Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 9, 1944

56 N.L.R.B. 398 (N.L.R.B. 1944)

In the Matter Of MANHATTAN RUBBER MANUFAcruRING DIVISION OF
RAYBESTOS-MANHATrAN, INC. and UNITED RUBBER WORKERS OF
AMERICA, AFFILIATED WITH CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS
Case No: 4 R-13.1.Decided May 9, 1944-
Bailey and Schenck of Newark,,N. J., by Mr. George B. Bailey, for
the Company.
Mr. Samuel L. Rothbard, of Newark, N. J., for the C. I. O.
Mr. Irving L. Werksman, of Passaic, N. J., for the Independent:
Mr. Stanley Lentz, of Philadelphia, Pa., and Mr. John Wisnew, of
Paterson, N. J., for the I. A. M.
Messrs. Frank Truatt and John McEntee, of Clifton, N. J., for the
F. L. U.
Mr. William C. Baisinger, Jr., of counsel,to the Board. -
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon petition duly filed ; by United Rubber Workers of America,
affiliated with Congress of Industrial Organizations, herein called the
'C. I. 0., alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen con-
cerning the representation of employees of Manhattan Rubber Manu-
facturing Division of Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc.,' Passaic, New
Jersey, herein called the Company, the National Labor Relations Board
provided for an appropriate hearing upon due notice before Eugene
M. Purver, Trial Examiner. Said hearing was held at Passaic, New
Jersey, on March 6, 1944, and on March 20 and 21, 1944. The Com-
pany, the C., I. O., Manhattan Rubber Workers Independent Union,
herein called the, Independent, International Association of Machin-
ists, A. F.'of L., herein called the I. A. M., and Federal Labor Union,
1 At the hearing the Trial Examiner, without objection, corrected the name of the Com-
pany to read as set.forth above.
56 N. L. R. B., No. 79.
398
MANHATTAN RUBBER MANUFACTURING DIVISION ' 399
Local 23132, -A. F. of L., herein called the F. L. U., appeared 2 and
participated. All parties were afforded full opportunity to be heard,
to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to introduce evidence bearing
upon the issues, and to file briefs with the Board. The Trial'Exam-
iner's rulings made 'at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and
are hereby affirmed. Subsequent to the hearing the C. I. O. filed with
the Board a petition requesting that, in the event the Board finds'that
it has not made a sufficient showing of representation to raise a ques-
tion concerning representation among the employees within the unit
it alleges to be appropriate, the record be reopened for the purpose of
permitting it to submit additional evidence of its showing. The
Company interposed objections to the granting of the petition: In
view of -dur findings in Section III, infra, we'find it unnecessary to
rule on the C. I. O.'s petition. Also subsequent to the-hearing the
F. L. U. submitted to the Board a number of authorization cards
allegedly signed by employees of the Company arid' requested that
the Board consider them as evidence of its interest in this proceeding.
In view of the position asserted by the F. L. U. at the hearing,3 we
shall accept the cards as evidence of its interest in' the instant case.
FINDINGS OF FACT -
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Manhattan Rubber Manufacturing Division of Raybestos-Manhat-
tan, Inc., a New Jersey corporation, has its main office at Passaic,
New Jersey, and operates plants at Passaic and Whippany, New
Jersey, at' which it is engaged in the manufacture and sale of me-
chanical rubber products. Over 90 percent of the raw materials, con-
sisting chiefly of crude, synthetic, reclaimed, and used rubber, pur-
chased by the Company is shipped to its plants from points outside the
State of New Jersey. Annually, the Company manufactures over
$25,000,000 worth of finished products, - of which approximately 80
percent is shipped from the Company's Passaic and Whippany plants
to points outside the State of New Jersey. -
The Company admits and we find that at its Passaic and Whippany -
plants it is engaged in commerce within, the meaning of the. National
'Labor Relations Act.
2 On March 20 , 1944, International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehouse-
men & Helpers of America, A. F. of L. appeared at the hearing and moved to intervene.
The Trial Examiner reserved ruling upon the motion until the hearing reconvened on
March 21, 1944 , at which time he denied the application since the Teamsters was unable
to submit any evidence to substantiate its claim of interest.
The F. L : U. stated at the hearing that its evidence of representation of the Company's
employees was unavailable and it requested time within,which to produce such evidence.
I
400 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL, LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
IT. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
United Rubber Workers of America is a labor organization affiliated
with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, admitting to member-
ship employees of the Company.
Manhattan Rubber Workers Independent Union is an unaffiliated
labor organization, admitting to membership employees of the Com-
pany.
International Association of Machinists is a labor organization
affiliated with the American' Federation of Labor, admitting to mem-
bership employees of the Company.
Federal Labor Union, Local 23132, is a labor organization affiliated
with the American Federation of Labor, admitting to membership
employees of the Company.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Company refuses to recognize the C. I. O. as the exclusive bar-
gaining representative of those of its employees within a unit alleged
to be appropriate by the C.I. O. The Company and the Independent
contend that their current collective bargaining contract constitutes
a bar to this proceeding.
Pursuant to the results of consent elections held among two separate
groups of employees in the Company's Passaic, plant, the Company
on May 11, 1943, entered into a collective bargaining contract with the
Independent, and on May 22, 1943, ebecuted a similar bargaining
agreement with the I. A. M. These contracts collectively cover all
production and maintenance employee's of the Company's Passaic
plant, exclusive of supervisory and 'clerical employees and guards.
As hereinafter noted in Section IV, the employees covered by the
I. A. M.'s contract are not involved in this proceeding. 'By its terms
the Independent's contract is to remain in effect' until June 1, '1944,
and thereafter from year to year unless either party shall notify the
other at least 30 days prior to any anniversary date of-its desire to
terminate or amend the agreement. The Company and the Independ-
ent argue that inasmuch as the initial term, of their contract will not
expire until June 1, 1944, a determination of representatives at this
time would be premature. However, since June 1 is less than 1 month'
from the present time and the Company was apprised of the C. I: O.'s
claim to representation prior to the date when the automatic renewal
clause of the contract would take effect, we find that an immediate
determination of representatives, is not- precluded .4
4 See Matter of Chrysler "Motor Parts Corporation , 38 N L. R. B. 1379; Matter'of Houde
Engineering Corporation , 36 N. L R. B 587.
MANHATTAN RUBBER MANUFACTURING DIVISION, .401
The Independent 's contract with the Company also contains the
following maintenance of membership clause : ,
All employees , who, fifteen days after the signing of this con-
tract, are members of the Union in good standing , in accordance
with the constitution and by-laws of the Union , and those em-
ployees who may thereafter become members , shall remain
members of the Union in good standing during the life, of the
agreement.
A statement prepared by the Trial Examiner and read into . the. record
shows that the C. I. 0. submitted 708 authorization cards bearing the
names -of persons whose names appear on the Company 's pay roll of
March 21, 1944 , which lists 3,234 persons in the unit' alleged to be
appropriate by the C. I. 0. The statement further shows that the
Independent relies on its contract : with the Company to substantiate
its claim of interest , and that the I. A. M. submitted 50 authorization
cards bearing the names of persons -hose names appear on the 'afore-
said pay roll which lists 78 persons in the unit which the I. A. M.
alleges to be appropriate . The F. L. U. submitted to the Board ap-
proximately 361, authorization cards 'allegedly bearing the names of
employees of the Company within the unit which it contends is appro-
priate. This proposed unit is substantially identical to the unit sought
by the C. I. 0. -
The Independent contends that the showing of representation made
by the C. I. 0. is not sufficient to raise a question concerning representa-
tion among the employees of the Company and urges the Board- to dis-
miss the petition . We are of the opinion, however, and find that the
C.J. 0. has made a sufficient showing of representation among the
Company's employees in the unit hereinafter found to be appropriate
to warrant a determination of representatives in view of -the fact that
the Company and the Independent are parties to a maintenance of
membership contract which covers the employees herein involved.5
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Company , within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
V. THE APPROPRIATE' UNIT
The Company 's main plant located- in Passaic , New-Jersey , employs
approximately 3,400 employees. The plant at Whippany, New Jersey,
appears to be merely an adjunct to or department of the main plant.
It employs above 70 persons . The record clearly reveals the functional
interdependence of these two plants. In view o`f these undisputed
See Matter of Craddock - Terry Shoe Corp, 55 N L . R B. 1406.
587784-45-vol. 56-27
402 • DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
facts, we find, in accordance with the agreement of the parties, that'the
Passaic and Whippany, New Jersey, plants of the Company comprise
a single manufacturing unit and- that employees of both plants consti-
tute a, unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining.
All parties agree that the appropriate unit should consist of all pro-
duction workers, shipping and receiving clerks, arid shop clerks em-
ployed in the Passaic and Whippany plants of the Company, excluding
all machinists, machinist helpers working in the ,machine shops or
assigned to other departments, blacksmiths, welders, stock and tool
room employees working in the machine shops,6 foremen, assistant fore-
men, supervisors, superintendents, department heads, executives, office
workers, and guards.
Employees whose inclusion in the unit is disputed by one or more of
the parties
Maintenance workers: The. C. I._0., the Independent, and the Com-
pany desire to include all maintenance workers not covered by the
I. A. M.'s contract. 'The I. A. M. contends that the maintenance work-
ers should properly be a part of its contract unit and accordingly should
be merged with those employees whom it currently represents to form
It separate appropriate unit.' The F. L. U., is in accord with the posi-
t ion taken by the I. A. M.
The maintenance workers involved in this proceeding comprise tin-
smiths, carpenters, millwrights, pipe fitters, riggers, masons, 'elec-'
tricians, painters, and their helpers and apprentices, all of whom are
covered by the contract between the Independent and the Company.
encompassing a unit of production and maintenance workers. They
work throughout the plants performing duties customarily associated
with their particular crafts. The I. A. M.'s contract unit appears to be
comprised of employees engaged in the machinist trade or related,
trades. Inasmuch as the maintenance workers are, members of numer-
ous crafts entirely unrelated to the machinist trade and since they are
a part of the Independent's contract unit, we shall include them in a
more coinprehensive unit embracing production and maintenance
employees.
Truckmen: The Company, the C. L 0., and the Independent agree
that all truckmen employed by the Company should be included iii the
appropriate unit. The F. L. U. desires the exclusion of those em-
ployees who operate, power driven vehicles.
e The employees falling within the first six excluded classifications listed above comprise
the unit described in the current bargaining contract between the I. A. M. and the
Company.
4 It appears that the I . A. M. is solely interested in representing the maintenance workers,
in addition to those covered by its contract with the Company.
Iv NHATTAI^T RUBBER MANUFACTURING DIVISION 403-
The Company employs three types of truckmen, namely, automo-
tive, truck drivers, electric truck operators, and employees who operate
hand trucks. Tile employees who operate electric trucks and hand
trucks work within the confines of the plants. The automotive truck
drivers operate trucks on public thoroughfares and are licensed as
operators by the State. All truckmen are covered by the bargaining
contract between the Company and the Independent. We shall in-
clude all truckmen in the appropriate unit.
Laboratory helpers: The Independent desires laboratory helpers
included in the appropriate unit. The Company, the C. I. 0., and the
F. L. U. would exclude them. These employees perform miscellaneous
functions in the laboratory under the direction of the supervisory
employee in charge. Their duties include the mixing of small experi-
mental batches and the producing of samples which are used in check-
ing raw materials and finished products. The Company considers
these employees as part of the office force and therefore desires their
exclusion from the appropriate unit. Although not mentioned
specifically, in the Independent's contract, laboratory helpers appear
to have been bargained for by the Independent as if they were in-
cluded under the terms of the contract. Since their interests appear
to be aligned with those of the production and maintenance employees,,
we shall include laboratory helpers within the appropriate unit.
Group leaders: Although all parties agree that all supervisory em-
ployees should be `excluded from the appropriate unit, there is some
question as to which category of employees constitutes the lowest
supervisory classification. The Company contends that assistant fore-
men are the, lowest group in the supervisory -hierarchy clothed with
authority effectively to recommend changes in the status of other em-
ployees. Group leaders are one step removed from the assistant fore-
ruen. They are employees who may be designated to assist in carrying
out the orders of acknowledged supervisory employees. Apparently,
-their chief function is to assist their immediate supervisor and report
to him any derelictions on the part of employees. whose work they
direct. Their irilmediate supervisor alone has the authority to decide
what action, if any, shall be taken against these employees. Since it
appears that group leaders do not possess any of the indicia of_ au-
thority customarily vested in supervisory employees, we shall include
them in the appropriate unit.
Concluding findings
We find that all production workers, shipping and receiving clerks,
shop clerks , maintenance workers, truckmen , laboratory helpers, and
group leaders employed at the Passaic and Whippany , New Jersey,
plants of the Company , excluding machinists , machinist helpers work-
404 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ing in the machine shops or assigned to other departments, blacksmiths,
welders, stock and tool room employees working in the machine shops,
guards, office workers, executives, superintendents, department heads,
supervisors, foremen, assistant foremen, and any other supervisory
employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or
otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively rec-
ommend such action, constitute' a unit appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
V. THE DETERMINATION OF, REPRESENTATIVES
We shall direct that the question concerning representation which
has arisen be resolved by an election by secret ballot. Since the
F. L. U. produced a number of authorization cards which appear to
be genuine, it has demonstrated sufficient interest to warrant placing
it on the ballot in! the election. Accordingly, we shall accord it a place
,on the ballot.
Although none of the parties expressed a preference as to the
pay-roll date to be used in determining eligibility to vote in the elec-
tion, the record reveals that only one-half of the employees in the
Passaic and Whippany plants are paid each week for a 2-week period
of employment. Consequently, it will be necessary to use two con-
secutive pay-roll periods in order to obtain a ,full pay-roll list of the
employees eligible to' vote. In vie-,y of this fact, we shall direct that
the employees eligible to voted in-the election shall be those in the
unit found appropriate in Section IV, supra, who were employed
during the last two pay-roll periods immediately preceding the date
of the Direction of Election herein, subject to the limitations and
additions set forth in the Direction.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
By virtue of and pusuant'to the power vested in the National Labor
Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations
Act, and pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of National Labor Re-
lations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3,, it is hereby
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representa-
tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Manhattan Rub-
ber Manufacturing Division of Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc., Passaic,
New Jersey, an election by secret ballot shall be conducted as early
as possible, but not later than thirty'(30) days from the date'of this
Direction, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Di-
rector for the Fourth Region, acting in this matter as agent for the
National Labor Relations Board, and subject to Article III, Sections
10 and 11, of said Rules and Regulations, among the employees in the
MANHATTAN RUBBER MANUFACTURING DIVISION 405
unit found appropriate in Section IV, above, who were employed'
during the last two pay-roll periods immediately preceding the date
of this Direetion, including employees who did not work during said
pay-roll periods because they were ill or on vacation or temporarily
laid off, and including employees in the armed forces of the United
States who present themselves in person at the polls, but excluding'
any who have since quit or been discharged for cause, and have not
been rehired or reinstated prior to the date of the election, to deter-
mine whether they desire to be represented by United Rubber
Workers of America, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Or-
ganizations, or by Manhattan Rubber Workers Independent Union,
or by Federal Labor Union, Local 23132, affiliated with the American
Federation of Labor, for the purposes of collective bargaining, or
by none.