The Plastex Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 25, 1947

72 N.L.R.B. 1341 (N.L.R.B. 1947)

In the Matter of THE PLASTEX CORPORATION , EMPLOYER and UNITED
RUBBER, CORK , LINOLEUM AND PLASTIC WORKERS OF AMERICA,
C. I. 0., PETITIONER
Case No. 9-R-,0416.-Decided March 05, 1947
Mr. George E. Landis, of Columbus, Ohio, for the Employer.
Mr. Robert E. Shuff, of Akron, Ohio, for the Petitioner.
Cllr. Stanley R. Strauss, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Colum-
bus, Ohio, on December 6, 1946, before Allen Sinsheimer, 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 the case, the National Labor Relations
Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
The Plastex Corporation, an Ohio corporation, with its principal
place of business at Columbus, Ohio, is engaged in the manufacture
of plastic products, principally floor molding. During 1945 and 1946,
the Employer sold products valued at about $300,000 and more than
$100,000, respectively, of which more than 75 percent was shipped
outside Ohio. During the same years, the Employer annually pur-
chased raw materials valued in excess of $50,000, practically all of
which was obtained from outside Ohio.
The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress
of Industrial Organizations, claiming to represent employees of the
Employer.
72 N. L R B., No. 242.
1341
1342 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Employer refuses to recognize the Petitioner as the exclusive
bargaining representative of employees of the Employer until the
Petitioner has been certified by the Board in an appropriate unit.
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Employer, within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. TILE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Petitioner seeks a unit consisting of all production, mainte-
nance, and service employees at the Employer's plant, including por-
ters and watchmen, but excluding office and clerical employees, ex-
truders, and all supervisory employees. While otherwise agreed, the
parties disagree. regarding the unit placement of "on the job" trainees.
The Employer has eight ex-servicemen' on its pay roll who are
learning to be plastic extruders. These are the "on the job" trainees
in dispute. Extruders are skilled machine operators with supervisory
powers. Trainees are hired on the basis of an oral examination, and
graduation from high school is not a prerequisite. When hired, they
come within the provisions of the Employer's training program, which
has been approved by the Board of Education of the State of Ohio
and by the Veterans' Administration. They act as helpers to the ex-
truders during a 2-year training period. As the Employer's needs
may require, and as part of their normal training, trainees are assigned
to perform certain duties generally performed by extruders.' Their
eventual appointment to extruder positions, however, is not assured.
We do not agree with the Petitioner's contentions -' that trainees
should be excluded from the unit. Although they are being trained to
qualify for supervisory positions, trainees, during their period of
training, have a distinct community of interest with other production
and maintenance employees, founded upon similarity of terms and
conditions of hire, and conformance to like rules and regulations.'
They may assign work to regular employees and other trainees, for
the completion of which they are held responsible, but, as trainees,
they do not exercise supervisory authority within the Board's custom-
ary definition of that term.4 Accordingly, we shall include the
trainees in the unit.
'A ninth ex -serviceman , Ed Bair, although registered under the veterans ' training
program, is conceded not to be a trainee.
2 In its brief, the Petitioner contends that trainees should be excluded on the ground that
trainees are in a sense apprentices, and that appientices are customarily excluded fiom
baigaining units in the rubber and plastic industries . Since the record discloses no evi-
dence of such alleged custom, we make no determination as to the merits of this contention.
3 Matter of Bell and Howell Company, 49 N. L It. B 42 ; of Matter of American Smelting
and Refining Co., 47 N. L. R B 871, 874
4 Matter of Douglas Aircraft Company, Inc., 50 N L R B 784.
5 Matter of Westbrook Manufacturing Company, 72 N L R. B 851.
THE PLASTEX CORPORATION 1343
We find that all production, maintenance, and service employees of
the Employer, including porters, watchmen, and trainees,6 but exclud-
ing all office and clerical employees, extruders, the superintendents of
the machine shop and the extrusion department, the supervisors of
the fabrication and shipping departments, the general foremen of
the extrusion department, and all other supervisory employees with
authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect
changes in the status of employees, or effectively recommend such ac-
tion, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
V. T11E DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
On September 20, 1946, because of material shortages and curtail-
ment of orders, the Employer shut down the second shift in its fabri-
cation department by discharging 5 employees and transferring 2 to
its extrusion department. On October 4, 1946, for substantially the
same reasons, the Employer discontinued the employment of 15 em-
ployees in its extrusion department, advising them to seek employ-
ment elsewhere. Separation reports, marked "laid off * * * due
to lack of work,"' were given to the dismissed employees.
The Petitioner contends that the employees released in September
and October were temporarily laid off, and should be eligible to vote.
It requests that the pay roll immediately preceding September 20,
1946, deterinine eligibility. The Employer contends that the released
employees were permanently discharged. , Subsequent to October 4,
the Employer commenced to convert the machinery in its extrusion
department from mamial to automatic operation. This change will
probably effect a marked reduction in personnel required to operate
the extrusion department, as a result of which a need for additional
employees is not now anticipated by the Employer. Since the workers
released in September and October have no substantial expectancy
of reemployment in the near future, we find them ineligible to vote
in the election.
We shall direct that the question concerning representation which
has arisen be resolved by an election by secret ballot, subject to the
limitations and additions set forth in the Direction.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
purposes of collective bargaining with The Plastex Corporation, Co-
lumbus, Ohio, an election by secret ballot shall be conducted as early
as possible, but not later than thirty (30) days from the date of this
Including Ray Hartings and Fred Naas.
731242-47-col. 72-86
1344 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Direction , under the direction and supervision of the Regional Di-
rector for the Ninth Region , acting in this matter as agent for the
National Labor Relations Board, and subject to Sections 203.55 and
203.56, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-
Series 4, among the employees in the unit found appropriate in Sec-
tion IV, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period im-
mediately preceding the date of this Direction, including employees
who did not work during the said pay-roll period because they were
ill or on vacation or temporarily laid off, and including employees
in the armed forces of the United States who present themselves in
person at the polls, but excluding those employees who have since
quit or been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or rein-
stated prior to the date of the election, to determine whether or not
they desire to be represented by United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and
Plastic Workers of America, C. I. 0., for the purposes of collective
bargaining.
CHAIRMAN HERZOG took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Election.