Publicker Industries, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 31, 1957

117 N.L.R.B. 257 (N.L.R.B. 1957)

PUBLICKER CHEMICAL CORPORATION 257
Publicker Chemical Corporation , a subsidiary of Publicker In-
dustries, Incorporated and Joseph Bishop, Petitioner
Construction & General Laborers Local Union No. 576, Interna-
tional Hod Carriers ', Building and Common Laborers' Union
of America, AFL-CIO and Maintenance Insulators and As-
bestos Workers Union of Kentucky, Inc., Petitioner . Cases Nos.
9-UD-6 and 9-RC-935. January 31, 1957
DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) and Section
9 (e), respectively, of the National Labor Relations Act, a consoli-
dated hearing was held before Harold V. Williams, hearing officer.
The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from preju-
dicial error and are hereby affirmed.
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. Case No. 9-UD-6: In this case, the Petitioner seeks to rescind
the authority of the Union, hereinafter sometimes referred to as the
Laborers, to make a union-security agreement in behalf of an alleged
bargaining unit of laborers and janitors in the maintenance depart-
ment of the Employer's Louisville, Kentucky, plant. The Union
moved to dismiss the petition on the ground, inter alia, that the unit
alleged in the petition is not coextensive with the bargaining unit
.covered by the existing union-security agreement. We find merit in
the Union's contention.
In 1955, the Laborers, representing the Employer's laborers and
janitors, and several other labor unions, acting in behalf of certain
other groups of the Employer's maintenance employees, negotiated a
2-year contract with the Employer, effective June 1, 1955. The nego-
tiations were conducted for a number of these unions, including the
Laborers, by the Louisville Building and Construction Trades Coun-
cil, pursuant to a pattern of joint bargaining which had been estab-
lished between these unions and the Employer's predecessor in 1952.
It appears that at the conclusion of such joint negotiations an indi-
vidual contract consistent with the terms of the master agreement was
offered to each of the participating unions covering employees repre-
sented by each. Although the copy of the above-mentioned 1955
master agreement introduced in evidence is unsigned, it is not denied
that such contract was put into effect by all the parties thereto. This
contract, pursuant to its terms, was reopened in mid-1956. At that
117 NLRB No. 33.
7 s4- i7-vol 117-1 81 21
'258 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
time, the Trades Council, representing the same contracting parties,
negotiated with the Employer a supplemental agreement covering
wage increases and a union-shop provision to replace the checkoff pro-
vision in the existing agreement. The record indicates that, following
the established pattern, individual supplements consistent with the
joint supplemental agreement were offered to each of the unions bar-
gaining through the Trades Council. The individual supplement
signed by the Laborers and introduced in evidence, refers to the exist-
ing agreement and sets forth the union-security provisions and the
wage increases for the laborers and janitors. Apparently, similar
amendments were executed by the other unions which were represented
in the supplemental negotiations by the Trades Council. Upon the
basis of the foregoing and the entire record in this case, we find that
the bargaining unit covered by the existing union-security agreement
comprises all maintenance department employees of the Employer
represented by the Laborers and other unions which, through the
Trades Council, jointly negotiated the supplemental agreement. Ac-
cordingly, as the unit alleged in the petition is not coextensive with
the broader unit covered by the union-security agreement, we find that
it is inappropriate for the purposes of a deauthorization election.'
We shall therefore grant the Union's motion to dismiss the petition.
Case No. 9-RC-2935: In this case, a question affecting commerce
exists concerning the representation of employees of the Employer,
within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of
the Act.
4. In Case No. 9-RC-2935, the Petitioner, Maintenance Insulators
and Asbestos Workers Union of Kentucky, Inc., seeks to represent' a
unit of insulators at the Employer's Louisville, Kentucky, plant: ' As
these employees have no history of collective bargaining and comprise
the only unrepresented employees in the plant, they may properly form
an appropriate unit on a residual basis.2
We find that the following employees constitute a unit appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of the
Act : All insulators employed by the Employer at its Camp Ground
Road, Louisville, Kentucky, plant, excluding the pusher insulator,'
office and plant clerical employees, professional employees, guards, all
other employees, and all other supervisors as defined in the Act.
[The Board dismissed the petition filed in Case No. 9-UD-6.]
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
3 Cf. F. TV. Woolworth Company, 107 NLRB 671, 673, and cases cited in footnote 3
therein.
3 There was no disagreement among the parties as to the unit.
3In view of the clear record testimony that the pusher in the insulator group possesses
and has exercised the power effectively to recommend the hire and discharge of employees
working under him, we find that he is a supervisor as defined in the Act He is therefore
excluded from the unit.