The Procter & Gamble Manufacturing Co.Download PDFNational Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsAug 17, 194878 N.L.R.B. 1043 (N.L.R.B. 1948) Copy Citation In the Matter of THE PROCTER & GAMBLE MANUFACTURING COMPANY, EMPLOYER and INDEPENDENT SOAP AND GLYCERINE WORKERS, AFFILI- ATED WITH INDEPENDENT SOAP AND EDIBLE OIL WORKERS UNION, PETITIONER Case No. 13-R-4534.-Decided August 17, 1948 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before a hearing officer of the National Labor Relations Board. At the hearing, the Employer moved to dismiss the petition on various grounds. The hearing officer reserved ruling on this motion to the Board. For the reasons stated in paragraph numbered 3, the motion is hereby denied.' The hearing officer's ruling made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed .2 IIn its brief filed after the hearing, the Employer contended that the petition should be dismissed because Section 9 (c) of the Act requires the Board to investigate representa- tion petitions and conduct hearings thereon "if it has reasonable cause to believe that a question of representation " exists , and the Board improperly delegated to the General Counsel the determination of reasonable cause in this case Section 3 (d) of the Act, in addition to stating the duties of the General Counsel, provides that the General Counsel "shall have such other duties as the Board may prescribe " This provision vests in the Board a general power to delegate to the General Counsel any duties except those which requiie the Board's exercise of its final adjudicatory authority . The preliminary deter- mination of whether reasonable cause that a question concerning representation exists in the processing of representation petitions is an investigative phase of the Board's work which the Board may properly vest in the General Counsel There is no provision in the statute requiring the Board Members themselves to make such determinations Uiidei these circumstances , we shall overrule the Employer 's motion to dismiss. See Evans v. International Typographical Union , 76 F. Supp 881 , at 887. i We find no merit to the Employer 's contention that the hearing was defective in that it was conducted by a hearing officer who allegedly combined the functions of prosecutor and judge . We have repeatedly stated that a representation proceeding , such as the present proceeding , is investigatory in nature , designed merely to ascertain whether or not a question concerning representation exists, which question the Board may resolve by directing elections in appropriate units. There is nothing adversary in such a proceeding. And we have pointed out, in this connection , that the duty of the hearing officer is merely to present a complete record upon which the Board may , in the first instance , determine the facts and predicate thereon pertinent conclusions . The record in the instant case,does not disclose , and the Employer does not contend , that any party to this proceeding was denied an opportunity to introduce evidence relating to the issues. Matter of American National Bank and Trust Company of Chicago, 71 N. L. R. B. 503, Matter of Standard Oil Company of California , 63 N. L . R B 471. 78 N L R B ., No. 142. 1043 1044 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 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-man panel consisting of the undersigned Board Members.* Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. 2. The labor organization named below claims to represent em- ployees of the Employer. 3. The question concerning representation : In December 1943, following a Board-directed 3 election, the Board certified the Petitioner, then an unaffiliated, independent union, as the exclusive bargaining representative of the production and mainte- nance employees at the Chicago plant of the Employer. For several years thereafter, the Petitioner, as an unaffiliated union, bargained with the Employer for these employees. Sometime during the year 1945, the Petitioner was invited to become an affiliate of the Inde- pendent Soap and Edible Oil Workers Union, a newly formed national labor organization, herein called the National. In October 1945, the National adopted a constitution and bylaws, and shortly thereafter the Petitioner conducted a vote among its membership, to determine whether or not the Petitioner should affiliate itself with the National.4 The vote was unanimously in favor of affiliation. With the full approval of the membership, the Petitioner then adopted the consti- tution and bylaws of the National, and commenced paying member- ship dues to the National. The Petitioner advised the Employer of its affiliated status in October 1946, when they entered into a collective bargaining agree- ment, and again the following year, when they executed amendments to this agreement.5 The Employer, however, refused to acknowledge the Petitioner's affiliation with the National, and insisted that the Petitioner use its former name when it signed the 1946 contract and the subsequent amendments to this contract. The Petitioner com- plied with the Employer's request and signed these instruments as an unaffiliated union. On August 4, 1947, the Petitioner, desirous of being recognized as an affiliate of the National rather than as an inde- pendent union, filed the instant petition. At the time of the hearing, * Chairman Herzog and Members Reynolds and Murdock. Case No. 13-R-2074. 4 Membership in the National appears to be limited to the local unions who are the bargaining representatives in the Employer 's various plants. S The amendments expired in July 1948. THE PROCTER & GAMBLE MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1045 the Petitioner was still functioning under the constitution and bylaws of the National and paying membership dues to that organization 6 In support of its motion to dismiss, the Employer advances a number of contentions, most of which are concerned with its refusal to recognize the affiliated status of the Petitioner. Thus, the Em- ployer argues that the Petitioner, as an affiliated union, is not the same labor organization with which the Employer has had contractual relations, and that the Board's service is defective because the Peti- tioner has not been served with notice of hearing in its capacity as an unaffiliated union. The Employer argues further that the Petitioner is not a labor organization within the meaning of the Act. We find no merit in these contentions.' The record is clear that the officers, membership, and composition of the Petitioner have undergone no substantial change since its affiliation with the National." The record also shows that the Petitioner has a constitution, bylaws, and officers, and was organized for the purpose of bargaining with the Employer concerning wages, hours, and working conditions. We find, accord- ingly, that the Petitioner is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act.' The question concerning representation in this case arose when the Employer refused to recognize that the Petitioner, as an affiliated union, was the bargaining representative of its employees. In view of the Petitioner's request that this question be resolved by an elec- tion, we shall direct that an election be held in the unit found appro- priate in paragraph numbered 4, below. We find, for the reasons discussed above, that a question affecting commerce exists concerning the representation of employees of the Employer, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 6 The above findings aie based, for the most part, on the testimony of employee Pierce, nhoni we find , contrary to the Employer ' s assertion , to be a reliable witness . The record does not show that his testimony is inconsistent in any material respect ' We also find no merit in the Employer 's additional contentions that the petition should be dismissed because the record fails to show ( 1) that either the Petitioner or the National has complied with Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) of the Act; (2) that the Petitioner represents a majority of the Employer ' s employees . Both of these contentions were raised recently in Matter of Lion Oil Company , 76 N L R B 565. In that case we held that a labor organization ' s compliance with the Act is a natter properly determined adminis- tratively by the Board , and is not subject to collateral attack by any of the parties in a representation proceeding . We are administratively satisfied that both the Petitioner and the National have complied with the Act In the same case, confirming a long- established rule , we held that the Board's authority to conduct an investigation was not dependent upon a petitioner ' s prima facie showing of majority status. B Inasmuch as the National does not seek to represent these employees , we find it unnecessary to pass on the Employer 's contention that that union is not a labor organiza- tion within the meaning of the Act Matter of Westinghouse Electric Corporation, 73 N. L R. B. 1282. 798767-49-vol. 78-67 1046 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 4. The appropriate unit : We find that all production, maintenance, clerical, and laboratory employees at the Employer's Chicago plant, excluding watchmen,1O job-study and cost-control engineers, the secretary to the superintend- ent, trainees for supervisory jobs, foremen, subforemen, and all super- visors, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bar- gaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. DIRECTION OF ELECTION As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the pur- poses of collective bargaining with the Employer, an election by secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than 30 days from the date of this Direction, under the direction and super- vision of the Regional Director for the Region in which this case was heard, and subject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62 of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 5, among the em- ployees in the unit found appropriate in paragraph numbered 4, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of this Direction of Election, including employees who did not work during said pay-roll period because they were ill or on vaca- tion or temporarily laid off, but excluding those employees who have since quit or been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or reinstated prior to the date of the election, and also excluding em= ployees on strike who are not entitled to reinstatement, to determine whether or not they desire to be represented, for purposes of collec- tive bargaining, by Independent Soap and Glycerine Workers, Affili- ated with Independent Soap and Edible Oil Workers Union. 10 Although the parties agreed to the inclusion of watchmen in the unit , we exclude them because they devote their full time to guarding the Employer ' s property and to enforcing plant rules . See Matter of C. V. Hill and Company , Inc, 76 N. L It. B. 158 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation