The Wooster Rubber Co.Download PDFNational Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsJun 2, 194877 N.L.R.B. 1044 (N.L.R.B. 1948) Copy Citation 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. Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation