The Mennen Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 19, 1953

105 N.L.R.B. 677 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

THE MENNEN COMPANY 677
lowed the policy of requiring, where there has been such an
established history of collective bargaining on a multiplant
basis, that severance of craft employees must be coextensive
with the multiplant unit." As the unit sought by the Petitioner
is limited to the Akron plants, it is inappropriate. Conse-
quently, we shall dismiss the petition.14
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
is American Steel Foundries, Alliance Works, supra and cases cited therein.
14 Member Peterson agrees that the petition in this case should be dismissed in view of the
history of collective bargaining on a broader basis. However, by joining in the result here
reached he does not wish to be understood as agreeing with the implication that if craft
organization had been coextensive with the multiplant unit , severance should be permitted See
his dissenting opinion in W C Hamilton & Sons, 104 NLRB 627.
THE MENNEN COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL CHEMICAL
WORKERS UNION, AFL, Petitioner. Case No. 4-RC-1921.
June 19, 1953
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Eugene M.
Levine, 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 Act, the
Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to
a three-member panel [Members Houston, Murdock,,„ and
Styles ] .
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing of the Act.
2. The Petitioner and Local No. 649, International Union of
Automobile Workers, AFL, which intervened on the basis of
its contractual interest, claim to represent certain employees
of the Employer.
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the
representation of employees of the Employer within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, for
the following reasons:
On November 15, 1951, and February 8, 1952, respectively,
the Intervenor and the Employer executed separate contracts,
effective until May 15, 1954, covering employees at the Em-
ployer's warehouse in Kearny, New Jersey, and the pro-
duction and maintenance employees at the Employer's plant in
Newark, New Jersey. The Intervenor contends that these
contracts constitute a bar to a present determinationof repre-
sentatives and therefore moves the dismissal of the petition.
The Petitioner seeks a single unit of these employees who
105 NLRB No. 101.
678 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
have transferred to the Employer ' s new plant in Morris Town-
ship , New Jersey , and opposes the Intervenor ' s contention on
the grounds that ( 1) this plant is tantamount to a new operation,
( 2) the contracts are of unreasonable duration , and (3 ) members
of the original signatory Local 102 had no voice in the assign-
ment of these contracts to the intervening Local in the same
International Union . The Employer takes a neutral position on
the contract -bar issue.
During the 3-year period ending in the firstpart of 1953, the
Employer , which was manufacturing toiletries in Newark and
using warehouse and shipping facilities in Kearny , constructed
a plant in Morris Township for the purpose of consolidating its
operations . The new plant was put into partial operation in
February 1953. By the time of the hearing , April 6, 1953, the
Newark plant was vacated , and most of its machinery as well
as 95 percent of its 140 production andmaintenance employees
were transferred to the new plant where they resumed their
regular work assignments . It was also indicated that by May
1, l 53, the anticipated date for full operation of the new plant,
the Kearny warehouse would no longer be functioning and all
of its 39 employees would be at the new plant performing their
customary warehouse duties.
At its new location the Employer manufactures the same
products and carries on the same functions as those previously
performed at Newark and Kearny . Although the layout at
Morris Township has necessitated some changes in equipment
and operation , it appears from the record that the Employer's
production techniques and processes have not been altered in
any substantial manner . As already noted , most of the machinery
formerly used in Newark is now at the new plant where the
transferred employees continue to work at their old jobs. The
supervisory personnel from Newark and Kearny has also been
completely shifted to Morris Township.
Under these circumstances , we conclude that the Morris
Township operation of the Employer is essentially nothing
more than the Newark and Kearny operations transferred to
a new location . It follows therefore that the 1951 and 1952
contracts cover the employees at the new location .' We find,
without deciding whether these contracts are of unreasonable
duration , that they are a bar under the Board's current rule
as they have been in effect for considerably less than 2 years.'
Finally, we find the Petitioner ' s contention that the contracts
were improperly assigned to the Intervenor is without merit
as the only change in the character and status of the contract-
ing union is one of designation,$
I Pluss, Poultry Inc., 100 NLRB 64; Yale Rubber Manufacturing Company, 85 NLRB 131
2Cf. Kerstetter Silk Throwing Co., Inc., 103 NLRB 335; Bath Iron Works Corporation, 101
NLRB 849.
3 The Louisville Railroad Company, 90 NLRB 678; Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Com-
pany of Baltimore , 89 NLRB 231.
H. W. RICKEL AND COMPANY 679
Upon the basis of the foregoing and the entire record, we
find that the existing contracts between the Employer and the
Intervenor constitute a bar to a present determination of
representatives . Accordingly , we shall grant the Intervenor's
motion to dismiss the petition.
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
H. W. RICKEL AND COMPANY; FROEDTERT GRAIN & MALT -
ING COMPANY , INC. and DETROIT BREWERS AND MALT-
STERS UNION , a unit of LOCAL 547 of the INTERNATIONAL
UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS , AFL, Petitioner. Case
No. 7-RC-2025 . June 19, 1953
DECISION , ORDER , AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 ( c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Emil C. Farkas,
hearing officer. The hearing officer ' s rulings made at the
hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby af-
firmed.
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
Houston , Murdock, and Styles].
The Board has omitted from the caption the name of the
Detroit Malt and Grain Co. Although notice of hearing was
served upon this company , it did not appear at the hearing. All
parties stipulated that it was no longer in business.
Although Froedtert Grain & Malting Company, Inc ., did not
desire to enter an appearance or participate in the proceeding,
its representative was present . The representative , however,
did enter into a stipulation with respect to the company's
operation.
The parties stipulated to the inclusion as part of the record
in this case the testimony in Goebel Brewing Company , et al,1
pertaining to the motion of Detroit Brewers and Maltsters
Union, which filed the petition in this case , to amend its name
to show its affiliation with Local 547, International Union of
Operating Engineers , AFL, herein called Local 547, and the
motion of the latter organization to intervene . For the reasons
stated in our decision in the Goebel case, ' we grant the motion
to amend , have amended the caption of this case accordingly,
and consider Local 547 a proper intervenor inthis proceeding.
International Union of United Brewery, Flour, Cereal, Soft
Drink and Distillery Workers of America, CIO , herein called
the CIO, and its Local Union No. 3, were permitted to intervene
on the basis of their contractual interest . We deny the CIO's
1105 NLRB 698.
2 Ibid.
105 NLRB No. 100.
Z91555 0 - 54 - 44