United States Metals Refining Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 13, 1950

88 N.L.R.B. 1079 (N.L.R.B. 1950)

In the Matter Of UNITED STATES METALS REFINING COMPANY,
EMPLOYER and INTERNATIONAL CHEMICAL WORKERS UNION, AFL,
Case No. 4-RC-b73.-Decided March 13, 1950
DECISION
AND
ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before Julius Topol,
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 National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three -member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members
Houston and Styles].
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 organizations involved claim to represent employees of
the Employer.
3. No 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, for the following
reasons:
The Employer is engaged in the smelting and refining of copper
ores, concentrates , blisters , and other copper materials at its Carteret,
New Jersey , plant, the only plant involved in the proceeding.
The Petitioner contends that plant clerical and restaurant em-
ployees at the Employer 's plant , excluding main office employees and
employees in the personnel department ,' constitute an appropriate
unit. The Employer agrees that the requested unit is appropriate.
International Union of Mine, Mill & Smelter Workers, CIO, Local
837, herein called the Intervenor , however, contends that the proposed
1 Employees in this department , except employees in the employee-relations section, are
presently represented by the Intervenor in its over-all unit.
88 NLRB No. 195.
1079
1080 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
unit is not appropriate and that the long bargaining history on a
broader basis precludes the establishment of a separate unit for plant
clerical employees at this time.
Employees in the proposed unit
The record does not specifically disclose the particular job descrip-
tions or the specific working conditions of the various employees sought
by the Petitioner. They,are only generally described as "plant cleri-
cal" employees and "restaurant" employees. We therefore assume
that their duties and working conditions correspond to those of em-
ployees at other manufacturing plants generally so respectively
classified.
The past bargaining history
On December 18, 1945, the Board certified the Intervenor as the
exclusive bargaining representative of employees at the Employer's
Carteret plant in the following units : (a) hourly paid production and
maintenance and clerical employees; and (b) salaried employees in
the chemical and metallurgical laboratories 2 In February 1946 the
Employer and Intervenor entered into a contract covering employees
in these two units, the contract terminating on, June 30, 1947.
On August 1, 1916, following a consent election in Case No. 4-R-
2156, the Regional Director declared the Intervenor's International
the exclusive representative of salaried clerical, hospital, and res-
taurant employees at the same plant; excluding, inter alia, main office
employees. As salaried, distinctive from hourly paid, workers, these
employees received sick and other benefits not usually enjoyed by
hourly paid workers. Because other employees of the Employer repre-
sented by the Intervenor were then already covered by the contract
above noted, which ran to June 30, 1947, the Employer and Intervenor
drew up a separate contract for the employees covered in the consent
election certification. This contract was drawn to terminate on June
30, 1947, the day on which the production and maintenance contract
terminated.
In 1947, the Employer and the Intervenor held bargaining confer-
ences concerning new contract provisions for all employees then repre-
sented by the Intervenor. On July 1, 1947, the parties executed their
so-called master agreement, covering the hourly paid production and
maintenance and plant clerical employees certified in 1945. They
thereafter executed two supplemental agreements, (1) covering the
salaried laboratory employees in the unit found appropriate in the
264 NLRB 727.
UNITED STATES METALS REFINING COMPANY 1081
1945 proceedings, and (2) covering the salaried clerical, hospital,
and restaurant employees in the consent election unit. Both these
supplemental agreements were made effective on the date of the master
agreement of July 1, 1947. All the contracts terminated on June 30,
1948.
On September 26, 1947, by agreement between the Employer and
Intervenor, all hourly paid clerical employees at the Employer's plant
were placed on a salaried basis.
On July 1, 1948, the Employer and Intervenor entered into a new
master agreement, followed by two supplemental agreements along
the same unit descriptions set forth in their 1947 contracts. These
1948 contracts terminated on June 30, 1949.
From July to October 1949, following a dispute over new contract
terms, employees at the Employer's plant were on strike. On October
24, 1949, the Petitioner filed the instant petition. On October 27, 1949,
the Employer and Intervenor executed an agreement, committing to a
signed memorandum the points on which they were agreed and in-
corporating the provisions of their 1948 contract not inconsistent with
the new provisions. No supplemental agreements specifically covering
the employees now in dispute were executed at that time.
The unit proposed by the Petitioner does not correspond with any
employee unit grouping found to constitute an appropriate unit in
the earlier proceedings noted above. Moreover, the record indicates
that the Employer and the Intervenor have for a considerable length
of time negotiated for production and maintenance, laboratory, plant
clerical, hospital, and restaurant employees, on a broad basis. The
fact that the parties have in their written contracts adhered to the
coverage of the unit description in successive certifications has not, in
-fact, materially affected the true character of their over-all bargaining
procedure. We have frequently affirmed that plant clerical employees
naturally belong in the bargaining unit with plant production and
maintenance employees with whom they are closely associated through
common supervision and common work interests.3 No special factors
appear in the instant case which would warrant separating at this
time plant clerical employees at the Employer's plant from the produc-
tion and maintenance employees with whom they have been bargaining
since 1946' We find no reason to disturb the present unit placement
of restaurant employees. Under these circumstances, and the entire
8 Chrysler Corporation, 76 NLRB 55, and cases cited therein. Cf. Michigan Pole & Tie
Company, 88 NLRB 339.
4 The fact that the plant clericals are subject to a different mode of payment is not a
sufficient basis for separating them from the production and maintenance employees.
Southern Alkali Corporation, 84 NLRB 120; Bonwit Teller, Inc., 84 NLRB 414.
1082 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
record in the case, we find that the plant clerical unit sought by the
Petitioner is not appropriate for bargaining purposes,' and we shall
dismiss the petition.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in this case, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that the petition herein be, and it hereby is,
dismissed.
Under these circumstances, we find it unnecessary to consider other issues raised by the
parties in this proceeding.