The Dow Chemical Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 16, 1956

116 N.L.R.B. 1602 (N.L.R.B. 1956)

1602 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
If, however,. a majority of the employees in voting group (1) cast
their ballots for-the Union, they will be taken to have indicated their
desire to constitute a part of the existing production and maintenance
unit and will appropriately be included in the same unit with the
employees in voting group (2) and their votes will be pooled with
those of employees in voting group (2). If a majority of the em-
ployees in the pooled voting group vote for the Union, the Regional
Director conducting the elections is instructed to issue a certification
of representatives to the Union for a production and maintenance unit
comprising such pooled group, which the Board, under such circum-
stances, finds to be a single unit appropriate for purposes of collective
bargaining. However, if a majority of employees in the pooled group
vote against the Union, the Regional Director will issue a certificate
of results of elections to that effect.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.]
MEMBER MURDOCli took no part in the consideration of the above
Supplemental Decision and Direction of Elections Amending De-
cision and Direction of Election.
Bay City Division, The Dow Chemical Company and Arthur B.
Stothard, Petitioner and International Union, United Automo-
bile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America,
AFL-CIO and its Local 804
Bay City Division, The Dow Chemical Company and Pattern Mak-
ers League of North America, AFL-CIO, Pattern Makers Asso-
ciation of Saginaw and Vicinity, Petitioner. Cases Nos. 7-RD---
f19 and 7-1?C-3f 09. 1V ovember 16,1956
DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before
Myron K. Scott, 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 organizations involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.'
i The Petitioner in Case No . 7-RD-219, an employee of the Employer, asserts that Inter-
national Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of
America, AFL-CIO, and Its Local 804, hereinafter called the Intervenor, is no longer
the bargaining representative , as defined in Section 9 (a) of the Act, of the Employer's
employees involved herein. The Intervenor is a labor organization which has represented
the employees involved since 1941.
116 NLRB No. 233.
BAYCITY DIVISION 1603
3. The Intervenor contends that the petition filed in Case No.
7-RD-219 should be dismissed for the reason that the Petitioner,
Arthur B. Stothard, is in fact acting as a "front" for the United Mine
Workers of America, District 50, hereinafter referred to as the UMW,
•a labor organization not in compliance with the filing requirements
of the Act. The Petitioner opposes the motion and denies the allega-
tions which form the basis thereof. For the reasons hereinafter set
forth, we find merit in this contention of the Intervenor.
Uncontroverted evidence presented at the hearing discloses that
during April, May, and June, 1956, Stothard, and certain other em-
ployees in the unit, solicited and obtained signatures on UMW mem-
bership application and authorization cards from fellow employees
in the unit. One employee, when approached by a fellow employee
for this purpose, asked several questions relating to the type of local
they would have and whether they would be represented by the UMW ;
he was told to attend a meeting on April 30, 1956, to obtain the an-
swers. He attended this meeting held by District 50, UMW, chaired
by Mr. Penney, an official of the Midland Local 2 of District 50, UMW,
and conducted by Mr. Harry Reinfelder, Director, Region 63, Dis-
trict 50, UMW, as a representative of UMW. Of the 40 or 50 persons
attending this meeting, 75 percent were recognized by the witness as
employees in the unit at the Bay City plant of the Employer. Upon
questioning from such employees, Mr. Reinfelder responded that it
was not definite that the Bay City group would become a part of the
Midland Local because this would depend -upon whether Midland
wanted them; if Midland did not want them they would probably be
their own separate local; and that they would probably still bargain
with the same people at Bay City. When asked how long it would
take to get the National Labor Relations Board to set a date to de-
certify the Union and how long it would be after the UAW was
decertified that the UMW would come in and represent the employees,
Mr. Reinfelder responded that it would be a "short period" but would
not indicate whether this would mean 6 days, 6 months, or 2 months.
At this meeting the group was urged by Mr. Penney to get in the
authorization cards. Stothard was present at the meeting and he
among others was observed handing over some material to Mr. Penney.
Stothard admitted attending a number of UMW meetings and further
testified that he held some meetings at his home which were attended
by UMW officials who were there just to see what the meetings were
about. He further admitted that he signed a UMW membership appli-
cation card before he filed the decertification petition. Other testi-
2 Midland is the home plant of Dow Chemical about 21 miles from its Bay City plant.
The employees there are represented by the UMW.
1604 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
mony discloses that Petitioner Stothard participated prominently in
the UMW organizational drive.
By letter dated May 11, 1956, over the signature of Reinfelder, the
TJMW demanded recognition as bargaining representative of the em-
ployees involved herein. The Employer declined recognition by letter
dated May 15, 1956, and thereafter envelopes bearing a UMW return
address and postmarked May 16, 1956, were received by employees.
These envelopes contained three items : (1) a printed envelope ad-
dressed to the UMW and bearing a prepaid postage seal; (2) a slip of
paper with the following legend duplicated thereon :
I, the undersigned employee of the Bay City Division of the Dow
Chemical Company, Bay City, Michigan, and employed in the
unit now bargained for by Local 804, United Automobile, Aircraft
and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, affiliated with
the A. F. L.-C. I. 0., hereby petition the National Labor Relations
Board to conduct a decertification election in the unit now repre-
sented by the above named union.
------------------------------ ----------------, 1956.
(Naive) (Date)
hereinafter referred to as the "interest form"; and (3) another slip of
paper duplicated in the same manner on which the following instruc-
tion was given :
The enclosed petition should be signed and mailed without delay.
This should serve to help bring about a settlement in the matter
of union affiliation.
Thereafter, Petitioner Stothard, while continuing to solicit member-
ship in the UMW, admittedly obtained a supply of duplicated "interest
forms" and personally distributed them among fellow employees.
Stothard denied that he obtained the "interest forms" from the UMW ;
that he received any advice from the UMW relative to filing the RD
petition; or, that he received any assistance from the UMW in the fil-
ing of the decertification petition. He testified that the "interest
forms" which he distributed as well as the decertification petition com-
plete with all typing and a penciled "X" in the place of his signature
was handed to him in the plant by a "friend." Stothard testified that
the "friend" was neither Penney nor Reinfelder, but did not otherwise
identify him. However, the record shows that Stothard had received
and was aware that the identical forms used by him together with the
other material referred to above had been mailed to other employees
by the UMW.
A comparison of the showing-of-interest documents supporting the
decertification petition and the "interest forms" distributed by the
UMW discloses that they are identical not only in content but also as
BAY CITY DIVISION 1605
to the paragraphing and spacing, thus indicating that they originated
from a single master stencil. Moreover, these documents, as well as
the decertification petition itself and the UMW's letter demanding
recognition, contain a common typographical peculiarity. Thus, the
letter "a" is slightly raised above the type line of adjoining letters and
the letter "b" appears bent slightly to the right of its normal position
in relation to other letters so that the "b" is very close to any letter
immediately following it, and is removed more than the usual spacing
from any letter immediately preceding it.
Under all the above circumstances, we are convinced that Petitioner,
Stothard, was, in fact, acting on behalf of the representatives of
District 50, United Mine Workers of America, a noncomplying labor
organization, when he filed the decertification petition herein. There-
fore, we shall grant the Intervenor's motion to dismiss the decertifi-
cation petition filed in Case No. 7-RD-219.3
The Petitioner in Case No. 7-RC-3209, Pattern Makers League of
North America, AFL-CIO, Pattern Makers Association of Saginaw
and Vicinity, seeks to sever from the existing contract unit of pro-
duction and maintenance employees at the Bay City Division of the
Employer a craft unit consisting of all wood and metal pattern-
makers and apprentices. The Employer and the Intervenor contend
that craft severance should not be permitted and the petition should
be dismissed because of (1) a 15-year history of bargaining in the
broader unit and (2) the integrated character of the magnesium in-
dustry, which is the type of operation at this plant of the Employer.
It is asserted the magnesium industry possesses the same degree of
integration as that characteristic of the aluminum industry in the
progressive development starting with basic raw materials through
the final product of magnesium alloy castings. While recognizing
that these contentions are governed by the Board's decision in Ameri-
can Potash & Chemical Corporation,4 not to extend further the prac-
tice of denying craft severance on an industry basis, the Employer
and Intervenor argue that that ruling violates Section 9 (c) (2) of
the Act in that it denies "equal protection before the law" and is
"unreasonable, arbitrary, and discriminatory."
The Board has considered and finds no merit in these contentions.
As the magnesium industry, in which the Employer is engaged at
the plant involved herein, is clearly not one of the industries in which
the practice 'of denying craft' severance exists, we hereby deny the
motion to dismiss the,petition on this basis e -
a see World Publishing Company, 109 NLP1.B 355 ; Bernson Srolk Mills, 106 NLRB 826;
Hamm:ermill Paper Company, Inc., 105 NLRB 194"; knife River Coal Mining Company, 91
NLRB 176. CP.' National Aniline Division , Allied Chemical Dye Corporation, 115 NLRB
1134; Seaporcel Metals, Inc., 115 NLRB 960; The Anaconda Company, 114 NLIIB 530.
'107 NLRB 1418.
5 See United States Smelting, Refining and Mining Company, 116 NLRB 661.
1606 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Accordingly, we find that a question affecting commerce exists con=
cerning the representation of certain employees of the Employer
within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7)'
of the Act.
4. The wood and metal patternmakers and apprentices are located
in a separate building which contains, in addition to the pattern shop,
a pattern storage area and a tool crib. The Petitioner does not seek to
include the tool crib and pattern storage attendants. All of the
patternmakers' work is performed in the pattern shop except for a
small percentage of pattern maintenance work which is done in the
foundry. There are 6 wood and 7 metal journeymen patternmakers
and 2 apprentices. The Employer not only has a program of ap-
prentice training in the pattern shop but also sponsors a training
course-through the International Correspondence School-and
classes on company time and property.
In view of the foregoing, and the record as a whole, we find that
the wood and metal patternmakers are craftsmen and that the Pe-
titioner is a union which traditionally and historically represents
such craftsmen. Accordingly, we find that the following employees
at the Employer's Bay City Division, Bay City, Michigan, may con-
stitute a separate craft unit which is appropriate for purposes of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act : 6
All wood and metal patternmakers and their apprentices, excluding
pattern storage and tool crib attendants, all other employees, guards,
and all supervisors as defined in the Act. However, in determining
the appropriate unit for the patternmakers, we shall be guided in
part by the desires of these employees as expressed in the election
hereinafter directed. If a majority vote for the Petitioner, they
will be taken to have indicated their desire to constitute a separate
appropriate unit, and the Regional Director conducting the election
directed herein is instructed to issue a certification of representatives
to the Petitioner for the unit described immediately above, which
the Board, under such circumstances, finds to be appropriate for pur-
poses of collective bargaining. In the event a majority vote for the
Intervenor, the Board finds them appropriately a part of the Inter-
venor's unit and the Regional Director will issue a certificate of
results of election.
[The Board dismissed the petition in Case No. 7-RD-219.]
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
9 Southern States Equipment Corporation, 113 NLRB 537; General Motors Corporation,
Fisher Body Division, 113 NLRB 876; Traylor Engineering & Manufaeturang Company, 110
NLRB 334.