Monsanto Chemical Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 6, 1945

63 N.L.R.B. 789 (N.L.R.B. 1945)

In the Matter Of MONSANTO CHEMICAL COMPANY and OIL WORKERS
INTERNATIONAL UNION5 LOCAL 449, C. I. O.
Case No. 16-R-1341.-Decided September 6, 1945
Mr. H. K. Eckert, of Texas City, Tex., for the Company.
Mr. 7'.M. McCormick, of Texas City, Tex., for the CIO.
Mr. B. A. Gritta, of Galveston, Tex., for the A. F. of L.
Mr. Isadore Engle, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon .an amended petition filed by Oil Workers International
Union, Local 449, C. I. 0., herein called the CIO, alleging that a ques-
tion affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation of
employees of Monsanto Chemical Company, Galveston, Texas, herein
called the Company, the National Labor Relations Board provided
for an appropriate hearing upon due notice before William J. Scott,
Trial Examiner. Said hearing was held at Galveston, Texas, on
June 5, 1945. The Company, the CIO, and Galveston Building &
Construction Trades Council, A. F. L., herein called the A. F. of L.,
appeared and participated. All parties were afforded full oppor-
tunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to
introduce evidence bearing on the issues. At the hearing, the A. F.
of L. made a motion to dismiss the petition on the grounds that the
CIO failed to notify the A. F. of L. of its claim of interest and that its
-contract with the Company is a bar to this proceeding. Ruling on
this motion was reserved for the Board. For reasons hereinafter
stated in Section III, the motion is denied. The Trial Examiner's
rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are
hereby affirmed. All parties were afforded an opportunity to file
briefs with the Board.
63 N. L. R. B., No. 118.
789
790 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
The Monsanto Chemical Company, a Delaware corporation, is en-
gaged in the manufacture of styrene, ethylbenzene, and toluene. It
operates two plants in the State of Texas, one at Karnack and the
other at Texas City; the Texas City plant is solely involved in this
proceeding. During the year ending December 31, 1944, the Com-
pany purchased for use in its operations, among other materials, in
excess of $2,500,000, worth of benzol, 95 percent of which came from
outside the State of Texas. During the same period it shipped ap-
proximately $3,000,000, worth of styrene and approximately $100,000,
worth of toluene outside the State.
The Company admits, and we find, that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
H. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Oil Workers International Union, Local 449, affiliated with the Con-
gress of Industrial Organizations, is a labor organization admitting
to membership employees of the Company.
Galveston Building & Construction Trades Council, affiliated with
the American Federation of Labor, is a labor organization admitting
to membership employees of the Company.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
On April 17, 1945, the CIO requested recognition as the exclusive
bargaining representative of the Company's production and mainte-
nance employees. The Company refused on the ground that its con-
tract with the A. F. of L. precluded recognition of the CIO.
On May 19, 1944, the Company and the A. F. of L. entered into an
"interim agreement" for a 1-year term covering the employees here
involved, with provision for its automatic renewal in the absence of
30 days' notice of termination by either party prior to the anniversary
date of the contract. No such notice of termination was given. Ap-
proximately 1 week Prior to the instant hearing held on June 5, 1945,
the Company signed a proposed contract which was to replace the May
1944, agreement and presented it to the A. F. of L. for signature. At
the time of the hearing, the A. F. of L. had not as yet signed that
instrument.
The A. F. of L and the Companycontended at the hearing that there
was a contractual bar to a present determination of representatives.
We do not agree. Since the CIO served notice of its rival representa-
MONSANTO CHEMICAL COMPANY 791
tion claim on the Company 1 on April 17, 1945, prior to the effective
automatic renewal date of the May 19, 1944, contract, that contract
cannot, under well-established principles of the Board, operate to
prevent an election at this, time.2 The proposed new contract also is
not a bar because it was not signed by both parties.' Accordingly, we
find that neither the May 19, 1944, contract nor the proposed contract
precludes a present determination of representatives.
A statement of a Field Examiner, introduced into evidence at the
hearing, indicates that the CIO represents a substantial number of em-
ployees in the unit hereinafter found appropriate.'
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Company, within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
We find, in agreement with the parties, that all production and
maintenance employees of the Company, but excluding technical,
clerical, service department, plant-protection, and cafeteria employees,
and supervisory employees 5 with authority to hire, promote, discharge,
discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or
effectively recommend such action, constitute a unit appropriate for
the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section
9 (b) of the Act.
, The failure of the CIO to serve notice of its rival claim on the A. F. of L. prior to the
effective automatic renewal date cannot, as urged by the A. F. of L., preclude a present
investigation of representatives . All that is necessary is that notice of the rival claim
be given to the employer in timely fashion.
2 See Matter of Mill B, Inc , 40 N. L. R B. 346.
i See Matter of Eicor, Inc, 46 N. L. R. B. 1035 ; Matter of General Ship and Engine
Works, 60 N. L R B. 397.
' The Field Examiner reported that the CIO submitted 169 authorization cards ; that
the names of 157 persons appearing on the cards were listed on the Company 's pay roll for
the period ending April 29, 1945, which contained the names of approximately 400 em-
ployees in the alleged appropriate unit, and that , of these 157 cards, 46 were dated in
1943, 109 dated 1945, and 2 were undated
The A. F. of L relies on its contract to show its interest in the proceeding
At the hearing the A. F. of L. offered in evidence authorizations signed by 80 percent
of the employees of the Company which stated that the signatories are satisfied with the
present bargaining agency and do not wish to disturb the status quo, the A. F . of L. con-
tended, on the basis of these authorizations , that the CIO's showing is inadequate. The
Trial Examiner properly rejected this offer of proof We have recently held in Matter of
Sunset Motor Lines, 59 N . L R. B. 1434, that authorization cards are not required to be
submitted to the Board as the basis for a finding for or against any party to the proceed-
ing but as prima facie evidence that the Union at the time of the filing of the petition has
sufficient interest to justify the Board in initiating its investigatory machinery . Since the
evidence submitted serves the sole purpose of aiding the Board in making an administrative
determination , any quegtionmg of such evidential showing by an opposing party is not
permitted . We are of the opinion that the CIO had a sufficient interest at the time it filed
its petition to warrant our determination hereinafter that a question concerning repre-
sentation has arisen
i This is the same unit as the one covered by the May 19 , 1944, agreement between the,
A. F. of L and the Company.
792 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
V. TIIE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
We shall direct that the question concerning representation which
has arisen be resolved by an election by secret ballot among the em-
ployees in the appropriate unit who were 'employed during the pay-
roll period immediately preceding the date of the Direction of Election
herein, subject to the limitations and additions set forth in the
Direction.
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 9, of National Labor Relations
Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3, as amended, it is hereby
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representa-
tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Monsanto Chemi-
cal Company, Galveston, Texas, 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 Director for the Sixteenth Region, acting in this matter as
agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject to Article
III, Sections 10 and 11, of said Rules and Regulations, among the
employees in the unit found appropriate 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, and including employees in the armed forces of the United
States who present themselves in person at the polls, but excluding
any who have since quit or been discharged for cause and have not
been rehired or reinstated prior to the date of the election, to determine
whether they desire to be represented by Oil Workers International
Union, Local 449, C. I. 0., or by Galveston Building & Construction
Trades Council, A. F. L., for the purposes of collective bargaining, or
by neither.