New Bedford Rayon Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 5, 1943

47 N.L.R.B. 1334 (N.L.R.B. 1943)

In the Matter of NEW BEDFORD RAYON COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD of TEAMSTERS , CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND
HELPERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 59
Case No. R-4803.-Decided March 5,19./.3
Jurisdiction : rayon yarn manufacturing , industry
Practice and Procedure : petition dismissed when no appropriate unit was found
within its scope. -
Roewer d, Reel, by Mr. George E. Roewer, of Boston, Mass. , for the
Teamsters.
Mr.•A itonio Enjldbid,,of New Bedford, Mass. , for'the Textile W irk-
ers.
Mr. Robert E. Tillman of counsel to the Board.
/.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon petition duly filed by International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Local 59, herein
called. the Teainsters;;alTeging-that a question affecting commerce had
arisen concerning the representation of employees of New Bedford
'Rayon Company, New Bedford, Massachusetts, herein called the Com-
pany, the National Labor Relations Board provided for an appropri-
ate hearing upon due notice before Robert E. Greene, Trial Ex-
aminer. Said hearing was held at New Bedford, Massachusetts, on
January 28, 1943. The Teamsters and the Textile Workers Union
of America, herein called the Textile Workers, appeared and partici-
pated.) All parties were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to
examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bear-
ing on the issues. The Textile Workers moved at the hearing to dis-
miss the Teamsters' petition on the grounds that no question concern-
ing representation had arisen in view of an existing contract between
the Textile Workers and the Company, and that the proposed unit
The Company, although served with notice of the hearing , did'not enter a formal
appearance . However, its plant superintendent was present and testified at the hearing.
47 N. L. R. B., No. 171.
1334
NEVV BEDFORD "RAYON COMPANY - 1335
w,as inappropriate. • Ruling-bn the motion was reserved,for-the Board.
In view of the findings set forth "in- Section III,-infra, the-motion- to-.. --^
dismiss is hereby granted. ` The Trial Examiner's rulings made at
the healing-'are fr'ee' from 'prejudicial error, and are hereby affirmed.
On February 5, 1943, the Textile Workers filed a brief which, the
Board has considered.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
New Bedford Rayon Company maintains a plant in New Bedford,
Massachusetts, where it is engaged in the manufacture of rayon yarn.
The Company uses annually raw materials having a total approxi-
mate value of $800,000, consisting principally of wood pulp and chem-
icals. Of these materials, approximately, 97-,percent is shipped to
the plant from points outside the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
The-Company annually manufactures products having an approximate
value of $2,500,000, of which approximately 70 percent is shipped to
points outside the 'Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
11. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse-
men and Helpers of America, Local 59, is a labor organization affili-
ated with the American Federation of Labor, admitting to member-
ship employees of the Company. i
Textile Workers Union of America is a labor' organization affiliated
with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, admitting to mem-
bership employees of the Company.
111. THE ALLEGED APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Teamsters petitions for a unit of the yardmen (or warehouse-
men) employed by the Company. The Textile Workers, as indicated
above, contends that a separate unit of yardmen is inappropriate
for purposes of collective bargaining and that the present plant-wide
production and maintenance unit is appropriate. The Company
takes no position.
The Company and the -Textile Workers (or its predecessors) have
bargained collectively since 1933 when the Textile Workers claimed
to represent the employee' in the spinning and the fabricating depart-
ments of the Company's plant. No written contract was- entered into
,until April 1937, by which time the, Textile•Workers claimed to rep-
resent all production and maintenance employees, including'the yard-
men. At that time, a contract covering all such employees in a single
unit was executed. New contracts were entered into in 1938, and in
1336 DECISIONS OF • NATIONAL 'LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1941 ' when the' current`coritract'-was' signed. ' The' Textile Workers
has continued-to bargiintfor"tlie"employees (ilicliidii g"the yardmen)
in the production and maintenance unit- since it procured its 'first
-written, contract 'in 1937.\' During all this time; no request was re-
ceived by the Company that it recognize a separate unit' of its yard-
men, until a notice given to the Company by the Teamsters on 'Sep-
tember 21, 1942. ' ' , ' ' • ' •
The Company has 7 yardmen whom it 11as classified continuously
under its contracts as maintenance' laborers or helpers. These men,
operate under a foreman who is directly, responsible to the plant
engineer who, in turn, is in charge of the entire maintenance depart-
ment of approximately 70 employees. The primary -function of the
yardmen is to load and unload trucks.' "The plant superintendent
estimated that approximately 50 percent of the combined working
hours of the 7' yardmen is devoted to this function; Another 15' to
'25 percent of the combiled hours is spent in hauling raw•iriaterials
to various production departments, or in-otherwise handling mate-
rials: The remainder of the hours, or, from 25 to 35 percent of the
'combiiied'working time of the 7 men, is consumed in the performance
of miscellaneous 'and sundry' tasks, such 'as washing and scraping
floors, collecting trash and swill, providing labor for repair work,
and in general, rendering other' odd services.. On occasion, in the
-past, ;the yardmen-have taken the place of certain production em-
ployees in-their absence, particularly in the pulp department.,' These
facts clearly fail to support, any contention that the yardmen make
up a well-defined and highly skilled group of craftsmen..
In, view of the history, of collective bargaining on a plant-wide basis
for over 5 years,' and our, finding that the yardmen do not.,comprise
a highly skilled craft, and in the absence, of any counter balancing
circumstances justifying the segregation of yardmen from the pro-
duction and maintenance' unit, we find that ,the 'separate bargaining
unit, petitioned for by the Teamsters is not appropriate for the pur-
poses of, collective bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9 (b)
of the:Act.2
IV. THE ALLEGED QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION'
Since, as stated in Section III, above, the bargaining unit 'sought
'to be'established by the petition.is not appropriate, we find that no
2 The , fact that yardmen have been bargained for in a production and maintenance unit
in this Company 's plant since 1937 is sufficient to distinguish the instant ' case ' from our
recent decisions , in Matter of New Bedford Cotton Manufacturers ' Association 'and Textile
Workers Union of America (C I. 0.) et al, (Case No. RE ,1), 47 N L R. B. 1345 ; Matter of
Morgan Butler, as he is receiver of Hoosac ' Mills Corporation '(New Bedford Division) and
-Textile Workers Union of America (C. I. 0.), (Case No: RE-56), 47 N L. R B. 1361 ; Matter
of Kilburn Mill and Textile Workers Union of America (C. 1. 0.), (Case No. R-17$6),
47 N. L R B. 1356 , where the yardmen had been bargained for in separate units and were
therefore excluded fromjthe production and maintenance , units there found appropriate.'
NEW BEDFORD RAYON COMPANY 1337
question concerning the representation of employees of the Company,
in an appropriate unit, has arisen within the meaning of Section 9- (c)
of the Act. i
'ORDER
`Upon-the basis of the foregoing findings of fact,'the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the petition for investigation and
certification of representatives of employees of New'Bedford Rayon
Company,' New Bedford, Massachusetts, filed- by International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers
of America, Local 59, be, and it hereby, is, dismissed.