The Dow Chemical Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 26, 1955

113 N.L.R.B. 1247 (N.L.R.B. 1955)

THE DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY 1247
Act, the Board has exclusive jurisdiction and that the 12-month pro-
hibition against Board elections in Section 9 (c) (3) of the -Act 1
.should not apply where an earlier State board election was held. The
Union contends that, as the Employer and the Union had agreed to be
bound by the results of the election for at least 1 year, the decertifica-
tion petition should be dismissed.
In Interboro Chevrolet Co., Inc.,2 the particular unions and the em-
ployer conducted an election among the employees involved which was
won by the unions. Shortly thereafter a decertification petition was
filed. A majority of the Board- stated that "We do not believe that
sufficient safeguards are provided in the type of election in question
to protect employees in the exercise of their choice of a bargaining
representative, and are therefore unwilling to accord to the results
of such an electiop the same effect we would attach to a determination
of representatives based upon an election conducted by a' Government
agency, or upon one privately conducted, but with an impartial over-
seer in charge, wherein the true desires of employees with respect to
representation are reflected with a high degree of certainty." In the
instant case the election was held under the auspices of a responsible
State government agency and it is not contended that the election was
affected by any irregularities. In these circumstances, we shall ac-
card the same effect to the results of the State'election as we would at-
tach to a determination of representatives based upon an election con-
ducted by the Board. Accordingly, as the employees involved herein
have had an opportunity to express their desires as to a bargaining
representative within the 12-month period prescribed in the Act, we
shall not direct a Board election at this time. We shall, therefore, dis-
miss the petition. - -
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
CHAIRMAN FAR31ER took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Order.
: Section 9 (c) (3) of the Act provides in part as follows: "No election shall be di-
rected in any bargaining unit or any subdivision within which , in the preceding twelve-
month period , a valid election shall have been held '' - '
2111 NLRB 783. -
The Dow Chemical Company, Texas Division and Local Union
716, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL,
'Petitioner. Case. No. 39-RC-918. August Q6, 1955
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before C. L. Stephens, hearing offi-
113 NLRB No. 121.
1248 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
cer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing, are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim 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 represents a unit of the Employer's electricians and
seeks to sever powerhouse department employees from a unit of the
Employer's production and operating employees now represented by
the Intervenor, Local Union 564, International Union of Operating
Engineers, AFL. The Employer and the Intervenor oppose severance.
The powerhouse group consists of approximately 130 employees.
They produce steam and electrical power. Part of the steam is used in
generating electricity and part of it is piped directly to various points
in the plant for use in the Employer's production processes.
The Petitioner claims that the powerhouse employees are entitled
to severance as a departmental unit. In the American Potash' case,
the Board ruled that a petitioning union seeking severance of a depart-
mental group of employees must establish that (1) the departmental
group to be severed is functionally distinct and separate and (2) the
petitioner is a union which has traditionally devoted itself to serving
the special interest of the employees in question. The Employer and
the Intervenor contend that a severance election should be denied here
because the Petitioner does not traditionally represent departmental
units of powerhouse employees.
The powerhouse employees do not do electrical work of the type
performed by employees the Petitioner traditionally represents. As
we are convinced that the Petitioner has not historically and tradi-
tionally been the representative of powerhouse employees such as those
sought in this case, it does not meet the requirements of the American
Potash rule z We find, accordingly, that no severance election is justi-
fied, and we shall dismiss the petition?
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
MEMBER MURDOCK , dissenting :
I dissent from the majority's decision in this case insofar as it denies
the powerhouse employees an opportunity to be represented as a sepa-
1 American Potash & Chemical Corporation, 107 NLRB 1418.
a In view of this conclusion we deem it unnecessary to consider the issues raised as to
the appropriateness of the unit, or alternative units, sought.
8 See Campbell Soup Company, 109 NLRB 475.
KERR-McGEE OIL INDUSTRIES, INC. , 1249
rate unit by the Petitioner. The majority, finds that the Petitioner
does not meet the "traditional union" requirement for severance estab-
lished in the American Potash case. Yet a majority of this Board
would grant severance if the Petitioner were a•newly formed organi-
zation rather than an established one which by tradition and history
has proved itself qualified to represent the special interests of craft
groups.' As I stated in the dissenting opinion in the Friden case,
By its decision in this case, the majority has, for all practical pur-
poses, abandoned the "traditional union" test and reinstated the
rule in effect prior to the American Potash decision which per-
mitted craft severance irrespective of whether or not the petition-
ing union was by history, tradition, and experience equipped to
serve and advance the special interests of the specific craft
involved.
Now that the'Friden decision has become the firm policy of the Board
by its application in later cases,5 I submit that the abandonment of the
"traditional union" requirement is complete and that the rule in effect
prior to American Potash should be applied in this and all future
cases involving craft or departmental severance. Accordingly, I
would not apply the "traditional union" test in this case and would
direct a severance election for the powerhouse employees as requested
by the Petitioner.
Friden Calculating Machine Co ., Inc., and Marchant Calculators , Inc., 110 NLRB.
1618; International Harvester Company, Farmall Works, 111 NLRB 606; J. I.'Case Com-
pany, 112 NLRB 796.
5 Ibid.
Kerr-McGee Oil Industries, Inc. and International Brotherhood
of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers &
Helpers, Local Lodge 338, AFL, Petitioner.. Case No. 33-IBC-522.
August 26,1955
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Harold L. Hudson, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
113 NLRB No. 114.