Semet-Solvay Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 8, 1945

61 N.L.R.B. 998 (N.L.R.B. 1945)

In the Matter of SEMET-SOLVAY COMPANY and DISTRICT 50, UNITED
MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA
Case. No.3-R-959.Decided May 8, 1945
Mr. Earl J. Hurd, of Brooklyn, N. Y., and Mr. G. E. Brandon; of
New York City, for the Company.
Mr. Frank Podsiadlik, of Syracuse, N. Y., for the Union.
Mr. Louis Cokin, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon petition duly filed by District 50, United Mine Workers of
America, herein called the Union, alleging that a question affecting
commerce had arisen concerning the representation of employees of
Semet-Solvay Company, Syracuse, New York, herein called the Com-
pany, the National Labor Relations Board provided for an appro-
priate hearing upon due notice before Eugene von Wellsheim, Trial
Examiner. Said hearing was held at Syracuse, New York, on April
17, 1945. The Company and the Union appeared, participated, and
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 the hearing are free from preju-
dicial error and are hereby affirmed. All parties were afforded op-
portunity to file briefs with the Board.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Semet-Solvay Company is a New York corporation engaged in the
manufacture of benzol at Syracuse, New York. More than 60 percent
of the raw materials used by the Company at its Syracuse plant dur-
ing 1944 was shipped to it from points outside the State of New York.
During the same period the Company shipped more than 60 percent
61 N. L. R. B., No. 167.
998
SEMET-SOLVAY COMPANY 999
of the products manufactured at its Syracuse plant to points outside
the State of New York.
The Company admits, for the purpose of this proceeding, that it
is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor
Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
District 50, United Mine Workers of America, is a labor organiza-
tion admitting to membership employees of the Company.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Company refuses to recognize the Union as the exclusive col-
lective bargaining •representative of its employees at the Syracuse
plant until such time as the Union is certified by the Board.
A statement of a Field Examiner of the Board, introduced into
evidence at the hearing, indicates that the Union represents a sub-
stantial number of employees in the unit hereinafter found to be
appropriate.1
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 Union urges that all production and maintenance employees
at the Syracuse plant of the Company, including the guard, but ex-
cluding clerical, office, technical, confidential, and supervisory em-
ployees, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining. The only controversy with respect to the unit concerns
the guard. The Company would exclude him from the unit.
The Company employs one guard who checks the ingress and egress
of all visitors and trucks at the plant gates. He is armed and mili-
tarized by the United States Army. In accordance with our usual
practice of excluding militarized employees from units of production
and maintenance employees, we shall exclude the guard from the unit.
We find that all production and maintenance employees at the Syra-
cuse plant of the Company, excluding clerical, office, technical, and
confidential employees, guards, and all supervisory employees with
authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect
changes in the status of employees, or effectively recommend such
action, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
' The Field Examiner reported that the Union presented 19 application cards. There are
approximately 22 employees in the appropriate unit.
1000 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOAR1
V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
We shall direct that the question concerning representation which
has arisen be resolved by means of an election by secret ballot among
the employees 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.
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 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 Semet-Solvay
Company, Syracuse, New York, 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 Third 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 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 any who have since quit or been discharged for cause
and have not been rehired or reinstated prior to the date of the elec-
tion, to determine whether or not they desire to be represented by
District 50, United Mine Workers of America, for the purposes of
collective bargaining.
MR. JOHN M. HOUSTON took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Election.