United States Gypsum Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 17, 1946

70 N.L.R.B. 1345 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

In the Matter Of UNITED STATES Gypsum COMPANY , EMPLOYER and
LOCAL 12178, DISTRICT 50, UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA,
AFL, PETITIONER
Case No. 2-R-6573.-Decided September 17, 1946
Mr. A. A. George, of Staten Island, N. Y., for the Employer.
Mr. Howard J. Gill, of Newark, N. J., for the Petitioner.
Mr. James Zett, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed , hearing in this case was held at New York
City, on July 2, 1946, before Vincent Al. Rotalo, hearing officer. The
hearing officer 's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial
error and are hereby affirmed. -
Upon the entire record in the case , the National Labor Relations
Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
United States Gypsum Company, an Illinois corporation with a
main office in Chicago, Illinois, operates several plants and ware-
houses throughout the United States. At its New Brighton, Staten
Island, plant, the only establishment involved in this proceeding, the
Employer is "engaged in the manufacture and sale of paint and
plaster building materials. During the year ending June 1, 1946, the
Employer purchased for use at its New Brighton plant raw materials
valued at more than $100,000, of which approximately 25 percent
was shipped to the plant from points outside the State of New York.
During the same period the Employer manufactured at the New
Brighton plant finished products valued in excess of $100,000,'of which
approximately 25 percent was shipped to. points outside the State.
The Employer admits, and we find, that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
70 N. L R B, No. 136.
1345
1346 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
-II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with the American
Federation of Labor, claiming to represent employees of the Em-
ployer.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Employer refuses'to recognize the Petitioner as the exclusive
bargaining representative of employees of the Employer until the
Petitioner has been certified by the` Board in an appropriate unit.
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the-Employer, within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
'IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Petitioner seeks a unit of quality control employees (testers)
in the Employer's main laboratory.,. The Employer, while agreeing
with the grouping of the employees in the proposed unit, contends
that-no unit of these employees is appropriate because they are an
arm of management and, therefore, not employees within the meaning
of the Act; and that as the representative of the production and main-
tenance employees, the Petitioner should not be permitted to represent
the quality control employees.2 -
We find no merit in either of the arguments advanced by the Em-
ployer. The quality control employees are technicians who make
laboratory tests of incoming raw materials,-materials in 'process of
production, finished products of the Employer, and finished products
of competitors. They work under the supervision of the quality con-
trol supervisor to whom they make their reports. They have no sub-
ordinates, and their reports outline only technical deficiencies. They
have no disciplinary power. Their position appears to be analogous
to that of inspectors who, we have frequently found, are employees
within the meaning of the Act and may be represented by the labor,
organization which represents the production and maintenance em-
ployees of the same employer.3
1 The R mplover has another group of quality control employees who are , however, assigned
to various production departments , are under the supervision of the departmental super-
visor, and work on routine tests in the laboratory attached to the department. Neither
party seeks to include this group in the proposed unit. Moreover , at other plants of this
Employer , and over the Employer ' s objections , a similar group of quality control employees
has been included in a production and maintenance unit. See Matter of United States,
Gypsum Company, 66 N L It B 619 , 1
The Petitioner has a current contract with the Employer covering production and main-
tenance employees and specifically excluding all quality control employees from its coverage
3 See Matter ofb McDonnell Aircraft Corporation, 49 N. L R. B . 987, and cases cited
therein - See also Matter of General Chemical Company, 64 N L R B. 357 ; Matter of
Spicer Manufacturing Company, 55 N. L R. B. 1491 , Matter of Aluminum Company of
America, 61 N. L. R B. 1066, 1052.
UNITED STATES GYPSUM COMPANY 1347
Accordingly, we find that all quality control employees in the main
laboratory of the Employer's New Brighton, Staten Island, plant,
excluding the quality control supervisor and any other supervisory
employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or
otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively rec-
ommend such action, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes
of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the
Act.
We shall direct that the question concerning representation which
has arisen be resolved by an election by secret ballot, subject to the
limitations and additions set forth in the Direction 4
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
purposes of collective bargaining with United States Gypsum Com-
pany, New Brighton, Staten Island, New York, 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 Director for the Second Region, acting
in this matter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and
subject to Sections 203.55 and 203.56 of National Labor Relations
Board Rules and Regulations-Series 4, among the employees in the
unit found appropriate in Section 1V, 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 vacation or temporarily laid
off, and including employees in the armed forces of the United States
who present themselves in person at the polls, 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, to
determine whether or not they desire to be represented by Local
12178, District 50, United Mine Workers of America, AFL, for pur.-
poses of collective bargaining.
' The Employer stated it contemplated an increase of the number of employees in the
unit and requested an eligibility date immediately preceding the election . The Petitioner
requested an eligibility date of April 22, 1946, the date of the Petitioner's request for recog-
nition we see no valid reason for vari ing our usual eligibility date, inasmuch as the pos-
sibility of any addition to the main laboratory force is speculative and contingent upon an
increase in the Employer ' s business in the near future.
712344-47-vol 70-S6 0