The Procter and Gamble Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 17, 1943

52 N.L.R.B. 661 (N.L.R.B. 1943)

In the Matter of THE PROCTER AND GAMBLE MANUFACTURING COMPANY
and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, DISTRICT LODGE
No. 94, FOR AND IN BEHALF OF ITS AFFILIATED LOCALS
In the Matter of THE PROCTER AND GAMBLE MANUFACTURING COM-
PANY and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS,
LOCAL UNION No . B-11, A. F. L.
Cases Nos. R-.5818 and R-5819 respectively.Decided September
17, 1943
Mr. George W. McLaughlin, of Long Beach, Calif., for the Com-
pany.
Mr. J. E. Stickels, of Long Beach, Calif., and Mr. Stanley D.
Stearns, of Los Angeles, Calif., for the I. A. M.
Mr. David Sokol, of Los Angeles, Calif., and Mr. E. L. Brown, of
Wilmington, Calif., for the I. B. E. W.
Mr. J. F. Williamson, of Compton, Calif., and Mr. P. U. Noel, of
Long Beach, Calif., for the Association.
• Katz, Gallagher & Margollis, by Mr. Leo Gallagher, of Los Angeles,
Calif., for the I. L. W. U.
Mr. Robert E. Tillman, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon petitions duly filed by International Association of Machin-
ists, District Lodge No. 94, for and in behalf of its affiliated locals,
herein'called the I. A. M.,1 and by International Brotherhood of Elec-
trical ' Workers, Local Union No. B-11, A. F. L., herein called the
I. B. E. W., each alleging that a question affecting commerce had
arisen concerning the representation of employees of The Procter
1 In the formal papers the I A M 's name appears as "International Association of
Machinists , District Lodge 94 & affiliated Long Beach Local 1235 . A F. of L " At the hearing
the name was amended on the formal papers to appear as it does in the caption and in the
body of this decision.
52 N. L R. B. No. 114.
661
662 DEICIISIONS OF NAR`PONIAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and Gamble Manufacturing Company, Long Beach, California, herein
called the Company,2 the National Labor Relations Board provided
for an appropriate hearing upon due notice before George H. O'Brien,
Trial Examiner. Said hearing was held at Los Angeles, California,
on August 9 and 10, 1943. The Company, the I. A. M., the I. B. E. W.,
and International Longshoremen's & Warehousemen's Union, Local
26, C. I. 0., herein called the I. L. W. U., and Procter and Gamble
Employees Association, herein called the Association, appeared, par-
ticipated, and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine
and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on
the issues. The Trial Examiner's rulings made at the hearing are
free from prejudicial error, and are hereby affirmed. All parties were
afforded opportunity to file briefs with the Board.
The Company moved at the hearing to dismiss the petitions of the
I. B. E. W. and the I. A. M. on the'ground that they seek to establish
inappropriate units. For the reasons stated in Section III, infra, the
motion to dismiss is hereby granted.3
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
The Procter and Gamble Manufacturing Company; an Ohio cor-
poration, is a wholly owned subsidiary of Procter and Gamble Com-
pany, having its principal office 'and place of business in Cincinnati,
Ohio. It operates several plants throughout the United States, among
them being one at Long Beach, California, with which this proceeding
is concerned. At its Long Beach plant the Company is engaged in the
manufacture of soap, edible fats, and glycerine. The volume of busi-
ness at this plant exceeds $100,000 per year, of which 20 percent is re-
ceived into and shipped out of the State of California.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
International Association of Machinists, District Lodge No. 94, is a
labor organization admitting to membership employees- of the
Company.
2In the formal papers the Company's name appears as "Procter & Gamble Soap Co." At
the hearing the name was amended on the formal papers to appear as it does in the caption
and in the body of this decision
' The Company urged as another ground for dismissal that a disclaimer by the Association
of any interest in the two groups petitioned for constituted an attempt to amend the
collective bargaining contract between the Association and the Company without the Com-
pany's consent . The I . L W. U. also moved to dismiss the petitions , on the further grounds
that charges were pending against the Company, and that there was no evidence that the
Association through its membership , had approved the disclaimer . The charges referred to
by the I L W. U have since been withdrawn . We find it unnecessary to rule on the other
grounds for disnssal in view of our ruling dismissing the petitions because they seek inap-
propriate units
THE PROCTER AND GAMBLE MANUFACTURING COMPANY 663
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union
No. B-11, is a labor organization affiliated with the American Fed-
eration of Labor, admitting to membership employees of the
Company.
International Longshoremen's & Warehousemen's Union, Local 26,
is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Or-
ganizations, admitting to membership employees of the Company.
Procter and Gamble Employees Association is an unaffiliated labor
organization admitting to membership employees of the Company.
III. THE ALLEGED APPROPRIATE UNITS
The I. A. M. requests a unit of all maintenance employees, excluding
electricians, gardeners, watchmen, janitors, and boilerhouse employ-
ees, and further excluding production employees, office employees, and
those engaged in a supervisory capacity with the right to hire or dis-
charge. The I. B. E. W. petitions for a unit consisting only of all
electrical employees of the Company. The I. L. W. U., while not re-
questing any unit at this time, contends that both of the above pro-
posed units are inappropriate in view of the history of collective bar-
gaining upon a single production and maintenance unit basis. The
Company contends that the single plant-wide unit which it presently
recognizes in its contract with the Association is the appropriate unit.
The Association, although a party to the contract, has expressed its
willingness to have the Board conduct separate elections among the
electricians and the maintenance employees to determine whether they
desire separate bargaining representatives.
The Company has been dealing with the Association for 7 years as
the collective bargaining representative of all of its Long Beach em-
ployees, "except the superintendent, supervisors, foremen, cost control
engineers, secretary to the superintendent, fire chief, and trainees for
supervisory positions." Similar bargaining units exist at all the Com-
pany's other plants.
In support of its petition for a separate unit, the I. B. E. W. con-
tends that the electricians have belonged to the I. B. E. W. since con-
struction began on the plant in 1930; that they have never signified
that they wanted the Association to represent them; and that they
have handled their own grievances for the past 11/2 years. At first,
perhaps, these contentions appear to have some merit. However, an
examination of the record discloses the following weaknesses in the
contentions; although the electricians have always belonged to the
I. B. E. W., they failed, prior to the initiation of the present proceed-
ings, to ask the Company for separate bargaining rights; although
664 DECISIONS OF NAfTIOINIAL LABOR RULATIO-N& BOARD
there is no evidence that the electricians expressly signified that they
wanted the Association to represent them, still they have participated
in the benefits of Association representation, and by their apparent
passivity over a long period of time have indirectly approved of rep-
resentation by the Association; and finally, no specific instances of the
handling of grievances by the I. B. E. W. in the past 11/2 years were
disclosed at the hearing, whereas there is evidence that the Association
has handled at least one grievance in that time and has procured a
raise for all employees including electricians.
Similar observations may be made concerning the maintenance em-
ployees whom the I. A. M. seeks to represent. These employees, prior
to the instant proceeding, also failed to inform the Company that they
desired separate representation. Moreover, they have participated
actively in the Association, being presently represented by four mem-
bers of the Association chosen from their group. They have reaped
the benefits of such representation, the latest of which have been the
successful prosecution of one grievance to prevent the proposed trans-
fer of some 20 mechanics to other jobs, of another to secure increased'
rates for some pipe coverers, and of still another providing for an
adjustment in the distribution of overtime work among mechanical
employees. Pending with the management at the time of the hearing
was an Association sponsored request for a 10-cent hourly wage in-
crease for mechanics.
It thus appears that a plant-wide unit of employees was established
with the acquiescence of the maintenance employees and the elect
tricians. In view of this, and the prolonged period of collective bar-
gaining upon a plant-wide basis between the Company and the Asso-
ciation, we believe that the units urged by the I. A. M. and the I. B.
E. W. are inappropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining, and
we so find 4
V. THE ALLEGED QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
Since, as stated in Section III, above, the bargaining units sought to
be established by the petitions are not appropriate, we find that no
questions concerning the representation of employees of the Company
in appropriate units, have arisen within the meaning of Section 9 (c)
of the Act.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the petitions for investigation and
certification of representatives of employees of The Procter and
4 See Matter of Phoenix Manufacturing Company, 44 N. L. R. B. 1388.
THE PROCTER AND GAMBLE MANUFACTURING COMPANY 665
Gamble Manufacturing Company, Long Beach, California, filed by
International Association of Machinists, District Lodge No. 94, for
and in behalf of its affiliated locals, and by International Brotherhood
of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. B-11, A. F. L., be, and they
hereby are, dismissed.
CHAIRMAN MILL s took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Order.
11