The Wooster Rubber Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 2, 1948

77 N.L.R.B. 1044 (N.L.R.B. 1948)

In the Matter of THE WOOSTER RUBBER COMPANY, EMPLOYER and
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS (A. F. OF L.),
PETITIONER
Case No. 8-R-2734.-Decided June 2, 1948
Mr. David L. Daley, of Wooster, Ohio, for the Employer.
Mr. John Possehl, of Akron, Ohio, for the Petitioner.
Messrs. Robert E. Shuff and Carl Swartz, of Akron, Ohio, for the
Intervenor.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Wooster,
Ohio, on January 20, 1948, before Louis Belkin, hearing officer. The
hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial
error and are hereby affirmed. The Intervenor's motion to dismiss the
petition is denied for reasons stated in Section III, infra.
Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations
Board 1 makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
The Wooster Rubber Company, an Ohio corporation, is engaged
in the manufacture of molded rubber products at its plant at Wooster,
Ohio.
The Employer annually produces products valued in excess of
$2,000,000, more than 50 percent of which is shipped to points outside
the State of Ohio.
The Employer admits, and we find, that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
H. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with the American
Federation of Labor, claiming to represent employees of the Employer.
'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 [ Chairman Herzog and . Members Murdock and Gray].
77 N. L. R. B., No. 166.
1044
THE WOOSTER RUBBER COMPANY 1045
Local 302, United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum & Plastic Workers of
America, herein called the Intervenor, is a labor organization affiliated
with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, claiming to represent
employees of the Employer.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Intervenor and the Employer entered into a contract covering
the Employer's production and maintenance employees, effective Sep-
tember 7, 1946, for the term of 1 year, with provision for automatic
renewal annually in the absence of notice of desire to change, given
in writing by either party to the other at least 30 days before the anni-
versary date in any year.
On or about August 7, 1947,2 the Intervenor notified the Employer
of its desire to change thn contract. Negotiations were conducted and
an agreement was reached before August 13, 1947. The evidence
clearly establishes, however, that a new contract was not signed until
August 20, 1947. On August 13, 1947, the Petitioner notified tie
Employer that it represented a majority of the Employer's power
plant employees. This claim was followed on August 20, 1947, by the
filing of the petition in this proceeding.
Both the Employer and the Intervenor contend that the 1947 con-
tract constitutes a bar to a current determination of representatives.
We find no merit in this contention. As the contract of September 7,
1946, had been terminated 3 by notice given by the Intervenor in accord-
ance with its terms, and as the Petitioner's notice to the Employer of its
claim of representation preceded the execution of the 1947 contract,
and was followed by the timely filing of a petition,4 neither con-
tract, under well-established Board principles, constitutes a bar to this
proceeding.
We find that a question affecting commerce exists concerning the rep-
resentation of employees of the Employer, within the meaning of
Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT; THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
The Petitioner seeks a unit composed of all power plant employees,
while the Intervenor contends that only a plant-wide unit is appro-
2 It is undisputed that the above notice was given more than 30 days before the expiration
date of the 1946 contract
' The evidence clearly establishes that new and original provisions were made part of
the 1947 contract, including a change in termination date and no -strike or lock-out provi-
sions. The evidence further discloses that Intervenor's Exhibit No 1 is , on its face,
clearly designated a new contract and not a renewal of the 1946 contract
' See Matter of General Electric X-Ray Corporation , 67 N L R. B 997 ; Matter of
Mac's Equipment Co , 72 N L R B 583
7S8SS6-49-vol 77-67
1046 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
priate. The employees sought by the Petitioner perform their duties
in the Employer's Plants #1 and #2, which are approximately one-
fourth of a mile apart. Both groups are under the supervision of the
Employer's maintenance foreman, who also exercises authority over
all types of maintenance work required in the Employer's operations.
The employees sought by the Petitioner in Plant #1 are licensed
under the provisions of State law, and their primary duty 5 is the
operation of high pressure boilers which 'produce power for the Em-
ployer's over-all functions. We have frequently held e that employees
engaged in power plant operation constitute a homogeneous group
which may be represented for collective bargaining in a separate unit.
On the other hand, the history of plant-wide bargaining indicates that
the Employer's power plant employees may appropriately consti-
tute part of the production and maintenance unit. We shall direct a
self-determination election among the licensed engineers. There re-
mains for consideration the question of inclusion in this voting group
of the unlicensed firemen in the Employer's Plant #2.
The unlicensed firemen in Plant #2 have the duty of firing that
plant's heating apparatus for a portion of their work day, but over
50 percent of their time is spent in cleaning hang irons used in a dip-
ping process. These firemen are not licensed, and their duties do
not require the high degree of skill or training required of the licensed
engineers in Plant #1. The record further reveals that progression
from unlicensed firemen to licensed engineer is not usual or expected.
As these unlicensed firemen do not possess the special skill of the
licensed engineers, work at a separate location,' and spend a major
part of their time in production work, we shall exclude them from the
voting group hereinafter established.
Accordingly, we shall direct that an election be conducted among
the employees classified as licensed engineers in the Employer's Plant
#1, excluding unlicensed firemen in Plant #2, and all supervisors as
defined in the Act. If a majority of these employees select the Peti-
tioner as their bargaining representative, they will be taken to have
indicated their desire to constitute a separate bargaining unit. If,
however, they select the Intervenor, they will be taken to have indi-
5 Of the four licensed engineers employeed by the Employer , two (on the second and
third shifts ) are engaged for a small portion of their time, amounting to a total of approxi-
mately 10 minutes per hour for each employee , in making rounds as watchmen. The re-
mainder of their time is spent in fending the pressure boilers As these engineers devote
only an insubstantial portion of their time to watchmen duties, we find that they are not
guards as defined in the Act Matter of Steelwcld Equipment Company, Inc, 76 N L
R B 831 : Matter of Radio Corporation of America , 76 N L R B 826
sE g, Matter of Philadelphia Quartz Company , 57 N L R B 737
' Except that one of the licensed engineers substitutes for an unlicensed fireman approxi-
mately 1 day each week, there is no interchange between the two groups of employees
THE WOOSTER RUBBER COMPANY 1047
cated their desire to remain part of the plant-wide unit of produc-
tion and maintenance employees.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining with The Wooster Rubber Company,.
Wooster, 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
Direction, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Di-
rector for the Eighth Region, and subject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62,
of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 5,
among the employees in the voting group described in Section IV,
above, who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately
preceding the date of this Direction, 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 they desire to be represented by International Union of Op-
erating Engineers (A. F. of L.) or by Local 302, United Rubber, Cork,
Linoleum & Plastic Workers of America, CIO, for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining, or by neither.