United States Rubber Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 10, 1954

109 N.L.R.B. 1293 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

UNITED STATES RUBBER COMPANY 1293
UNITED STATES RUBBER COMPANY and LOCAL 65, UNITED RUBBER
WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO. Case No. 13-RC-3964. September 10,
1954
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 Robert G. Mayberry, hear-
ing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
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 em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. The Petitioner seeks a unit of warehousing employees at the
Employer's new Elkhart, Indiana, warehouse called the Haines Build-
ing. The Intervenor, Local 364, International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, AFL, urges
that the only appropriate unit is one including the Haines Building
and four other warehouses of the Employer in downtown Elkhart and
furthermore that its current contract is a bar to this proceeding. The
Employer takes no position on the unit issue.
The Employer began its warehousing operations in Elkhart, Indi-
ana, in 1946 by the acquisition of the Rosenstein Building, in down-
town Elkhart, thereafter, in 1950, 1951, and 1952, three additional
buildings in the immediate area were acquired for warehousing pur-
poses. In 1953, the Employer entered into an agreement for the con-
struction of the instant Haines Building," located some 3 miles from
the former group and operations were begun there in May 1954. The
Employer's plan is eventually to consolidate all its warehousing facili-
ties at Elkhart in the Haines Building and additions thereto.
The Intervenor was certified by the Board for the employees in the
Rosenstein Building in 1949, and on October 17, 1949, the parties exe-
cuted their first contract. Modifications and supplements to this con-
tract were entered into in 1950, 1951, and 1953, the latter expiring in
1955. The supplements make no specific mention of the coverage of the
employees in the buildings acquired after 1949 and although the last
1954 supplement was executed when the Haines Building was under
construction, it makes no reference to Haines Building employees.
However, the Employer has informally recognized the Intervenor
for the employees at all the Elkhart operations including the Haines
"The acquisition of the Haines Building was necessitated by the expiration of the lease
of the Employer 's warehouse at Hegewisch, Illinois , near Chicago The employees in that
warehouse were represented by the UAW-CIO, on a single plant basis. The operations at
Hegewisch were transferred to the Haines Building.
109 NLRB No. 182.
1294 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Building. The evidence indicates that at least one grievance meeting
was held concerning employees working at the Haines Building and
that the Employer intends to apply the 1949 contract, as extended,
to the Haines Building employees, who with the exception of two
workers, are all newly hired personnel. The record discloses that there
is no substantial interchange of employees between the employees in
the older group of Elkhart buildings and those at Haines and that the
two operations are carried on under separate supervision and some
variations in functions?
On the basis of the foregoing facts, we are of the opinion that the
Haines Building is tantamount to a completely new operation and that
the contract of 1949 as extended and executed prior to the new opera-
tion did not purport to cover such operation not then in existence.
Such contract is not a bar to an election among the Haines Building
employees. Accordingly, we find that a question affecting commerce
exists concerning the representation of certain employees of the Em-
ployer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and
(7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner urges, and the record supports the contention,,
that the Haines plant constitutes a separate appropriate unit for the
following reasons: (1) The operations are essentially a transfer from
the Employer's warehouse at Hegewisch, Illinois, near Chicago, which
had been a separate appropriate unit; (2) new job classifications have
been added at Haines; (3) the majority of the employees are new and
have never had an opportunity to determine a collective-bargaining
representative; and (4) it is under separate supervision from the older
warehouses at Elkhart and has different functions.
The Intervenor contends that the Haines Building alone is not an
appropriate unit because it is the intention of the Employer ultimately
to consolidate all Elkhart operations at Haines and also because
through the practice of the parties, all the warehousing operations at
Elkhart, including the instant plant, have become merged into a single
consolidated unit.
On the basis of the above facts, we are of the opinion that either a
separate unit of the employees at the Haines Building or a unit con-
sisting of the employees currently represented by the Intervenor at the
Elkhart warehouses together with the Haines Building employees may
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargain-
ing.3 We shall therefore make no determination with respect to the
- 2 Sermner Stevens Company, 104 NLRB 506 . The case of The Mennen Company, 105
NLRB 677, relied upon by the Intervenor is clearly distinguishable in that in the latter
most of the machinery was transferred to the new plant as well as 95 percent of the pro-
duction and maintenance employees. Cf. also Yale Rubber Manufacturing Company, 85
NLRB 131, where under the facts of that case, the Board found that the later operation
was merely a transfer of the old to the new location and constituted an extension of the
operation covered by the contract.
3 Sermvner Stevens Company , supra.
INDUSTRIAL RAW MATERIALS CORP. 1295
employees at the Haines Building at this time, but shall first ascertain
the desire of these employees as expressed in the election directed
herein.
We shall direct an election among the following employees : all ware-
house employees at the Employer's Haines Building plant at Elkhart,
Indiana, excluding office clerical employees, professional employees,
guards, and all supervisors as defined in the Act.
If a majority of the employees in the voting group selects the Peti-
tioner, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to constitute
a separate appropriate unit and the Regional Director conducting the
election is instructed to issue a certification of representatives to the
Petitioner for such unit, which the Board, under such circumstances,
finds to be appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining. On the
other hand, if a majority of the employees in the voting group vote for
the Intervenor, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to be-
come part of the existing unit currently represented by the Intervenor,
and the Regional Director will issue a certification of results of election
to that effect.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
MEMBER MURDOCK took no part in the consideration of the above De-
^cision and Direction of Election.
INDUSTRIAL RAW MATERIALS CORP. and LOCAL 810, STEEL , METALS, AL-
LOYS & HARDWARE , FABRICATORS & WAREHOUSEMEN , AFFILIATED
WITH INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS , CHAUFFEURS,
WAREHOUSEMEN & HELPERS OF AMERICA, AFL, PETITIONER. Case
No. 2-RC-6771. September 13, 1954
Decision and Order
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before I. L. Broadwin, hear-
ing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
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 em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9
109 NLRB No. 42.