Rayette, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 26, 1957

117 N.L.R.B. 1399 (N.L.R.B. 1957)

RAYETTE, INC. AND RAYMOND LABORATORIES, INCORPORATED 1399
Rayette, Inc. and Raymond Laboratories , Incorporated I and
Local 1139, Metal Shop , Warehousemen and Helpers, affiliated
with International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America , AFL-CIO, Petitioner.
Case No. 18-RC-3037. April 26,1957
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 Clarence A. Meter, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Members Rodgers, Bean, and
Jenkins].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act 2
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. The Employer and Local 22116, Federal Labor Union, AFL-CIO,
an intervenor, contend that their last contract, with its amendments,
constitutes a bar to this proceeding. That contract is effective April 1,
1955, to March 31, 1957, renewable from year to year absent 60 days'
written notice prior to the expiration date. The petition herein was
filed on October 17, 1956. Because the automatic renewal date of the
contract has already passed, we find that the contract cannot bar a
present determination of representatives.'
4. The parties disagree only as to the scope of the unit. The Peti-
tioner and District 77, International Association of Machinists, AFL-
CIO, an intervenor, seek a unit limited to the equipment manufactur-
ing operations in building 6. The Employer and Local 22116 contend
that only a unit coextensive with the Employer's St. Paul, Minnesota,
operations in 6 buildings, including building 6, is appropriate.
The Employer has been engaged in the manufacture of chemicals and
cosmetics for beauty shops in 5 buildings in St. Paul, and its employees
therein have been represented by Local 22116. In 1953 it purchased a
beauty shop equipment manufacturing plant in St. Louis, Missouri,
the employees of which were represented by unions not involved herein.
The Employer operated the plant until July 1956, when it moved the
i The name of the Employer appears as amended at the meeting.
8 The record shows and we find that Rayette, Inc . and Raymond Laboratories , Incorpo-
rated, constitute a single employer.
8 See Texas Construction Material Company , 114 NLRB 378 ; Hamilton Watch Com-
pany, 113 NLRB 379.
117 NLRB No. 183.
1400: DECISIONS -OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
equipment operations to the newly constructed building 6 in St. Paul.
Meanwhile, in anticipation of the transfer from St. Louis, pilot opera-
tions in equipment manufacture had been started in building 1 during
February 1956. On May .18 the Employer agreed to recognize all
pilot equipment manufacture operations as covered by the contract
with Local 22116 applicable to the cosmetic and chemical operations,
once recognition was requested and agreement reached as to these
equipment operations. Pilot equipment operations were moved to
building 6 in July and regular production began in August. Although
Local •22116 had requested recognition for these employees, had
handled several grievances for building 6 employees and had asked
that they become members under the union-security clause of its con-
tract, it was not until October 15, 2 days before the petition was
filed, that the parties executed a memorandum agreement stating that
"employees in equipment plant (building 6)" were to be included in
the bargaining unit and covered by the current contract applicable to
cosmetics and chemicals employees.
Transferred from St. Louis to building 6 were 6 to 8 supervisory or
managerial personnel and about 6 production and maintenance em-
ployees. Of the present complement of over 70 employees in building
6, only about 22 were transferred from the other 5 buildings, while
the rest were newly hired. Although all the Employer's operations
have the same payroll, purchasing, quality control, and personnel de-
partments and the same labor relations management, nevertheless,
there is no interchange and virtually no integration between the cos-
metics and chemicals operations and the building 6 equipment opera-
tions. In addition, building 6 is engaged in the manufacture of hair
dryers attached to upholstered chairs, hydraulic chairs and upholstered
lounge chairs for beauty shops, and the employees therein operate
punch presses, do assembly, welding, upholstering, sewing, polishing
and buffing, plating, and spraying and painting. In contrast, at the
other buildings, chemicals and cosmetics for beauty shops are manu-
factured and bottled, and plastic containers are molded and, in this
connection, the employees therein work with chemical reactors, tanks,
centrifuges, ovens, stills, and extraction towers. Further, building 6
has separate immediate supervision and its own shipping and receiving
department.
In view of the foregoing, we do not believe that the brief and in-
effective bargaining history with respect to the equipment manufac-
turing employees in building 6 is determinative of the unit question.4
Further, under all the circumstances, we find that either a separate
unit of the employees engaged in equipment manufacturing at build-
ing 6 or a unit consisting of the cosmetics and chemicals operations in
4 See Zip-O-Log Veneer, Inc., 112 NLRB 1303, 1305; Highway Transport Association
of Upstate New York, Inc., 116 NLRB 1718. -
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS , ETC. 1401
the 5 buildings together with the equipment operations at building 6
may be appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining.' We
shall, therefore, make no determination at this time with respect to the
employees in building 6, but shall first ascertain the desires of these
employees as expressed in the election directed herein.
We shall direct an election among the following employees : All
production and maintenance employees of the Employer at its beauty
shop equipment manufacturing plant, building No. 6, La Fond Street,
St. Paul, Minnesota, but excluding office clerical employees, profes-
sional employees, guards, powerplant employees," and supervisors as,
defined in the Act.
If a majority vote for the Petitioner or for District 77, International.
Association of Machinists, they will be taken to have indicated their
desire to constitute a separate appropriate unit and the Regional Di-
rector conducting the election is instructed to issue a certification of
representatives to either union for such unit, which the Board, under
such circumstances, finds to be appropriate for purposes of collective
bargaining. If a majority vote for Local 22116, Federal Labor Union,
they will be taken to have indicated their desire to be a part of the'
existing unit represented by Local 22116 and the Regional Director
will issue a certification of results of election to that effect. If a ma-
jority vote for no union, they will be taken to have indicated their de-
sire to be unrepresented by any labor organization appearing on the
ballot, and the Regional Director will issue a certification of results
of election to that effect.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
5 United States Rubber Company, 109 NLRB 1293 ; Rockingham Poultry Cooperative,
Inc, 113 NLRB 376.
9 Local 36 , International Union of Operating Engineers , intervened only to protect its
representative interest in the powerplant employees who, in accord with the agreement
of the parties , have been excluded from the voting group Accordingly , we shall not
place Local 36 on the ballot.
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs , Warehouse-
men and Helpers of America, AFL-CIO, and Local Union No.
294, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters,,
Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of America , AFL-CIO,
its trustee , Albert Dietrich , and its business agent, Joseph Ribis
and E. G. DeLia & Sons Construction Corp . Case No. 3-CC-57.
'April 29,1957
DECISION AND ORDER
On December 28, 1956, Trial Examiner Alba B. Martin issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair
117 NLRB No. 184.