Shell Chemical Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 11, 1957

118 N.L.R.B. 1605 (N.L.R.B. 1957)

SHELL CHEMICAL CORPORATION 1605,
deuce that Webber or any other individual whose activities might
be attributed to the Petitioner engaged in threatening or coercive
conduct. In its exceptions the Employer points only to 1 statement
from a speech 8 read by Webber to the employees in the unit 2 days:
before the eleotion;,apparently'at the request of the Employer. Under
the circumstances,.,this. statement does not constitute evidence of im-
proper conduct by Webber. Accordingly, we overrule the Employer's
objections and shall certify the Petitioner as the representative of
the employees in the appropriate unit.
[The Board certified Building Service Employees International
Union, Local No. 245, as the designated collective-bargaining repre-
sentative of the employees of Brown-Dunkin Company in the unit
found appropriate.]
6 That statement was "If I did not [love you], you would not be here today." The
Employer set forth only a small portion of the speech in its exceptions and did not indi-
cate whether this: statement was coupled with an appeal to vote for or against the
Petitioner or neither.
Shell Chemical Corporation and International Union of Operat-
ing Engineers, Local No. 501 , AFL-CIO, Petitioner
Shell Chemical Corporation and Oil , Chemical and Atomic
Workers International Union , AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Cases Nos.
21-RC-4764 and 21-RC-4821. October 11, 1957
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held on the consolidated cases
before Karl W. Filter, 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 Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with these cases to a three-
member panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Murdock and
Rodgers].
Upon the entire record in these cases,' the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
3. Questions affecting commerce exist concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section
9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
3 The Employer 's request for oral argument is denied as the record and briefs ade-
quately present the issues and the positions of the parties.
118 NLRB No. 219.
1606 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
4. In Case No. 21-RC-4821, Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers
International Union, AFL-CIO, requests an election in a unit of
all production and maintenance employees. In Case No. 21-RC-
4764, International Union of Operating Engineers, Local No. 501,.
AFL-CIO, requests a separate election among employees in two
steam plants. Oil Workers and the Employer contend that only
the production and maintenance unit is appropriate; and, in the
alternative, that dehydrogenation employees should be included in
any separate unit found appropriate. It is clear that the unit re-
quested by Oil Workers is appropriate for collective bargaining.
The sole issue is whether a separate unit of steam plant employees
is also appropriate.
There is no recent bargaining history for the employees involved
herein. The Employer manufactures styrene and butadiene, and
from them, synthetic rubber. One of the steam plants generates
steam for use in production of styrene and rubber, and the other
generates steam for use in production of butadiene. These 2 steam
plants are separately located, contain large high-pressure boilers,
and employ 28 employee-operators as firemen and water treaters.
One operator on each shift at each steam plant must be licensed, and
many others hold licenses, requiring 3 years' training and experience.
The dehydrogenation plant is located next to the butadiene steam
plant, the control rooms being only 10 feet apart. It contains two
combustion engineering units which generate and superheat steam.
It uses the same treated water, supplies steam for the same purposes,
and is supervised by the same shift foremen, as the butadiene steam
plant. Dehydro employees have the same classifications as those in
the butadiene steam plant; one dehydro employee must be licensed
on each shift; and interchange between dehydro and the butadiene
steam plant is common. Under these circumstances, we find that
a unit restricted to employees in the two steam plants, as requested
by Operating Engineers, is too limited in scope. However, the
employees in the styrene and butadiene steam plants, and those in
the dehydrogenation plant, perform duties directly related to the
generation of high-pressure steam and together form a functionally
distinct group entitled to separate representation if they so desire.2
As Operating Engineers has expressed its willingness to represent
such a unit, and as we are administratively satisfied that it has a
sufficient showing of interest, we shall direct a separate election
among these employees.
However, we shall make no final unit determination at this time, but
shall direct that separate elections be held in the following voting
groups at the Employer's Torrance, California, plant :
2 Olin Mathieson Chemical Corporation, 117 NLRB 1441.
KNICKERBOCKER PLASTIC CO., INC. 1607
(a) All employees in the styrene and butadiene steam plants and the
dehydrogenation plant, excluding all other employees and supervisors
as defined in the Act.
(b) All production and maintenance employees, including truck-
drivers, and warehouse and shipping employees; but excluding the
styrene and butadiene steam plant and dehydrogenation plant em- .
ployees, office and plant clerical employees, electricians, laboratory
employees, professional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined.
in the Act.
If a majority of the employees in voting group (a) select Operating
Engineers, that group will be taken to have indicated their desire to
constitute a separate bargaining unit, which the Board, under those
circumstances, finds to be appropriate for purposes of collective bar-
gaining, and the Regional Director conducting the elections is hereby
instructed to issue a certification of representatives to such union for
such unit. In that event, if a majority of employees in voting group
(b) select Oil Workers, then the Regional Director is instructed to is-
sue a certification of representatives to that union for a unit of such
employees, which the Board under the circumstances finds to be
appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining.
However, if a majority of the employees in voting group (a) do not
vote for Operating Engineers, such group will be appropriately in-
cluded in the same unit with the employees in voting group (b) and
their votes will be pooled with those in that voting group.' If a ma-
jority of employees in the pooled group select Oil Workers, the
Regional Director is instructed to issue a certification of representa-
tives to that union for such unit, which under such circumstances the
Board finds to be appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.]
3 If the votes are pooled, they are to be tallied in the following manner : The votes
for Operating Engineers shall be counted as valid votes, but neither for nor against the
union seeking the production and maintenance employees ; all other votes are to be
accorded ' their face value , whether for representation by a union or for no union.
Knickerbocker Plastic Co., Inc. and International Association of
Machinists, District Lodge No. 727. Case No. 21-CA-1111..
October 15, 1957
FINDINGS AND ORDER
On April 3,1957, the Board issued and served upon the parties here-
in specifications for back pay, medical and hospitalization expenses,
and death benefits. On May 20, 1957, the Respondent filed an answer
to the specifications. On June 13, 1957, the General Counsel filed a
118 NLRB No. 221.