Wyandotte Chemicals Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 24, 1956

116 N.L.R.B. 972 (N.L.R.B. 1956)

972 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ager of the electrical department , the shop foreman of the automotive
machine shop , the office manager, guards , and supervisors as defined
in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
MEMBER MURDOCK took no part in^ the consideration' of the above
Decision and Direction of Election.
Wyandotte Chemicals Corporation and William C. Cobb, Peti-
tioner and International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf-
feurs , Warehousemen-and Helpers of America , Local 578, AFL-
CIO. Case No. 21-RD-f85. August 24, 1956
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 John W. Kelly, 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 National Labor Relations Act.
2. The Petitioner, an employee of the Employer, asserts that the
Union, hereinafter referred to as the Teamsters, is no longer the bar-
gaining representative, as defined in Section 9 (a) of the Act, of cer-
tain employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of certain employees of the Employer within the meaning of Sec-
tion 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner seeks to decertify the Teamsters as the current
bargaining representative of an alleged unit of warehouse and ship-
ping employees. The Teamsters opposes the petition on the ground
that the alleged unit is not the proper unit for decertification purposes
contending that the shipping clerk and truckdriver composing the
alleged unit are part of an overall unit of production and maintenance
employees which for the past 9 or 10 years has been bargained for
jointly by the Teamsters and the International Chemical Workers
Union No. 11, AFL-CIO, hereafter called the Chemical Workers. It
also argues that a unit consisting of the shipping clerk and the truck-
driver is an inappropriate unit and therefore may not be the basis
for a decertification petition. The Chemical Workers did not for-
mally appear in the proceeding and has taken no position on the ques-
tion. The Employer also takes no position on the question whether
116 NLRB No. 111.
WYANDOTTE CHEMICALS CORPORATION 973
the petition for decertification may be properly entertained, but it
argues that a decision herein should be consistent with a pattern of
bargaining which, it believes, has many elements of separate, rather
than joint, bargaining.
The Employer, a Michigan corporation, is engaged in the manufac-
ture, sale, and distribution of chemical cleaning compounds. The
Employer operates in several States but only its Los Nietos, Califor-
nia, plant, which it acquired by purchase in 1950 from the Pacific
Chemical Company, is involved herein. Since 1946, the Chemical
Workers and the Teamsters 1 have bargained collectively with the
Employer or its predecessor. Agreements reached by the parties have
been embodied in single documents signed by the Employer and both
unions. The latest of such agreements was entered into on March
27, 1955, which agreement was reopened pursuant to timely notice of
an intent to modify or terminate separately given by the unions.2
There is no record of Board certification. Negotiations for a new
agreement having apparently stalemated, the present petition was
filed herein on April 15, 1956, by the Petitioner who is at present em-
ployed as a truckdriver.
In all agreements negotiated by the unions since 1946, the Teamsters
and Chemical Workers were designated as "The Unions." Initially,
the recognition clause of the various contracts provided that "The
Unions" were recognized as the sole, collective-bargaining "agent" for
"all factory, warehouse, and shipping department employees." Later
agreements modified the wording of this clause to provide that the
unions were recognized as the exclusive bargaining "representatives"
for the factory, warehouse and "shipping" employees. The agree-
ments also provided for a union shop and employee seniority. The
union-shop clause, which was essentially the same in all contracts,3
required, in substance, membership in "The Union" as a condition of
employment. The seniority clause, also uniform in all contracts, spec-
ified that the "seniority system shall prevail by units of the two
Unions." Furthermore, although not adverted to at the hearing,
it, appears from the Board's administrative records that sometime in
June 1948, the Teamsters and Chemical Workers by separate peti-
tions, for separate units of employees, sought union authorization
elections.' The Board's records also show that following each elec-
1 The 1946 agreement reads that it was entered into by the Employer, the Chemical
Workers, and Local 396 of .the Teamsters. The 1948 contract lists Local 578 of the
Teamsters as a pai ty to the agreement.
a The Teamsters sent notice of a desire to "terminate " the agreement whereas the
Chemical Workers sent notice of a desire to "modify" the agreement
a Beginning with the 1954 agreement, the words "subject only to such limitations as
are imposed by law" were added to the clause.
4 In Case No . 21-UA-1485, the Teamsters sought an election among a unit of "truck-
drivers , warehousemen and shipping clerk-driver." In Case No . 21-UA-1549 , the Chemical
Workers sought an election in a unit of all production and maintenance employees, exclud-
ing, however , the categories of employees named in the Teamsters ' petition.
974 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tion the unions were separately certified as having been authorized to
negotiate union-security contracts.
As to the conduct of negotiations, it is not disputed by the Petitioner,
who was the only witness in this proceeding, that contract negotiations
were carried on in joint meetings of the Employer and representatives
of the two unions. Prior to such negotiations, however, it was the
practice for each union to discuss proposed contract demands with
its own members before submitting such demands to the Employer-
At times, company counterproposals were submitted to employees at
joint meetings for purposes of voting on their acceptance or rejection,
and where tentative agreements were negotiated, it was also the prac-
tice of the unions to secure the informal approval of their respective
members of such agreement before submitting the same for ratifica-
tion at a joint meeting of all employees. However, it further appears
that during the negotiations which followed the reopening of the
1955 agreement, each union submitted a different proposal for a pen-
sion plan,' that submitted by the Teamsters being the prevailing plan
of the Teamsters International organization and intended to apply
only to its own members. The Teamsters' plan was rejected by the
Employer who proposed instead a pension plan applicable to all em-
ployees, and one which apparently met with the approval of the
Chemical Workers as well as the two employees who were members
of the Teamsters. The Employer's pension proposals, however, were
not submitted by either union to any meeting, joint or otherwise, of
the employees for the purpose of voting on their acceptance or rejec-
tion. On the contrary, the Teamsters' representative informed its.
two members that it would insist on the acceptance of its own pension
plan and would, if necessary, strike on this issue alone . The Teamsters
thereafter without the joint action of the Chemical Workers appealed
to the Los Angeles Central Labor Council to initiate strike action.
The record shows, however, that such similar independent strike action
had been initiated in the past by both unions.'
We believe that the record herein does not support the Teamsters'
contention that it was the clear intent of the parties to bargain only on
a joint basis and for only a single unit of production and maintenance
employees. On the contrary, we are persuaded by the evidence in the
case that negotiations, although apparently joint in form, were never-
theless intended to apply to separate units of employees. Thus, the
seniority clause of the several contracts clearly provides for two
5 Other proposals were submitted by the Chemical workers as its separate proposals.
O As to the Chemical Workers , the record shows that in 1953 it petitioned the Los
Angeles Central Labor Council to place the Employer on the official "We Do Not Patronize"
list.
WYANDOTTE CHEMICALS CORPORATION 975
separate units for seniority purposes; I the union-shop clause speaks
in terms of the separate interests of each union, and the union author-
ization petitions of the two unions unequivocally provided for separate
units for union-security purposes. Significant in that regard is the
evidence in the record that transfers from other positions in the plant
to those under the jurisdiction of the Teamsters were made after
first securing Teamsters' approval, and that, upon such transfer, em-
ployees were required to transfer their union membership to the Team-
sters.' In addition, we take note of the large measure of independent
action reserved to each union. In view of the foregoing, we conclude
that the collective bargaining of the parties was designed to, and did
in fact, preserve the separate representative interests of the two
unions." In such circumstances, the preservation of the unions' sep-
arate interests is not vitiated by the mere execution of a single con-
tract, and the participation of the unions in joint meetings with the
Employer.10
It is apparent that the foregoing history of collective bargaining
until the present time has been on the basis of two separate units,
that represented by the Teamsters being a unit of warehouse and
shipping employees, and that represented by the Chemical Workers
being a unit of all other production and maintenance employees ex-
cluding those represented by the Teamsters. In view of such separate
bargaining history of almost 10 years for the warehouse and shipping
employees, we find, contrary to the Teamsters' contention, that a unit
of such employees is appropriate for decertification purposes."
We find therefore that all warehouse and shipping employees, ex-
cluding all other production and maintenance employees, office clerical
employees, professional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined
in the Act constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
MEMBERS MU,IiDOCiK and RODGERS took no part in the consideration
of the above Decision and Direction of Election.
v The Teamsters ' argument ' that the language of the seniority clause can be construed
as providing for seniority on a departmental basis finds no support in the record. There
is no testimony that such was the intent of the parties , nor do the contracts provide for
any other departmental seniority.
8 Phelps Dodge Corporation , 98 NLRB 726, 730.
0 Phelps Dodge Corporation, supra.
10 Phelps Dodge Corporation, supra Cf . Shell Oil Company , 116 NLRB 203 (Mem-
bers Peterson and Rodgers dissenting ), where a majority of the Board found that separate
units had been preserved , notwithstanding the appearance of point bargaining. We regard
the present case as indicating this result even more clearly than in the Shell Oil case
We do not agree with the Teamsters that the decision in The Langenau Manufacturing
Company, 115 NLRB 971, is controlling. The case is distinguishable on its facts.
11 Standard Oil Company of California , 113 NLRB 475 , 477. Cf. Kraft Foods Company,
92 NLRB 193.