Union Carbide and Carbon Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 30, 1951

97 N.L.R.B. 230 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

230 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ELECTRO METALLURGICAL COMPANY, A DIVISION OF UNION CARBIDE AND
CARBON CORPORATION 1 and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING
ENGINEERS, A. F. L., PETITIONER. Case No. 9-RC-1153. November
30, 1951
Decision and Direction of Election
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Lloyd R. Fraker,
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are
free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
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-mem-
ber panel [Members Houston, Reynolds, and Styles].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9
(c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Employer is constructing an electrometallurgical plant at
Marietta, Ohio, for the production of ferro alloys. The Petitioner
and the Intervenors, United Gas, Coke and Chemical Workers of
America, CIO, herein called the Gas Workers, and International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL, herein called the IBEW,
contend generally that a separate unit of power steam department
employees is appropriate. The Employer, however, contends that
only a plant-wide unit is appropriate and that, in any event, a sepa-
rate unit of the power steam department should not be established at
this time because of anticipated expansion of that department.
Although the Employer's production facilities were not yet com-
pleted at the time of the hearing, the power steam department was in
operation and was producing electricity, steam, and compressed air.
This department was furnishing electricity to another division of the
Employer located in the vicinity, and it will also pump and treat
water for use in the Employer's manufacturing process when the pro-
duction facilities are completed. The power steam department is
located in a separate building, and the employees in this department
1 The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing.
97 NLRB No. 38.
ELECTRO METALLURGICAL COMPANY 231
are under separate supervision . The Board has repeatedly found
employees such as those sought herein to be distinct functional groups
which may constitute separate appropriate units 2
The Petitioner and the IBEW contend that all the power steam
department employees constitute an appropriate unit , whereas the
Gas Workers would confine the unit to all hourly rated employees in
the power steam department, excluding the salaried employees .3 The
hourly rated employees are classified as firemen, assistant firemen, pit
equipment operators , oilers , turbine oilers , mechanics , coal equipment
operators , and relief men. The parties are in substantial agreement
with respect to the salaried supervisory personnel . In general accord-
ance with their agreement and upon the basis of the entire record, we
shall exclude from the proposed unit as supervisors within the mean-
ing of the Act the chief meter technician , the supervisor of controls,
the supervisor of maintenance , the supervisor of operations , the elec-
trical maintenance foreman, the shop foreman , control room opera-
tors,' and turbine engineers.5
The parties are in general agreement that a group of student engi-
neers now being trained by the Employer should be excluded as pro-
fessional employees . All the parties , with the exception of the IBEW,
would exclude a water analyst as a professional or technical employee.
This employee, who has a college degree , analyzes and controls the
hardness or softness of the water used in the power steam department.
He is responsible for reports to the State of Ohio respecting sewage
and waste disposal , and he is required to have a working knowledge
of the chemistry involved in this work. We shall therefore exclude
him as well as the student engineers from the unit. -
The Petitioner and the IBEW would include in the unit meter tech-
nicians 6 and assistant control room operators, whereas the Employer
and the Gas Workers would exclude these employees as technical em-
ployees. The meter technicians work in the power steam building
under the immediate supervision of the chief meter technician. Their
duties include the testing, maintenance , and repair of the meters in
the power steam department . The assistant control room operators
work on a panel of instruments in the power steam department which
control the transmission of power from the power steam department
See, P. g, American Smelting and Reflning Company, 86 NLRB 1172.
I This contention of the Gas Workers Is without merit as the Board has frequently held
that the method of payment is not determinative of the s"ope of an appropriate bargaining
unit. See. e 9 , G unnison Homes, Inc, 72 NLRB 740.
4 The IBEW would include the control room operators in the unit . However, the record
shows that these individuals possess supervisory authority within the meaning of the Act.
5 The IBEW took no position with respect to the unit placement of the turbine engineers.
The record shows that they possess supervisory authority.
6 Sometimes referred to in the record as instrument repairmen.
232 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to other operations in the Employer' s plant which utilize that power..
The record shows that the meter technicians and the assistant control
room operators share common supervision with the employees sought,
and that the functions they perform are closely integrated with the
production of power by the Employer's power steam department. We
shall therefore include them in the unit 7-
The Petitioner and the IBEW took no position regarding the unit.
placement of a clerk and a stenographer who work in the power steam-
department. The Gas Workers, however, would-exclude them as office
and clerical employees. These employees apparently work directly
under the supervision of the superintendent of the power steam de-
partment. We therefore believe that they are plant clericals with a
sufficiently close community of interest with the employees in the unit
hereinafter found appropriate to function as a part of that unit. We
shall therefore include them in the unit.
We find that all power steam department employees at the Em-
ployer's Marietta, Ohio, plant, including meter technicians, assistant
control room operators, clerks and stenographers, but excluding all
other employees and supervisors, constitute a unit appropriate for
the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section
9 (b) of the Act.
5. At the time of the hearing, there were 34 employees in the power
steam department and 33 employees in the production departments.
The Employer expects to employ a total of 400 employees in all de-
partments by February 1, 1952. However, no increase in the number
of employees in the power steam department is expected until the
summer of 1952, at which time the Employer expects to double the
number of employees in this department. The Employer contends
that the Board should not direct an election until a representative pro-
portion of the expected total employment is employed. As the em-
ployment complement in the appropriate unit is a substantial and
representative segment of the working force which will-eventually
be employed, we shall, in accord with our usual practice, direct an
immediate election.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
I Cf. Ame,ican Smelting and Refining Company, 86 NLRB 1172; Beaunit Mills , Inc., 85
NLRB 316.