Olin Mathieson Chemical Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 9, 1955

114 N.L.R.B. 948 (N.L.R.B. 1955)

948 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
fered with the employees' freedom of choice in the election, and we
shall direct that the, election be set aside and a new election held.
[The Board set aside the election held on August 25,1955.]
[Text of Second Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
MEMBER MURDObK took no part in the consideration of the above
Supplemental Decision, Order, and Second Direction of Election.
Olin Mathieson Chemical Corporation and International Asso-
ciation of Machinists, AFL, Petitioner. Case No. I -RC-4172.
November 9, 1955
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF -ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before William I. Shooer, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. International Association of Machinists, AFL, is a labor organi-
zation claiming to represent certain employees of the Employer.
The Employer moved to dismiss the petition herein on the ground,
inter alia, that the Connecticut Federation of Labor is a labor organi-
zation within the meaning of the Act, and that it must comply with the
filing requirements of Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) of the Act. The
record shows that the Connecticut Federation of Labor assisted in the
organization of the Employer's employees. Its secretary-treasurer,
Rourke, testified that it exists for three purposes: (1) organization of
employees, and placing them in international unions; (2) legislative
work; and (3) publicity work. Section 2 (5) of the Act defines "labor
organization" as an organization ". . . which exists for the purpose,
in whole or in part, of dealing with employers concerning grievances,
labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or conditions
of work." The factual- information adduced at the hearing shows
clearly that the Connecticut Federation of Labor is not a labor or-
ganization within the statutory definition. Accordingly, it is not re-
quired to comply with the filing requirements of the Act in order for
the Petitioner to be deemed in full compliance.'
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.
1 See The Magnavox Compawy , 111 NLRB S79, 382.
114 NLRB No. 145.
OLIN MATHIESON CHEMICAL CORPORATION 949
4. The appropriate unit : The Employer took no unit positions at
the hearing, but, in its brief, argues that the New Haven multiplant
unit sought by the Petitioner is inappropriate, asserting a lack of com-
munity of interest among the employees in the various plants. The
Employer also, in its brief, requests the Board to "examine the evi-
dence in the record dealing with" 17 groups of employees, although
making no specific contentions as to the inclusion or exclusion of any.
The record shows that the Employer has 46 plants throughout the
United States, and manufactures a large number of different prod-
ucts, including chemicals; pharmaceuticals, paper products, arms, and
ammunitions. Five of these forty-six plants are located on an 80-acre
tract in New Haven: (1) Winchester western division; (2) electrical
division; (3) metals division; (4) film division; and -(5) general re-
search organization. There is one personnel department for the New
Haven operations, which does virtually all the hiring for them. There
are also a single payroll department, a single shipping and receiving
department, and a single warehouse for all New Haven divisions.
There are numerous transfers of employees among divisions. Al-
though each division has maintenance employees, the Winchester
western division, the largest of. the New Haven operations, has the
principal maintenance department, and it services the other plants
as well.
The Employer points particularly to the fact that its operating di-
visions do not coincide with the geographical unit requested, that dif-
ferent products are dealt with in the different divisions, and that there
is no functional integration among the separate plants. However, on
the entire record, with particular reference to the physical proximity
of the plants involved, the single personnel department existing for
all the New Haven plants, and the degree of integration shown
by interplant transfers and maintenance operations, we find that
a unit embracing the Employer's entire New Haven operations is
appropriate.
Upon examination of the record with respect to the various groups
of employees whose unit placement is questioned by the Employer, we
have determined to exclude the 7 apprentices in design drafting, the
13 hourly paid technical employees in the Winchester western division
research development department, the 4 hourly paid technical em-
ployees in the electrical division quality control laboratory, and the
6 hourly paid technical employees in the metals division quality con-
trol laboratory.'
We find, accordingly, that the following employees of the Employer
constitute a unit appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act: All hourly paid pro-
2 The apprentices are excluded because they are in training to occupy professional jobs,
having already completed specialized courses of instruction to qualify them for performing
design engineer and draftsman work. The remaining employees are excluded because the
record shows that they are technical employees , who are customarily excluded from pro-
duction and maintenance units absent agreement by the parties , to include them. The
salaried technical employees are excluded by agreement.
950 ' DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
duction and maintenance employees of the Employer at its New Haven,
Connecticut, operations, including shipping and receiving clerks, but
excluding factory clerical employees, technical employees, design
drafting apprentices, executives, office clerical employees, professional
employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
5. The Employer contends that the Board should not entertain the
petition because of an alleged agreement between the Petitioner and
the Connecticut Federation of Labor that if the Petitioner won, the
employees would be divided among various AFL unions without their
desire. The filing of the petition by the JAM presumptively estab-
lishes its desire and willingness to represent all the employees it seeks.
In the event the Petitioner wins the election hereinafter directed, it
will be certified as bargaining representative of all employees in the
entire appropriate unit. And the Employer may then insist that the
Petitioner in fact bargain for all such employees, and is not required
to recognize or bargain with any other labor organization as repre-
sentative of its employees. Accordingly, we deny the Employer's mo-
tion to dismiss the petition on this basis, and find that the hearing
officer 's rejection of the Employer's offer of proof in this respect was
not prejudicial, and it is hereby affirmed.'
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
MEMBER MURDOCK took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Election.
3 See Gusdorf & Son, 107 NLRB 998. We also find no merit in the Employer 's objection
to the petition on the basis of authorization cards signed on behalf of the American
Federation of Labor being insufficient to authorize the Petitioner ( IAM). Although we
regard it as better practice for cards submitted on behalf of a petitioner to name the party
petitioning , we are satisfied in this instance that there is no fraud involved , nor was the
evidence of interest submitted by the Petitioner of questionable authenticity . Further-
more, this is a matter for administrative determination, not litigable by the parties.
Gusdorf & Son, supra; Potomac Electric Power Company, 111 NLRB 553. As to the
Employer 's motion to dismiss on the ground that the petition did not state that the
Employer declined to recognize the Petitioner , it is well settled that such a technical
deficiency is insufficient to constitute grounds for dismissal See American Tobacco
Company, Incorporated, 108 NLRB 1211.
Buffalo Arms , Inc., and Hourly Rated Employees Association of
Buffalo Arms , Incorporated , Petitioner.
Buffalo Arms , Inc., Petitioner and United Steelworkers of Amer-
ica, CIO and Hourly Rated Employees Association of Buffalo
Arms, Inc. Cases Nos. 3-RC-1574 and 3-RM-114. November 9,
1955
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon separate petitions duly filed, a consolidated hearing was held
before Murray Freeman, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings
made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby
affirmed.
114 NLRB No. 151.