Ralston Purina Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 25, 1954

108 N.L.R.B. 1461 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

RALSTON PURINA COMPANY 1461
RALSTON PURINA COMPANY and AMERICAN FEDERATION
OF GRAIN MILLERS, AFL, Petitioner
UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF
AMERICA, AFL, Petitioner and SHEET METAL WORKERS
UNION, LOCAL NO. 1, AFL. Cases Nos. 13-RC-3802
and 13-RC-3804. June 25, 1954
DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the Act
and thereafter consolidated, a hearing was held before Richard
B. Simon, a hearing officer of the National Labor Relations
Board. 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 National Labor Relations Act.
2. The labor organizations named below claim to represent
certain employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the
representation of certain employees of the Employer within the
meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Grain Millers here petitions for a unit of production
and maintenance employees at the Employer's Bloomington,
Illinois, plant. There has been no bargaining history at this
plant. The Carpenters seeks a unit of 12 employees in what it
terms the "millwright maintenance division." The Employer
classifies the employees sought by the Carpenters as "me-
chanical maintenance" employees. At the hearing the Sheet
Metal Workers intervened and requested a unit of 2 of the
mechanical maintenance employees, also sought by the Car-
penters, who specialize in sheet-metal work.
The Employer opposes the petition of the Carpenters and the
intervention of the Sheet Metal Workers on the ground that a
single production and maintenance unit, as sought by the
Grain Millers, is the appropriate unit. Alternately, its position
is that if any maintenance employees are to be separated from
production erriployees, then the maintenance unit should include
all maintenance employees, including not only those sought by
the Carpenters and the Sheet Metal Workers, but apparently
certain employees in the utilities division who are powerplant
operators as well as those who do electrical work and pipe-
work. The Grain Millers indicated its willingness to accept
a unit of lesser scope than its petition, dependent upon the
Board's finding.
In support of the Carpenters' petition one of the maintenance
millwrights testified that in the mechanical division no electrical
work, very little pipework, and no powerhouse work is done,
the mechanical maintenance employees devoting their time
to carpenter work, maintenance of machinery, and the installa-
108 NLRB No. 225.
1462 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tion of new machinery and equipment . He also testified that
they occasionally lay brick and do sheet-metal work, and that
two of the group regularly do most of the sheet-metal work,
but not to the exclusion of doing millwright work . One man
does oiling but is also used as a millwright . This mechanical
maintenance group has its own headquarters in a separate
building and the employees are classified as maintenance
mechanic A and maintenance mechanic B. It is conceded
that there is no apprenticeship program. The employee
who works as an oiler or greaseman is a new employee in
the group who formerly was employed as a loading checker
in the chow mill. The job he holds was posted as "maintenance
helper" and applicants were told that they would be expected
to acquire both millwright and sheet -metal skills to progress.
The foreman of the mechanical maintenance group described
the work of these maintenance millwrights as "sheet metal
welding, lay out work, installation, steel work, concrete work,
carpentry ;" he also testified that "on numerous occasions"
some of his men had done pipework , and he had loaned some
of his men to work under the supervision of the foreman of the
utilities division.
Concerning the work of maintenance employees in the utilities
division the foreman of that division testified that it consisted
of electrical work, pipework, and repairs on machinery used in
the feed plant and elevator , as well as some work in the power-
plant. These employees also pour concrete and do simple sheet-
metal work, but welding is done by someone borrowed from
the mechanical group. They have a shop of their own but
sometimes use the mechanical division shop because of certain
tools . The powerplant operators were referred to as being
supervised by the utilities foreman , without elaboration of
their duties. The Employer' s organization chart indicates that
these utilities maintenance employees are classified as main-
tenance mechanics A, B, and C. As in the mechanical division,
the record shows no specific standards of performance for
these classifications and vacancies appear to be filled from the
plant by posting.
Maintenance employees have a greater wage potential
than production employees , but all have the same vacation,
pension , and insurance benefits . After completion of the
plant construction work in 1948, the maintenance group as
a whole appears to have been built up from construction
employees and applicants for work with a policy by the
Employer of securing and training men to do all types of
maintenance work. There is also evidence that at the time
of the "monthly repair shutdowns " and of the "annual al-
terations ,." production employees assist the maintenance
employees in maintenance and installation work.
It is clear on this record that the Employer does not adhere
to craft lines in its operation at the Bloomington plant. Some
interchange occurs between the employees in the mechanical
division and the utilities division and some duplication of skills
LUDLOW TYPOGRAPH COMPANY 1463
exists . It does not appear that the millwrights and sheet-
metal workers sought by the Carpenters and Sheet Metal Work-
ers respectively exercise the gamut of skills characteristic
of their crafts . Accordingly we shall dismiss the petition
of the Carpenters for a separate unit of millwrights and deny
the request by intervention of the Sheet Metal Workers for a
separate unit of sheet - metal workers .' However , should either
wish to appear on the ballot in the production and maintenance
unit found appropriate , it may do so upon application to the
Regional Director.
We find that all production and maintenance employees of the
Employer at its Bloomington , Illinois , plant, excluding office
clerical employees , professional employees , laboratory em-
ployees, quality control employees , guards, and supervisors
as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section
9 (b) of the Act.
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
1See Chicago Pneumatic Tool Company, 108 NLRB 174; Collins Radio Company Western
Division, 107 NLRB 1484.
LUDLOW TYPOGRAPH COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL
UNION OF ELECTRICAL, RADIO, AND MACHINE WORKERS,
CIO,' Petitioner and INTERNATIONAL METAL ENGRAVERS
AND MARKING DEVICE WORKERS, LOCAL 1, AFL, _
Petitioner . Cases Nos. 13-RC-3504, 13-RC-3655, and 13-RC-
3545. June 25, 1954
DECISION , ORDER , AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon separate petitions filed under Section 9 (c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held
before Raymond A. Jacobson, hearing officer . The hearing
officer ' s rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial
error and are hereby affirmed .' On the request of the IUE-CIO
the Board heard oral argument at Washington , D. C., on March
30, 1954, in which all parties participated.
'Herein called the IUE-CIO.
2 Herein called the Engravers.
3The hearing officer referred to the Board the motions of the Employer and of International
Association of Machinists, AFL, herein called the IAM, to dismiss all petitions upon the ground
that an existing collective-bargaining contract is a bar, and to dismiss the petition in Case No.
13-RC- 3545 upon the further ground that the unit sought is inappropriate . For reasons stated
infra, the motion is granted as to Case No. 13-RC-3545 and denied as to Cases Nos. 13-RC-
3504 and 3655.
108 NLRB No. 209.