Mathieson Chemical Corp.Download PDFNational Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsOct 25, 195196 N.L.R.B. 1060 (N.L.R.B. 1951) Copy Citation 1060 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD These negotiations have resulted in practically identical, although separate, written agreements.4 In view of the functional and administrative integration of the French Camp and Napa plants, and the bargaining history which leas been to all intents and purposes on a two-plant basis, we find that a unit limited to employees of only one of these plants is not appro- priate.' Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petition. Order IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed. ' The contracts currently in effect were signed on June 19, 1951, to be effective from July 16 , 1951, to July 16, 1952 . However, as they contain an unlawful union -security clause, we find that they are not a bar . Sa-Mor Qualsty Brass, Inc, 93 NLRB 1225. 1 Beaumont Uety Lines, Inc., 90 NLRB 1800. MATHIESON CHEMICAL CORPORATION and LOCAL No. 130, BROTHERHOOD OF PAINTERS, DECORATORS AND PAPERHANGERS OF AMERICA, AFL, PETITIONER 4 MATHIESON CHEMICAL CORPORATION and LOCAL No. 213, UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS & JOINERS OF AMERICA , PETITIONER. Cases Nos. 39-RC_332 and 39-IBC-351. October 25, 1951 Decision, Direction of Election , and Order Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the Nat- ional 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. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with these cases to a three-mem- ber panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Murdock]. 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. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. Local No. 130, Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators and Paper- 1 Oil Workers International Union, CIO, intervened at the beginning of the hearing but withdrew shortly thereafter. 96 NLRB No. 166. MATHIESON CHEMICAL CORPORATION 1061 hangers of America, AFL, the Petitioner in Case No. 39-RC-332, here- inafter called the Paperhangers, seeks to represent a unit composed of all painter-sandblasters and their helpers employed in the Employer's Pasadena, Texas, plant, excluding all other employees. Local No. 213, United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America, the Peti- tioner in Case No. 39-RC-351, hereinafter called the Carpenters, seeks to represent a unit composed of all first- and second-class carpenters and their helpers employed at the same plant, excluding all other em- ployees. The Employer contends that the proposed units are inappro- propriate because (a) the duties of the employees sought therein are fuiictionally integrated into its plant operations; (b) the bargaining pattern in other plants in the area and in its own plants throughout the United States is predominantly industrial in character; and (c) the requested employees are not true craftsmen. The Employer asserts that only a plant-wide unit is appropriate. The Employer is engaged in the production of chemical fertilizers at its Pasadena plant. The plant has three departments, designated as production-operating, shipping, and maintenance, all of which are under the general supervision of the plant manager. The employees involved herein are employed in the maintenance department under.the general supervision of the maintenance superintendent who is directly responsible to the plant engineer. All the employees in the maintenance department, including.those sought herein, are classified as maintenance mechanics, first- and second-class, and helpers. Upon their initial employment, all mainte- nance department employees, except electricians, are placed in a utility pool from which they are later assigned to maintenance duties. Al- though the Employer has no formal apprenticeship training program for its maintenance employees, it has a comparable helper training program. Maintenance department employees are engaged exclusively in performing maintenance and repair work on plant machinery and equipment. There is no appreciable interchange between them and other employees. It appears that the employees sought herein, to- gether with all other production and maintenance employees except electricians, were represented for purposes of collective bargaining from the inception of the Employer's operation of the Pasadena plant until the end of 1949 by the Oil Workers International Union, CIO. Since 1949, no employees at the Pasadena plant, with the exception of the electricians noted above, have been represented by any labor organization. We must reject the Employer's contention that the work of the employees here sought is so integrated into its manufacturing proc- esses as to require a denial of the requests for their separate representa- 974176-52-vol 9668 0 1062 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD E tion.2 We likewise find no merit in the Employer's assertion that the bargaining pattern in its plants throughout the United States and in other plants in the Pasadena area precludes establishment of craft units at the latter plant. Indeed, the record shows that the electricians at the Pasadena plant are now represented in a separate craft unit. Moreover, the Board has in fact found craft units to be appropriate in comparable plants in the chemical industry.3 The approximately 15 or 16 maintenance mechanics, painters-sand- blasters, second-class, sought by the Paperhangers perform their duties throughout the plant. Although they have a separate shop and separate immediate supervision, they work under the general super, vision of the carpentry foreman. These employees are engaged in painting and sandblasting plant buildings and applying protective coatings on equipment. The record shows that 50 percent, or more, of their work consists of "rough painting," and that they perform "fin- ished painting" very infrequently. Only one member of the painter- sandblasters crew is qualified to mix or match colors. A substantial number were advanced to the second-class painter-sandblaster classi- fication, the highest rating for painters, after only 2 or 3 months' experience. The record further reveals that, with the exception of spraying work, an average employee while working as a painter's helper during a 1-month period could acquire virtually all the skills the Employer requires of its painters. In view of all the foregoing, we do not believe that the skills of the painter-sandblasters are com- parable to those of journeymen painters so as to warrant their estab- lishment as a separate craft unit. We find therefore that the unit of painter-sandblasters is inappropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining.¢ Accordingly, we shall dismiss the Paperhangers' peti- tion in Case No. 39-RC-332. The six maintenance mechanics-carpenters, first-class, one second- class maintenance mechanic-carpenter, and four carpenter helpers are quartered in the carpentry shop. They work throughout the plant, under the supervision of the carpentry foreman, performing miscellaneous carpentry work. Although the carpenters perform some work that is not directly related to their trade, such as lining tanks with bricks, insulating, erecting corrugated steel siding and metal flashing, at least 50 percent of their work consists of that whidh is tra- ditionally performed by journeymen carpenters. The record shows that at least two of the first-class carpenters completed a formal 2 See International Paper Company, Southern Kraft Division (Rayon Plant), 94 NLRB 500; E I. DuPont de Nemours & Company, 88 NLRB 941, and cases cited therein. 2Carthage Hydrocol, Inc, 91 NLRB No. 67 (not reported in bound volumes of Board decisions) ; McCarthy Chemical Company, 86 NLRB 14; Firestone Tire and Rubber Com- pany, 85 NLRB 559; B F Goodrich Chemical Company, 84 NLRB 429. 'The Smiths Bluff Refinery of the Pure Oil Company, 79 NLRB 51, and cases cited therein. LONE STAR PRODUCING COMPANY 1063 apprenticeship training period before they were hired, and the sec- ond-class carpenter has had 31/2 years' experience in carpentry work. In these circumstances, we find that the carpenters constitute an identifiable, homogeneous craft group, and shall establish them as a separate unit.' Although two employees in this category,6 who were recently given a temporary assignment to the roofing and siding crew, have performed some painting work while assigned to that crew, we shall include them in the unit hereinafter found to be appropriate on the basis of their association and interests with the other members of the carpenters group.' We find that all maintenance mechanics-carpenters, first- and sec- ond-class, and their helpers employed at the Employer's Pasadena, Texas, plant, excluding all other employees and supervisors as de- fined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of col-' lective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this volume.] Order IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed by Local No. 130, Broth- erhood of Painters, Decorators and Paperhangers of Amerida, AFL, in Case No. 39-RC-332 be, and it hereby is, dismissed. 5 See International Paper Company, Southern Kraft Division (Rayon Plant), supra. 6 Carpenters first-class Machalk and Meadows. 4 Robertshaw-Fulton Controls Co. (Fulton Sylphon Division), 88 NLRB 1508. LONE STAR PRODUCING COMPANY and OIL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, CIO, PETITIONER. Case, No. 16-RC-134. October 25, 1951 Order Clarifying Decision , Direction of Election , and Order On September 6, 1949, the Board issued a Decision, Direction of Election, and Order in the above-entitled proceeding.' Following an election conducted pursuant to the direction of election, the Board, by its Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region, on October 14, 1949, issued a certification of representatives, in which the Petitioner was certified as the duly designated representative of the employees of the Employer in a unit heretofore found by the Board to be appro- priate. On February 19, 1951, the Petitioner filed a "Motion for Clarification" of said Decision, Direction of Election, and Order. The Board denied this motion on March 20, 1951. Thereafter, on 1 Lone Star Producing Company , 85 NLRB 1137. 96 NLRB No. 169. Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation