Rohm & Haas Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 12, 1945

60 N.L.R.B. 554 (N.L.R.B. 1945)

In the Matter of ROHM & HAAS COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL UNION
OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, LOCAL #541, A. F. OF L.
Case No. 4-R-1588.-Decided February 12,1945
Mr. J. Arvid Jonsson, of Philadelphia, Pa., for the Company.
Mr. Albert Weisbord, of Philadelphia, Pa., for the AFL.
Holmes, Lewis, and Menendez, by Mr. W. T. Lewis, of Columbus,
Ohio, and Messrs. Joseph Froesch,, Brook Bowles, Elwood Tryon,
and Ralph J. Reiser, of Columbus, Ohio, for the CIO.
Miss Frances Lopinsky, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a petition duly filed by International Union of Operating
Engineers, Local #541, A. F. of L., herein called the AFL, alleging
that a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the repre-
sentation of employees of Rohm & Haas, Company, Bristol, Pennsyl-
vania, 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 Trenton, New
Jersey, on December 8, 1944. The Company, the AFL, and Federa-
tion of Glass, Ceramic, and Silica Sand Workers, C. 1. 0., herein called
the CIO, appeared and participated. All parties were afforded full
opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and
to introduce evidence bearing on the issues. The Trial Examiner's
rulings made at hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby
affirmed. All parties were afforded an opportunity to file briefs with
the Board.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Rohm & Haas Company, a Delaware corporation, is engaged at its
plant at Bristol, Pennsylvania, in the manufacture, sale, and distribu-
60 N. L. It. B., No. 105.
554
ROHM & HAAS COMPANY 555
tion of chemicals, chemical specialties, and plastics. During the year
1943, the Company purchased -in excess of $750,000 worth of raw mate-
rials consisting mainly of chemicals, approximately 75 percent of
which was shipped from States other than Pennsylvania to the Bristol,
Pennsylvania, plant. During the same year, the Company produced
chemicals, chemical specialties, and plastics of a value in excess of
$750,000, of which amount approximately 75 percent was shipped from
the Bristol plant to States other than Pennsylvania. During the year
1944, the relations, proportions, and figures remained approximately
the same as above.
For the purposes of this proceeding, the Company admits that it is
engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
International Union of Operating Engineers, Local #541, affiliated
with the American Federation of Labor, is a labor organization ad-
mitting to membership employees of the Company.
Federation of Glass, Ceramic, and Silica Sand Workers, affiliated
with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, is a labor organization
admitting to membership employees of the Company.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Company has refused to grant recognition to any labor organi-
zation as the exclusive bargaining representative of its plant guards
until one has been certified by the Board in an appropriate unit.
A statement of a Board agent, introduced into evidence at the hear-
ing, indicates that the CIO and the AFL each represents a substantial
number of employees in the unit hereinafter found appropriate.,
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.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The AFL requests a unit composed of all plant guards -employed by
the Company, including lieutenants, but excluding supervisory em-
ployees. The Company agrees that the requested unit is appropriate
1 The Field Examiner reported that the AFL submitted 18 application for membership
cards, 16 of which bore signatures of persons appearing on the plant -protection pay roll of
the, Company for the period ending November 28, 1944; that the cards were dated 1 in
October and 15 in November 1944.
The CIO submitted 13 membership application cards, all of which bore signatures of
persons listed on the said pay roll . The cards were dated 9 In May, 1 In June, and 2 in
November 1944 , 1 being undated . There are 24 employees in the unit herein found
appropriate.
556 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
but it would exclude therefrom lieutenants, who, it contends, are super-
visory employees. The CIO argues that the appropriate unit should
consist of all of the employees within what is known as the Company's
safety department, which includes 20 plant guards, 4 fire marshals, and
2 safety men, excluding lieutenants and other supervisory employees.
The guards employed by the Company are armed and`uniformed and
are members of the auxiliary military police. The fire marshals and
the safety men are neither armed, uniformed, nor militarized. The
militarized guards have sworn to the Articles of War and have re-
ceived a special 20 weeks' training course in guarding, policing, and
anti-sabotage, as well as legal phases of making arrests. Their duties
are to protect the plant property and buildings from sabotage and
damage. They operate an ADT system, which consists of time clocks
throughout the plant which must be punched at regular intervals,
examine all packages and vehicles leaving and entering the plant, and
check on the passes of both employees and visitors.
Two elections for the determination of representatives for collec-
tive bargaining have been held in the Company's•plant. One 2 resulted
in the selection of the AFL by maintenace employees in the plant.
The other 3 resulted in the selection of no union by production em-
ployees. The safety department employees were excluded from the
units of maintenance and production employees, respectively, set up
in the aforementioned proceedings.
As noted above, the CIO requests that all the employees in the safety
department, both militarized and non-militarized, be grouped in a
single unit. This grouping is one which, judged by our customary
criteria of functional similarity and common supervision, would be
deemed appropriate under ordinary circumstances. It does not, how-
ever, conform to the policy of segregating militarized plant-protection
employees which we have adopted, in cooperation with the military
authorities, in order to accominodate the collective bargaining rights,
of such employees to their wartime responsibilites.4 Neither those
rights nor those responsibilities can be ignored. During this war pe-
riod, militarized plant-protection employees, to an even greater ex-
tent than other employees engaged in war production, have surren-
dered their' traditional economic weapons, and submitted to novel
restraints upon their freedom to act in furtherance of their interests
as wage earners. Consequently,, their exercise of the right to self-
organization and collective bargaining, guaranteed by the Act to all
2 Matter of Rohm & Haas Company, 51 N L R B 1232, wherein an election was directed
among maintenance employees in the plant.
3 Matter of Rohm & Haas Company, 4-R-1462, stipulated case
4 See Matter of Chrysler Corporation, Highland Park Plant, 44 N L . R B 881 ; Matter
of Drava Corporation , 52 N. L. R B. 322, Matter of Budd Wheel Co., 52 N L. R B 666,
War Department Circular Number 15, dated 7 Alarch 1943
ROHM & HAAS COMPANY 557
,employees as a means of eliminating and preventing obstructions to
,commerce, assumes particular importance to the national welfare, for
,the collective bargaining process is the only orderly and peaceful way
in which such employees can' adjust their employment problems. To
close that way would be to create an intolerable threat to war pro-
duction. We, therefore, hold that bargaining units of militarized
plant-protection employees are appropriate to effectuate the policies
of the Act, and to serve, particularly, the nation's special wartime in-
terest in uninterrupted production. It is manifest, however, that the
direct and paramount obligations to the Government assumed by mili-
tarized guards are reflected in their terms and conditions of employ-
ment, and generally necessitate special, separate negotiations between
their representatives and the employer.5 For this reason, and in order
to facilitate the exercise of effective control by the military authorities,
we have uniformly placed militarized plant-protection employees in
separate bargaining units, even where other considerations supported
their inclusion in departniental_ or broader units with non-militarized
employees .6
In accordance with the foregoing, we shall direct an election among
the Company's plant-protection employees but shall exclude the fire
marshals and safety inspectors from the appropriate unit because they
are not militarized plant-protection employees: We shall also exclude
lieutenants from the appropriate unit. Each lieutenant is responsible
for a shift, and except on the first of the three shifts, a lieutenant is in
sole and complete charge of plant protection. Lieutenants have the
right to make effective recommendations regarding the transfer of
guards who work under them. They may discipline guards to the
extent of sending one home if he appears unfit for duty. Consequently,
we are of the opinion that lieutenants are supervisory employees.
We find that all militarized guards employed by the Company at its
Bristol, Pennsylvania, plant, excluding fire marshals and safety in-
spectors, lieutenants, the captain of the guard, and all other supervisory
employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or
otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively recom-
5 A standard provision in contracts covering such employees , on file in the Industrial
Relations Division, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Department of Labor, Washington, D C,
states that nothing therein should be construed to abrogate or interfere with the War
Department ' s control over such employees or their duties and responsibilities as auxiliary
military policemen Provision is made for "no - strike pledge ," irrespective of the action
of other employees , and some contracts specifically provide for impartial treatment of em-
ployees by,guards without regard to union or non -union affiliation of said employees
u See Matter of U, S Electric Motors, Inc, 45 N . L R B 298; Matter of Julius Petersen,
46 N. L R . B 1049; Matter of Lord Manufacturing Company , 47 N L R B . 1032, and
cases cited in footnote 4, supra Although we have required that militarized and unmili-
,tarized employees be represented in separate units , we have protected the statutory right
of miiltarized employees to be represented by any organization they may choose, including
the organization which represents non-militarized employees of the Caine employer. See
Matter of Drava Corporation , War Department Circular No 15, supra.
558 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
mend 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 among the em-
ployees in the appropriate unit who were employed during the pay-roll
period immediately preceding the date of the Direction of Election
herein, subject to the -limitations and additions- set forth in the
Direction. -
The CIO requests that it be designated on the ballot as C. I. O.
Since the designation requested is insufficient properly to identify the
labor organization in question, the request is hereby denied.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National
Labor Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, and pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of the National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3, as amended, it is
hereby -
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representa-
tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Rohm & Haas
Company, Bristol, Pennsylvania, 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 Director 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 em-
ployees in the unit found appropriate in Section IV, above, who were
employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date
of this Direction, including employees who did not work during the
said pay-roll period 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
those employees who have since quit or been discharged for cause-and
have not been rehired or reinstated prior to the date of the election,
to determine whether they desire to be represented by International
Union of Operating Engineers, Local #541, A. F. of L., or by Federa-
tion of Glass, Ceramic, and Silica Sand Workers, C. I. 0., for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining, or by neither. -