The Beattie Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 21, 1949

86 N.L.R.B. 694 (N.L.R.B. 1949)

In the Matter of THE BEATTIE MANUFACTURING COMPANY,' EMPLOYER
and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, LOCAL No. 68,
A. F. L., PETITIONER
Case N0.2-RC-13,57.-Decided October 21, 1.9.19
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before Lloyd S. Green-
idge, 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 Reynolds, Murdock, and
Gray].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
National Labor Relations Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists 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'
4. The appropriate unit; the determination of representatives :
The Petitioner seeks a unit of powerhouse employees at the Em-
ployer's Little Falls, New Jersey, plant 3 The Employer and the
Intervenor oppose the unit upon the basis of the Employer's history
of collective bargaining,' and also upon the ground that the claimed
1 The Employer' s name appears as amended at the hearing.
2 Textile Workers' Union of America, CIO, the Intervenor, contends that its contract
with the Employer constitutes a bar. This contract is dated August 20, 1948, and is
automatically renewable from year to year, unless either party gives 60 days' notice prior
to the expiration date. The petition herein was filed on June 9, 1949, which was 11
days in advance of the "Mill B" date of the contract . Clearly, the contract is no bar to
this proceeding.
3 At the time of the hearing, the unit sought consisted of four firemen and one turbine
operator.
4 The Employer has had bargaining contracts at its plant since 1937 on a plant-wide
basis , which included powerhouse personnel. On June 3, 1948 , the Board certified the
Intervenor in an over-all unit.
86 N. L. R. B., No. 101.
694
THE BEATTIE MANUFACTURING COMPANY 695
'employees are highly integrated with its production process, in that
the steam produced by them is indispensable to the manufacturing
of its end product.
The Employer, a New Jersey corporation with its plant at Little
Falls, New Jersey, is engaged in the manufacture of carpets and rugs.
Its manufacturing process involves 15 different departments, 7 of which
utilize steam .5 Eighty-five percent of the steam produced is used for
manufacturing, and 15 percent for heating.6 There are about 366
employees at the plant and, as already noted, there are 5 employees in
the claimed unit.
All the steam used in the plant is procured from two high pressure
boilers, operated by powerhouse personnel. The powerhouse ancl
boiler room are housed in two connecting buildings. Powerhouse em-
ployees are supervised by the chief engineer,7 who also supervises cer-
tain other employees." The function of the claimed employees is to,
make steam available for manufacturing and heating purposes. The,
firemen," in addition to tending fires, fuel the boilers, and watch the
gauges and pumps. The turbine operator 10 performs the usual duties
associated with his job classification. The employees sought perform
no work outside the powerhouse and boiler room, and there is no inter-
change with other employees.
It appears that the claimed employees are a distinct and homogeneous
group, and that their work is essentially the same as that generally
performed by powerhouse employees in other industrial plants.
Moreover, we have frequently held that employees in manufacturing
or processing industries with duties similar to those performed by
the employees here involved may be severed from an existing plant-
wide unit."' While the Employer utilizes steam in certain of its
manufacturing departments, this does not establish such a degree of
integration between the production process and the work of the
powerhouse employees as to warrant denying separate representation
to such employees.- Matter of Monsanto Chemical Company," re-
lied upon by the Employer and the Intervenor, is distinguishable in
that there, although functional integration was deemed pertinent,
the characteristic criteria for a group of powerhouse employees were
6 The departments utilizing steam as part of the manufacturing process are the scour-
ing, raw stock dye, skein dye, slashing , carding, top sizing, and finishing departments.
O During the summer months , all steam produced is used for manufacturing.
' whom the parties agreed to exclude.
Plumbers , sheet metal workers , guards, and a pipe fitter.
° Who are required to have a license from the State of New Jersey.
Who is classified as an engineer.
"Matter of the American Sugar Refining Company, 76 N. L. R. B . 1000, and cases cited
therein.
12 Matter of Ralston Purina Company, 86 N. L. R. B. 107, and cases cited therein.
13 80 N. L. R. B. 1675.
696 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
lacking. Under the present circumstances, despite the factors of
integration and past bargaining history, we do not consider the em-
ployees sought to be an inseparable part of the over-all production
'unit.14 '
In view of the foregoing, we find that the powerhouse employees
,may, if they so desire, constitute a separate bargaining unit. How-
ever, we shall reserve final determination in this respect, pending the
`outcome of the election hereinafter directed.
We shall direct an election among the following group of employees
at the Employer's Little Falls, New Jersey, plant, excluding all other
employees and supervisors as defined in the Act :
All powerhouse and boiler room employees, including engineers,
firemen, and helpers.
If a majority of the employees in the above voting group select the
Petitioner, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to con-
stitute a separate bargaining unit.
5. The Petitioner contends that two turbine operators,15 dismissed
by the Employer on June 6 and July 1, 1949, respectively, were tem-
porarily laid off rather than discharged, and therefore that they are
entitled to vote. The Employer stated that the employees in question
were discharged because the Employer determined it uneconomical to
use the turbine on any but the first shift, and that in the future the
services of the two discharged employees will not be required. In
the absence of affirmative evidence to the contrary, we conclude that
the employees in question have been permanently laid off, and that
there is no reasonable expectancy of their reemployment. Accord-
ingly, we find them ineligible to participate in the election directed
herein.15
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining with the Employer, an election by secret
ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than. 30
days from the date of this Direction, under the direction and super-
vision of the Regional Director for the Region in which this case was
heard, and subject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62 of National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations, among the employees in the
unit found appropriate in paragraph numbered 4, above, who were
employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date
of this Direction of Election, including employees who did not work
during said .pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation or
14 Matter of Aluminum Ore Company, 85 N. L. R. B., No. 18, and cases cited therein.
15 Gardner and Hunt.
26 See Matter of F. C. Mason Company, 86 N. L. R. B., No. 16.
THE BEATTIE MANUFACTURING COMPANY 697
temporarily laid off, but excluding those employees who have since
quit or been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or rein-
stated prior to the date of the election, and also excluding employees
on strike who are not entitled to reinstatement, to determine whether
they desire to be represented, for purposes of collective bargaining,
by International Union of Operating Engineers, Local No. 68, AFL,
or by Textile Workers' Union of America, Local No. 1022, CIO, or
by neither.