The Borden Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 23, 1949

83 N.L.R.B. 765 (N.L.R.B. 1949)

In the Matter of THE BORDEN COMPANY, THE BORDEN CHEESE COM-
PANY DIVISION ,1 EMPLOYER and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING
ENGINEERS , LocAL 824 (AFL), PETITIONER
Case No. 8-RC-415.-Decided May 23, 1949
DECISION
AND
ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before Bernard Ness,
a hearing officer of the National Labor Relations Board. 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 [Chairman Herzog and Members
Houston and Murdock].
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 Petitioner and the Intervenor, Truckdrivers, Warehousemen
and Helpers Union, Local 908, International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America (AFL)
are labor organizations claiming to represent employees of the
Employer.
3. No 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, for the following
reasons:
The Petitioner seeks to sever from the existing unit of production
and maintenance employees, at present represented by the Intervenor,2
a unit composed of all maintenance and power house employees at the
' The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing.
2 From 1941 to 1945, Liederkranz Employees Association was the bargaining agent of
the Employer 's hourly paid employees , including maintenance men. The Intervenor became
the bargaining representative , of the production and maintenance employees in 1945, and has
executed yearly contracts since then . The 1946 contract was signed by the Petitioner as
well as by the Intervenor. The Intervenor was the only labor organization which signed
the 1945, 1947, and 1948 contracts.
83 N. L. R. B., No. 115. 765
766 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Employer's milk processing plant in Van Wert, Ohio. The Employer
contends that only a plant-wide unit is appropriate. The Intervenor
agrees with the Petitioner's unit contention.
Of the 12 maintenance men whom the Petitioner seeks, only 2, the
maintenance man machinist and the maintenance man electrician, are
skilled craftsmen. The remaining 10 are not craftsmen. About one-
half of them were previously production workers who were transferred
to maintenance work because they were "handy with tools." Some of
the others were hired from outside the plant without any experience
in maintenance work. The 2 skilled craftsmen and 9 of the remaining
10 maintenance men are assigned to the machine shop, where they are
under the supervision of the plant engineer. The maintenance man
machinist does his work in the machine shop. The maintenance man
electrician works throughout the plant. The others frequently
work through the plant, under the supervision of the foreman who is
in charge of the department where the maintenance work is being
performed. The cream cheese maintenance man is under the super-
vision of the foreman in the cream cheese department, and he works-
only in that department. Maintenance employees are frequently re-
quired to do regular production work. Some, if not all, of the bar-
gaining contracts have provided that all maintenance employees must
do production work whenever necessary.
The powerhouse employees sought by the Petitioner are four firemen
who work in a separate building, under the supervision of the plant
engineer. No power is produced, the steam generated by the firemen
being used almost entirely in the production process. No special skill
is necessary for the work done by,the firemen, some of whom are trans-
ferred from production work. Like the maintenance men, they have
been required by the terms of the bargaining contracts to perform any
general labor that might be assigned to them.
Production workers daily dismantle, clean, and reassemble pipe and
equipment which they use, and they frequently replace broken or worn
parts and make minor adjustments. To do this, they use tools drawn
from the same bin as that used by the maintenance men. The Em-
ployer estimated that the production workers do from 25 to 30 percent
of the maintenance work performed,8 and, in some cases they are more'
familiar than the maintenance employees with the repair of their'
equipment.
Production, maintenance, and powerhouse employees are all hourly,
paid, use a common locker room, and enjoy the same vacation and in-
8 The Petitioner's witness , when asked if production employees do maintenance work on
the pipes , replied "Sometimes they do and sometimes they don 't. They won't call a main-
tenance man . They come over to the shop and grab up tools and go to work on it."
THE BORDEN COMPANY 767
surance benefits. Seniority up to 5 years is department wide, but, after
5 years' service, seniority is plant wide. In the event of layoffs, there-
fore, senior employees may be assigned to any department in the plant.
We are convinced by the facts relating to the integrated operations
of the Employer's plant, by the terms of, ,the, contracts requiring all :
employees to do any general labor which,may be assigned, by the lack
of skill and homogeneity of the group sought by the Petitioner,4 and
by the bargaining history, that, the unit here sought is inappropriate.'
Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petition herein.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in this case; the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that the petition herein be, and it hereby is,
dismissed.
See Matter of Rex Paper Company, 83 N. L. R. B . 265, in which we held inappro-
priate a unit of maintenance and powerhouse employees because it comprised two distinct
departments engaged in different functions and employing different skills.
I