all
present including Fitzgerald, the latter including his name along
with others designated as signing for MTC.
The undersigned agree to resume and proceed with negotiations
on the subject of wages for the employees in the bargaining unit
described in the N. L. R. B. Notice of Election in Case No.
15-UA-46 with the understanding that any revision of rates
negotiated shall be made effective as of May 1, 1948 or at a date
mutually agreed to by the company and the Lake Charles Metal
Trades Council, and the contract dated May 1, 1946 between the
parties shall be extended and continued in its present form except
as revised only as proposed in the first five numbered paragraphs
in the company's letter to the Council, dated March 11, 1948.'
On June 16, 1948, an agreement between the Employer and MTC
was signed, effective May 1, 1948, and embodied the changes referred
See below , "the appropriate unit."
Matter of Atlas Powder Company, 71 N. L. R. B . 723; Matter of Ste. Genevieve Lime
and Quarry Company, 70 N. L. R. B 1259.
6 The five paragraphs referred to concern a union security clause, deletion of guards and
watchmen from the bargaining unit, substitution of 60-day notice for 30 -day notice and
extension of the contract to May 1, 1950.
MATHIESON CHEMICAL CORPORATION 1357
to in the April 23 memorandum as well as new wage rates which by
that time had been agreed to.
The Employer and MTC contend, in substance, that by signing the
above-quoted memorandum the Petitioner waived its petition and can-
not now urge that the subsequent contract entered into by the Em-
ployer and MTC does not bar a present determination of representa-
tives.' We do not agree with this contention." Under all the circum-
stances, we find that Fitzgerald's act of signing the April 23 memo-
randum amounted to nothing more than an agreement that the current
wage negotiations would continue and that any contract subsequently
agreed to would contain all of the terms of the 1946 agreement with the
modifications noted in the memorandum.9 The Petitioner was not a
party to the ensuing contract signed on June 16, 1948. Under these
circumstances, we find that Fitzgerald's signing of the April 23 memo-
randum did not constitute a waiver of the petition herein.
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.
4. The appropriate unit :
In Case No. 15-RC-60, the Petitioner, in its original petition,
sought to sever from the existing plant-wide unit represented by MTC
a unit composed of all inside and outside machinists, their helpers and
7 In addition , the Employer contends that the instant case presents no representation
question , but rather what is an internal union disagreement which , as in the Bethlehem
case, 55 X. L. R. B. 912, can best be settled by the unions themselves. The record shows,
however, that the National office of the Metal Trades Department , AFL, had directed, on
January 28 , 1946 , that all local councils suspend and disassociate the locals of the IAM ;
that in November 1947 the Petitioner 's members voted to discontinue payment of dues to
MTC ; that in December 1947 the nomination of a member of the Petitioner to a Council
office was rejected on the ground the Petitioner was no longer a member of MTC ; that in
February 1948 the Petitioner told all its members not to participate in the forthcoming
election on a union security clause. These facts, in addition to the March 25th letter of
the Petitioner addressed to the Employer , conflict with the Employer 's contention. We
believe that the principle enunciated in the Bethlehem case cannot be extended to cover
cases, such as the instant one, in which an individual union no longer regards itself as
affiliated with the parent body in question and has been denied some of the privileges of
such affiliation . The Employer further contends that the amendments to the petition made
at the hearing substantially changed the units requested sufficiently to constitute it a new
and original petition filed after the existing contract was signed . As noted below, all of
the categories involved in the petition as finally amended were covered in the original peti-
tion. We, therefore , find no merit in this contention.
8 Member Gray is of a contrary view. Since the Petitioner agreed in an open , voluntary
meeting that the "contract [ between MTC and the Employer ] should be extended and
continued," Member Gray would hold that the Petitioner may not revoke its agreement
and that the contract between MTC and the Employer , which does not expire until May 1,
1950 , is a bar to this proceeding.
9In this connection , we note that at a meeting of members of the Petitioner prior to
April 23 Fitzgerald was authorized to sign only an agreement to the effect that the Peti-
tioner had no objection to the granting of any wage increase, and that when he appeared
at the April 23 meeting Fitzgerald stated that the purpose of his presence was to make It
clear that Petitioner had no objection to a wage increase.
1358 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
apprentices, all auto mechanics, truck mechanics, heavy equipment
mechanics, garage mechanics, their helpers and apprentices, all ma-
chinists' welders, and all other employees assigned to work which is
generally recognized as the work of machinists, auto mechanics, truck
mechanics, heavy duty mechanics, machinists' welders, their helpers
and apprentices and all employees engaged in the erection, installing,
maintaining and repairing and/or dismantling of machinery by the
company. At the hearing, the Petitioner amended its petition to in-
clude only the inside and outside machinists and regularly assigned
helpers, or, in the alternative, only the inside and outside machinists
and regularly assigned helpers, garage mechanics and regularly as-
signed helpers, welders and regularly assigned helpers and oilers and
regularly assigned helpers. The Petitioner has indicated that if the
Board should find both of these alternative units to be inappropriate
it desires to represent separately the employees in any segment of
either of those alternative units.
The inside machinists and their regularly assigned helpers : These
inside machinists are skilled workers. They operate lathes, milling
machines, grinders, shapers, and planers and must know how to work
to close tolerances using micrometers, snap gauges, etc. They spend
approximately 90 percent of their time in the machine shop repairing
pumps, compressors, and motors, and making or rebuilding parts.
The regularly assigned helpers assist them and, in time (3 to 4 years),
either of these alternative units.
The outside machinists and their regularly assigned helpers: These
employees work in gangs supervised by a leaderman who may or may
not be classified as a machinist. Boilermakers, pipefitters, bricklayers,
welders, and painters may be part of the same gang with outside
machinists and they frequently work together cleaning or resetting
tanks, pumps, or compressors, or repairing or installing pipe. The
record indicates that an average employee with little or no previous
machinery experience can become an outside machinist in 18 months
to 2 years, and that many of the outside machinists are not capable of
repairing all the equipment which must be maintained. The helpers
are generally unskilled and there is no apprenticeship training pro-
gram. The outside machinists herein are the same employees who
were classified as Meld mechanics in an earlier proceeding involving
the same plant as in the present case.10 In that case we refused to
permit the severance of these employees from the existing plant-wide
unit.
10 Matter of MatM{eson AikaU Works, 67 N. L . R. B. 716.
MATHIESON CHEMICAL CORPORATION 1359
Garage mechanic and his regularly assigned helpers: The garage
mechanic is not under the same supervision a^ the inside machinists
and works in a shop situated at some distance from the machine shop.
He does not have the equipment necessary to make major mechanical
repairs and work is often sent out when repairs are required. The
helper does lubrication work and renders minor assistance when called
on but is not capable of becoming a qualified mechanic.
The welders and their regularly assigned helpers: These employees
spend the major portion of their time welding-pipe connections and
may on occasion do pipefitting or boilermaking work. Only infre-
quently do they weld machine parts or perform build-up welding for
remachining. Most of their time is consumed in outside work. They
work interchangeably with other employees of a gang and are not the
type of skilled welders we have previously included in a unit of ma-
chinists. The helpers often work for other classifications as well.
The oilers and their regularly assigned helpers: These employees
work all over the plant following set schedules in oiling the pumps,
compressors, and motors that need attention. They do not ordinarily
work with any other group but may on occasion be called upon to per-
form work other than oiling. The oilers do not have regularly as-
signed helpers.
Upon the basis of these facts we find that none of the above-noted
groups of employees, except the inside machinists and their helpers,
possess craft skills or share a peculiar community of interest sufficient
to warrant their severance from the plant-wide unit either individu-
ally or in combination with any of the other groups. As to the inside
machinists and their helpers, we find that their craft skills, and the
distinctive nature of their work entitle them to separate representation
if they so desire, despite the history of bargaining on a broader basis.
Accordingly, we find that the inside machinists and their regularly
assigned helpers, but excluding all other production and maintenance
employees, office and clerical employees, and supervisors as defined in
the Act, may constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collec-
tive bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
However , we shall make no final unit determination at this time, but
shall be guided in part by the desires of these employees as expressed in
the election hereinafter directed. If, in this election, a majority of the
employees voting select the Petitioner, they will be taken to have
indicated their desire to constitute a separate bargaining unit. If,
however a majority of such employees select MTC, they will be taken to
have indicated their desire to continue to be represented by MTC as
part of the existing unit.
1360 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIRECTION OF ELECTION"
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
purposes of collective bargaining with the Employer, an election 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 super-
vision of the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region, and subject
to Sections 203.61 and 203.62 of National Labor Relations Board Rules
and Regulations-Series 5, as amended, among the employees described
in paragraph numbered 4, above, who were employed during the pay-
roll period immediately preceding the date of this Direction of Elec-
tion, including employees who did not work during said pay-roll period
because they were ill or on vacation or temporarily laid off, but exclud-
ing 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 employees on strike who are not entitled to rein-
statement, to determine whether they desire to be represented, for
purposes of collective bargaining, by International Association of
Machinists, Lodge 1317, or by Lake Charles Metal Trades Council,
AFL,12 or by neither.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion of the Petitioner to withdraw
its petition for investigation and certification of representatives of
certain employees of Mathieson Chemical Corporation, Lake Charles
Operation, Lake Charles, Louisiana, filed in Case No. 15-RC-59, be,
and it hereby is, granted.
CHAIRMAN HERZOG took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision, Direction of Election, and Order.
21 Any participant in the election directed herein may , upon written request within 10
days from the date of this Direction of Election made to, and approval thereof by, the
Regional Director, have its name removed from the ballot.
ss At the time of the hearing on this case , although MTC was in compliance with
Section 9 ( f), (g), and ( h) of the Act, several of the unions who were members of MTC
were not in compliance . Under these circumstances , we shall accord MTC a place on the
ballot, if all constituent members of MTC having an interest in employees in the unit in
which the election is directed shall have achieved compliance , prior to the printing of the
ballots for the election.