The Celotex Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 12, 1969

180 N.L.R.B. 62 (N.L.R.B. 1969)

62 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Celotex Corporation ' and International
Brotherhood of Pulp , Sulphite and Paper Mill
Workers AFL-CIO,' Petitioner . Case 26-RC-35 10
December 12, 1969
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF
ELECTION
BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND ZAGORIA
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a
hearing was held before Willie L. Clark, Jr.,
Hearing Officer. The Hearing Officer's rulings made
at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and
are hereby affirmed. Following the hearing, this case
was transferred to the National Labor Relations
Board in Washington, D.C., pursuant to Section
102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board Rules
and Regulations and Statements of Procedure,
Series 8, as amended. Thereafter, the Employer filed
a brief which has been duly considered.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a
three-member panel.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board
finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act, and it will effectuate the
purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
2. The labor organizations' involved claim to
represent certain employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists
concerning the representation of employees of the
Employer within the meaning of Section 9(c)(1) and
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner seeks to represent the
production and maintenance employees' at the
Employer's new Paris, Tennessee, plant. The
Intervenor agrees with the Petitioner's unit request.
The Employer contends that the unit is
inappropriate; it would exclude the laboratory
testers and the laboratory technicians. The
laboratory is located next to the fabricating and
coating department in the plant. At the time of the
hearing, there were two employees working in the
laboratory. However, the Employer expects to have
eight employees working in the laboratory, in two
categories. One group, primarily engaged in
laboratory testing of a routine nature will spend
approximately 90 percent of its time in the
laboratory testing raw materials such as paints,
resins , waxes and tempering oils, to determine if
they meet the Employer's purchasing specifications.
Laboratory testers are required to have only a high
school education; they work under the supervision of
the quality control foreman and the plant chemist.
The remaining group of employees will be classified
as laboratory technicians. The technicians will go
into the plant to test the quality of the product at
the various control points. At times they may return
to the laboratory with the product to run tests,
either alone or with the assistance of the tester. The
technicians will spend 50 or 60 percent of their time
in the laboratory, employing various laboratory
techniques and testing machines. The laboratory
technicians are in a higher classification than the
laboratory testers. The Employer indicated that it
would take from a month to 6 weeks to train an
employee in either of the laboratory classifications.
Both classifications are salaried and their pay is a
little higher than the hourly paid employees.
Although the laboratory employees do not report to
the same line of supervision, and their vacation and
insurance plans differ from the production and
maintenance employees, we conclude, on the basis
of the foregoing, that they have a sufficient
community of interest with the production and
maintenance employees to justify their inclusion in
the unit.
We therefore find that the following employees of
the Employer constitute an appropriate unit for the
purpose of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9(b) of the Act:
All production and maintenance employees,
including laboratory testers and laboratory
technicians, at the Employer's hardboard plant,
Paris, Tennessee, excluding all office clerical
employees, guards, professionals, and supervisors,
as defined in the Act.'
5. The Employer moves to dismiss the petition on
the basis of an expanding unit. In early 1968, the
Employer started construction of its new hardboard
plant. At the time of the hearing on June 25, 1969,
there were receiving, finishing, and shipping
activities taking place at the plant, and a few
maintenance employees were working. At the
hearing, the Employer introduced its manning
schedule which indicates that the plant will have a
maintenance department, wood yard, board mill,
fabrication and coating department, and a
warehouse. It also details the specific numbers of
'The petition and other formal papers were amended at the hearing so
that the name of the Employer would correctly appear in the captions as
The Celotex Corporation.
'Petition amended at the hearing to delete "United" from the petition so
that the correct name would appear in the caption as International
Brotherhood of Pulp , Sulphite and Paper Mill Workers, AFL-CIO.
'United Cement , Lime and Gypsum Workers International Union,
AFL-CIO-CLC, was permitted to intervene at the hearing on the basis of
a showing of interest
'Petition amended at the hearing to delete truckdrivers from the unit.
'The Employer would exclude the office janitor from the unit However,
the plant manager testified that the Employer has no definite plan to hire
an office janitor , and at the time of the hearing, there was no office janitor
on the payroll. We shall therefore not pass upon the placement of this
classification The Employer would also exclude all clerical employees, not
only office clerical employees. We disagree. Not only are there no plant
clerical employees now, but such employees are generally included in
production and maintenance units
180 NLRB No. 14
THE CELOTEX CORPORATION
employees and job classifications to be filled as of
June 2, August 15, October 15, 1969, and January
15, 1970, when the Employer anticipates having a
total complement of 144 employees working in 48
job classifications.
It appears from the manning schedule , and indeed
the Employer contends, that by October 15, 1969, a
date preceding the date of issuance of this Decision,
the Employer will be fully operational in all 5 of its
plant departments, it will have employees in all of
the 48 authorized classifications, and it will have 86
percent of its full complement . In view of the
foregoing we conclude that, regardless of the size of
the employee complement on the date of the
hearing, the plant will have become fully operational
on October 15, 1969, a date already passed, and a
substantial representative work force will have been
63
employed. Accordingly, we deny the motion to
dismiss the petition.
[Direction of Election6 omitted from publication.]
'In order to assure that all eligible voters may have the opportunity to
be informed of the issues in the exercise of their statutory right to vote, all
parties to the election should have access to a list of voters and their
addresses which may be used to communicate with them Excelsior
Underwear Inc, 156 NLRB 1236; N. L R B v. Wyman-Gordon Company,
394 U S. 759 Accordingly , it is hereby directed that an election eligibility
list, containing the names and addresses of all eligible voters, must be filed
by the Employer with the Regional Director for Region 26 within 7 days
of the date of this Decision and Direction of Election . The Regional
Director shall make the list available to all parties to the election. No
extension of time to file this list shall be granted by the Regional Director
except in extraordinary circumstances. Failure to conply with this
requirement shall be grounds for setting aside the election whenever proper
objections are filed