United States Potash Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 17, 1952

100 N.L.R.B. 1518 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

1518 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
which the election is being directed. I base my decision on the fact
that, as pointed out in the majority opinion, the employers are un-
willing, and have not empowered the Association, to bargain for these
employees in a multiemployer unit.
As I have recently stated in my dissenting opinion in the Conti-
nental Baking Company case,' multiemployer units can only be estab-
lished with the consent of both parties. In that case it was the other
party, the union, which was unwilling to bargain on a multiemployer
basis. I pointed out that the Board was required to accord to unions
the same treatment which it has been according to employers in not
forcing them into multiemployer units under such circumstances.
Consistent with my opinion in that case, I am applying the same prin-
ciples and according the same treatment to the employers in this
case.
It seems to me that if my colleagues are to dispense equal-handed
justice and not discriminate against unions, they will have to accord
the same treatment to a union in this kind of situation when they
choose to pass on that issue.
'99 NLRB 777.
UNITED STATES POTASH COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
MACHINISTS, CRAFTS LOCAL 1912, AFL, PETITIONER
UNITED STATES POTASH COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF MINE,
MILL & SMELTER WORKERS (IND.) FOR ITSELF AND ON BEHALF OF ITS
LOCAL 415, CARLSBAD POTASH WORKERS, PETITIONER. Cases Nos.
33-RC-376 and 33-RC-385. October 17, 1952
Decision and Direction of Elections
Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before
Evert P. Rhea, 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 these cases to a three-
member panel [Members Houston, Styles, and Peterson].
Upon the entire record in these cases, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
1 At the hearing, Carlsbad Metal Trades Council, AFL, herein called the Intervenor,
moved to intervene in this proceeding. The hearing officer, although permitting the Inter-
venor fully to participate in the hearing, did not rule upon the motion but referred it to
the Board. The motion to intervene is granted Don Lee Broadcasting System, 98 NLRB
453.
100 NLRB No. 256.
UNITED STATES POTASH COMPANY 1519
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
3. Questions affecting commerce exist 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. Petitioner Mine Mill seeks a unit coextensive with the production
and maintenance unit at the Employer's Carlsbad , New Mexico, mine
which it represented under the contract that expired on May 31, 1952.2
Petitioner IAM, which currently represents , in separate units, various
craftsmen , their helper-apprentices , and apprentices in the mechani-
cal department ,3 seeks to add to those units all remaining employees
in that department who have been represented in the production and
maintenance unit. Such additional classifications consist of journey-
man helpers , Diesel operator , Diesel man , and pump man. The
Employer agrees in effect with IAM's position . Mine Mill is opposed
to permitting IAM to add to its current unit unless the entire mechani-
cal department is permitted to vote. The Intervenor did not state
its position on the unit issue.
In a previous proceeding involving this Employer 4 the Board
directed self-determination elections in four craft groups, as a result
of which IAM was certified as bargaining agent in each of such
units. The Board at that time considered the status of the journey-
man helpers and found that their duties were not sufficiently related
to those of the journeymen to warrant their inclusion in the same
unit as the craftsmen . With respect to Diesel men, who were also
sought as a separate unit in that case, the Board perceived no basis
for severance , and therefore dismissed the petition as to them.
However, we believe that the record in this case impels a different
result with respect to the journeyman helpers. It now appears that
the journeyman helpers are normally assigned to work with specific
journeymen of a. particular craft, and devote their time, with insub-
stantial exceptions , to assisting them. Moreover, the Employer's pol-
icy is to promote journeyman helpers to journeyman status whenever
possible, and such promotions have occurred in numerous instances.
It is thus clear that the journeyman helpers are the type of employee
whom we would customarily include with craftsmen in directing a
self-determination election, and we shall therefore afford these em-
ployees the opportunity , at this time , to indicate their de ,3ires with
2 This unit comprised generally employees in the hoisting , warehouse , mill , granular
plant, laboratory , and mining departments , and certain employees in the mechanical depart-
mrent hereinafter mentioned.
8 The separate craftsmen represented by IAM are maintenance mechanics, painters,
carpenters , and pipefltters ,
' United States Potash Company , 77 NLRB 947.
1520 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
respect to joining the crafts to which they are regularly assigned or
continuing to be represented as part of Mine Mill's unit.5
There remains for consideration the placement of Diesel men, Diesel
operators, and pump men. As there are no employees in the latter
two classifications, we make no determination as to them. With re-
spect to the Diesel men, in the prior case we found that the interests
of these employees lay primarily with the mine production employees.
Nothing in this record indicates a change in duties which would war-
rant altering that conclusion. We shall therefore include the Diesel
men in the mine division unit sought by Mine Mill, in which they have
previously been represented.
Accordingly, we shall make no final unit determination at this time,
but shall direct separate elections in the following voting groups at
the Employer's Carlsbad, New Mexico, operations :
(a) All journeyman helpers assigned to maintenance mechanics
(including machinists).
(b) All journeyman helpers assigned to painters.
(c) All journeyman helpers assigned to carpenters.
(d) All journeyman helpers assigned to pipefitters.
(e) All other employees of the Employer's mine division, including
Diesel men, but excluding refinery division, electrical department,
journeymen and apprentices and helper apprentices in the crafts of
maintenance mechanic, machinist, painter, carpenter, and pipefitter,
office and clerical employees, professional employees, guards, watch-
men, and supervisors as defined in the Act .6
If a majority of the employees in voting group (a), (b), (c), or
(d) select TAM, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to
become part of the units represented by that labor organization, and
the Regional Director conducting the elections herein is instructed to
issue such certificates of results of election to that effect as may be
necessary. If they do not select TAM as their collective bargaining
agent, they will be taken to have indicated a desire to remain part of
the production and maintenance unit, and their ballots will be counted
together with those cast by the employees in voting group (e) to de-
termine which, if any, of the labor organizations seeking such unit
which the Board, in such circumstances, finds appropriate for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining,, shall represent that unit. The Regional
6 We perceive no basis for Mine Mill 's contention that, in these circumstances, the
entire mechanical department be afforded an opportunity to vote. See Stant Manufacturing
Company, 93 NLRB 1519.
6 As the Intervenor did not indicate that it desired to participate in the elections in
voting groups ( a), (b), (c), and ( d), and has not presented showings therein, we do not
accord it a place on the ballot for those groups. However, it may participate therein, if
it so desires, upon proper notice to the Regional Director within 10 , days after issuance
of this Decision and Direction of Elections , supported by an adequate showing of interest
as of the date of the hearing herein . Cf. Kennecott Copper Corporation , Ray Division,
98 NLRB 966.
HEINTZ MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1521
Director conducting the elections directed herein shall, in the event
a bargaining agent is selected in the latter unit, issue a certification
of representatives to the bargaining agent so selected.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication in this
volume.]
HEINTZ MANUFACTURING COMPANY I and UNITED STEELWORKERS OF
AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER
HEINTZ MANUFACTURING COMPANY, PETITIONER and UNITED STEEL-
woRK.ERs OF AMERICA , CIO.2 Cases Nos. . -RC-1688 and 4RM-104.
October 17, 1952
Decision and Direction of Election
Upon separate petitions duly filed by the Employer and the CIO
under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a consoli-
dated hearing was held before Fred C. Krivonos, 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 these cases to a three-
member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Styles and Peterson].
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 organizations involved claim to represent certain
employees of the Employer 4
The name of the Employer appears as corrected at the hearing.
Herein called CIO.
The Employer 's and Intervenor 's requests for oral argument are hereby denied, as the
record and briefs filed herein , in our opinion , adequately present the issues and positions
of the parties.
4 Heintz Employees ' Union , herein called the Intervenor , was permitted to intervene on
the basis of a contract with the Employer covering employees in the proposed bargaining
unit.
On July 3, 1952 , after the close of the hearing , Local 98, International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, AFL, hereinafter called IBEW , filed a "Motion to Reopen Record and
Permit Intervention ." It asks the Board to reopen the record to enable it to establish
that its proposed unit of electricians is appropriate.
The hearing had commenced on June 4, 1952, and was completed on June 9, 1952. On
June 27 , 1952, the IBEW filed a petition and submitted authorization cards signed by
more than 30 percent of the employees in the proposed unit, all of which were dated
June 6, 1952. On July 2, 1952 , the Fourth Regional Office of the Board advised the IBEW
that the instant proceeding was pending before the Board . The IBEW asserts that it
was not notified and had no previous knowledge of the present proceedings.
As the IBEW acquired a sufficient representative status before the close of the hearing
and had not been previously notified of the instant proceeding , we hereby grant the motion
of the IBEW to the following extent: As the question of the appropriateness of the unit
sought by the IBEW was not raised at the hearing , it is impossible to resolve this question
100 NLRB No. 248.