Pharmaseal Laboratories

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 12, 1969

174 N.L.R.B. 1139 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

PHARMASEAL LABORATORIES 1139
Pharmaseal Laboratories and Miscellaneous
Warehousemen , Drivers and Helpers , Local Union
No. 986 , International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America , Petitioner . Case 21-RC-11016
March 12, 1969
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS
BROWN AND JENKINS
On September 25, 1968, Miscellaneous
Warehousemen , Drivers and Helpers, Local Union
No. 986, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, herein called the Teamsters or Petitioner,
filed with Region 21 of the National Labor
Relations Board , a Petition for Certification of
Representatives .' The Teamsters filed the petition
for the purpose of attaining the right for separate
representation of warehousemen , shipping and
receiving employees , and truckdrivers included in
the bargaining unit certified by the Regional
Director for Region 21 on July 2, 1965, in Case
21-RC-9585 in which the Teamsters and United
Metaltronics and Hospital Employees , Local 995,
United Brick and Clay Workers of America,
AFL-CIO, herein called Metaltronics , were certified
as joint bargaining representative 2 The joint
certification , in addition to the warehousemen,
shipping and receiving employees , and truckdrivers,
covered all production and maintenance employees
and quality control technicians.
A hearing on the petition was held on October 24,
1968, before Hearing Officer Theodore B. Horn.
Following the hearing, this case was transferred to
the National Labor Relations Board in Washington,
D.C., pursuant to Section 102.67 of the National
Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations and
Statements of Procedure , Series 8, as amended.
Subsequently , the Petitioner and the Employer filed
separate briefs with the Board which have been duly
considered.
The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's
rulings made at the hearing and finds that they are
free from prejudicial error . They are hereby
affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three- member panel
The Board has considered the entire record in this
case, including the respective briefs of the parties
and finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act and it will effectuate the
'Case 21-RC-11016
'rhe Petitioner , in the alternative , requests the Board to treat its instant
petition as a Motion for Amendment of Certification
purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
2. The labor organization involved claims to
represent certain employees of the Employer.
3. No question affecting commerce exists
concerning the representation of certain employees
of the Employer within the meaning of Section
9(c)(1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act for the
following reasons:
The Petitioner seeks an election for a bargaining
unit composed of all the warehousemen, shipping
and receiving employees, and truckdrivers at the
Employer's Irwindale, California, plant. The
collective-bargaining history at the plant shows that
on July 2, 1965, following a Board-conducted
election, the Petitioner and Metaltronics were jointly
certified as the exclusive bargaining representative of
the above-mentioned employees along with all
production and maintenance employees and quality
control technicians. Thereafter, pursuant to the
certification, Petitioner and Metaltronics engaged in
joint bargaining with the Employer and subsequently
executed a collective-bargaining agreement effective
December 1, 1965, through December 1, 1968, and
from year to year thereafter, absent appropriate
notice to the contrary All the warehousemen,
receiving and shipping employees, and truckdrivers
are members of the Petitioner The remaining
employees covered by the certification; namely, all
production and maintenance employees and quality
control technicians are members of Metaltronics.
Parties' contentions: The Petitioner contends that
separate units are appropriate herein On the other
hand, the Employer strenuously objects to the
Petitioner's attempt to divide the established joint
bargaining unit, contending that, if permitted, it
would seriously jeopardize labor relations stability in
its plant. The Employer urges that the Board's
decision in Mallinckrodt Chemical Works, 162
NLRB 387, constitutes relevant precedent for the
Board's dismissal of the subject petition for separate
representation. Finally, the Employer maintains that
the warehousemen, shipping and receiving
employees, and truckdrivers sought to be separately
represented do not comprise an appropriate unit for
collective bargaining.
Based upon our consideration of the record
herein, including the respective briefs of the
Petitioner and the Employer, we find particular
merit in the Employer's last noted contention that in
the circumstances of this case the employees sought
by the Petitioner would not constitute an
appropriate bargaining unit. We reach this finding
for the following reasons:
Pursuant to the joint certification of July 2, 1965,
the Unions engaged in joint bargaining with the
Employer and subsequently executed a
collective-bargaining agreement establishing
standardized terms and conditions of employment
for all employees irrespective of their union
affiliation. With the exception of two
side-agreements or amendments to the contract
174 NLRB No. 168
1140 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
dealing with a change in the hiring and progression
scale for "warehousemen" which appear to have
been negotiated solely by the Teamsters, all other
memoranda bear the names of representatives from
both unions as signatories
The Workmen's Safety Committee which operates
throughout the entire plant, including production,
maintenance, warehouse and shipping areas, is
composed of representatives from both unions. All
employees, irrespective of their union affiliations or
particular job classifications, utilize the same plant
and recreational facilities.
Although the warehouse, shipping, and receiving
areas are physically separated by a chain link fence
from the production and maintenance department,
that area is not considered the exclusive domain of
warehouse, shipping, and receiving employees. The
record reflects a substantial degree of integration
between the work performed by the employees
whom the Petitioner seeks separately to represent
and that of others who are outside the separate unit
it would establish. Thus, the receiving department
employees have the following tasks: When raw
materials are delivered to the plant they are
delivered at the "receiving dock" where they are
inspected by quality control personnel. The receiving
department employees then move the raw materials
to a storage area, and from there to the production
area where they are manufactured into some form
of "work-in-progress." The receiving department
employees then move the materials in their altered
form to the receiving department for storage. They
are then moved from storage, again by receiving
department employees to a "staging area " From
there they are once again moved to the production
area by receiving department employees for final
manufacturing. At that point the finished product is
boxed, sterilized or quarantined, and finally moved
to the shipping area by production employees who
are not sought. Thence they are shipped or stored by
shipping employees sought by the Petitioner.
Moreover, at times of inventory and relocation of
plant equipment the employees from all departments
and areas work side by side in combined teams
under common supervision.
Far from possessing craft characteristics, the
employees sought are unskilled. Some of them
perform functions identical to those performed by
production department employees, for example, the
operation of the forklift. The Employer operates
some four plants, and in none of these are
warehouse employees bargained for separately. The
employees sought (not including the truckdrivers)
report to the plant manager through two separate
lines of supervision.
There is plantwide seniority for layoffs and
department seniority for promotions and transfers
with plantwide posting for all jobs. Over the past
few years there have been numerous instances of
permanent transfers between the warehouse and
production and maintenance departments. Such
transfers were applicable to supervisory and
nonsupervisory positions alike.
We conclude that the foregoing circumstances, on
balance, favor the continued appropriateness of the
existing overall unit for purposes of collective
bargaining and outweigh the possible
appropriateness of a separate unit of warehousemen,
receiving and shipping employees, and truckdrivers.
Whatever separate community of interests these
employees may enjoy has been, in effect, submerged
into the broader community of interest which they
now share with other employees by reason of their
association in the existing overall unit and their
participation in the representation of that unit for
purposes of collective bargaining. In these
circumstances, and in view of all the foregoing and
the record as a whole, we are impelled to the
conclusion that the unit sought by the Petitioner is
inappropriate. We shall, therefore, dismiss the
petition.3
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the petition filed herein
be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
'in view of this finding, it follows that the Petitioner's alternative motion
for amendment of certification must likewise be denied