Jefferson Chemical Co.

In the Matter Of JEFFERSON CHEMICAL COMPANY, EMPLOYER and OIL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, CIO, PETITIONER Case No. 16-RC-54.Deciderd September 10, 1948 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before a hearing, officer of the National Labor Relations Board. 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, a labor organization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, and the following additional labor or- ganizations clairii to represent employees of the Employer : International Association of Machinists, hereinafter called the TAM'; United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry, Local 195, AFL, hereinafter called the Pipe- fitters; International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 390, hereinafter called the IBEW ; Carpenters, Local Union No. 610; and Painters, Local Union No. 325. 3. A 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. 4. The appropriate unit : Aside from a disagreement as to the inclusion of temporary em- ployees,' the Petitioner and the Employer agree in urging that the I Motion to intervene made by the Boilermakers was properly denied by the hearing officer because it presented no proof of interest, although such proof was requested and it was given ample time to produce same. 2 The Petitioner would include and the Employer would exclude 156 temporary em- ployees The Petitioner is the only labor organization desiring to represent these em- ployees The record indicates that they were hired to finish up the final stages of 79 N. L. R. B., No. 77. 584 JEFFERSON CHEMICAL COMPANY 585 appropriate unit should be a plant-wide one consisting of all operating (production), maintenance, and laboratory employees, excluding of- fice, professional, plant-protection employees, and supervisors as de- fined in the Act. The units desired by the IBEW, Pipefitters, Carpenters, Painters, and the IAM all involve the maintenance section (or department). Thus, the IBEWV seeks a unit of all employees in the department per- forming electrical and instrument work. The Pipefitters request a unit composed of all pipefitters, welders, pipe coverers, their appren- tices and helpers. The Carpenters desire a unit consisting of all carpenters, apprentices, and those employees who operate woodwork- ing machinery. The Painters seeks a unit of all employees who paint, whether with brush or spray gun, and all those who condition material for paint, whether by sand blasting or other methods. The IAM desires one unit consisting of all employees in the maintenance department. The Employer's Operations The Employer is engaged at. its Port Neches, Texas, plant in the manufacture and distribution of synthetic organic chemicals made from petroleum gases, such as ethylene glycol, ethylene oxide, and ethylene chloride. The plant covers approximately 85 acres and at the time of the hearing it was in operation only 3 months. The Em- ployer has 206 permanent employees of whom 71 are maintenance workers. The plant is under the general supervision of a plant manager directly under whom are a production superintendent and a plant engineer. The production superintendent is in charge of all laboratory and operating (production) employees. The plant engi- neer directs the work of a power engineer, who is responsible for personnel in a boiler room and water plant, and a master mechanic, who is directly in charge of maintenance foremen'. The latter, in turn, supervise the work of the maintenance employees. The plant oper- ates continuously 24 hours a day and 7 days a week. There has been no previous history of collective bargaining. construction at the plant which is relatively new . that they are designated as temporary on the pay roll that they were advised at the time of employment of their limited tenure, that they do not enjoy the same benefits as permanent employees : and that the Employer expects to shortly release all temporary employees. It is apparent that these employees do not have a reasonable expectation that their employment will ripen into permanent -status. We shall therefore exclude them from the unit hereinafter found appropriate Matter of Phillips Petroleum Co., 48 N L R B Q 4 ; Matter of Ciarkton G-ramwood Products Company, Inc, 76 N. L. R. E. 1044 586 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The units proposed by the 7BEW, the Pipe fitters, Carpenters, and Painters The Employer, Petitioner, and TAM contend that there are no, crafts as such in the maintenance department.3 All employees in, this section are designated as either maintenance mechanics, maintenance' mechanics' helpers, maintenance mechanics'. trainees, or laborers. The- classification "maintenance mechanic," as used by the Employer, is- apparently a broad term applied to maintenance employees who are primarily skilled in certain types of craft work such as'that of elec- tricians; pipe fitters, carpenters, and painters. The Employer states, that the volume of work is insufficient to occupy fully the time of- any one employee at his particular craft; that each maintenance- mechanic will be required to perform any work that he is capable of doing; that if he refuses to do so he will be discharged; and, that pros- pective employees are advised of these facts before being hired. No, formal apprentice training program has been established by the Em- ployer. All maintenance mechanics who possess the same craft skills, do not work under the same foreman; instead, each foreman has an area in the plant where he supervises maintenance work. He will have assigned to him maintenance mechanics whose principal skills may be in several fields and he is responsible for performing whatever type of maintenance work arises in his own area. Under these circumstances, and in view of the fact that there is nothing in the record to indicate the number or identity of employees who would come within the scope of the proposed units, we find that the units requested by the IBEW, Pipefitters, Carpenters, and Paint- ers are not pure crafts and that being indefinable and of a heterogeneous. character, are therefore inappropriate.' The departmental unit proposed by the JAM While the IAM agrees with the Employer and Petitioner' that craft' lines are not observed in the plant, 'it contends that the employees in the maintenance department perform work of a highly skilled craft 8In addition to its contention that there are no crafts as such in the maintenance department of the Employer, the Petitioner asserts that the craft units sought herein are inconsistent with the pattern in the chemical industry.' It states that the chemical industry is generally organized on an industrial basis and that for a decade, with isolated excep-' tions, there has been a pattern of over-all bargaining on a non -craft basis . However, the Board has often found appropriate craft units of electricians , pipe fitters, carpenters, and painters in'this industry . See for example Matter of George S. Mepham Corporation, 78- N. L. It. B . 1081 and cases cited therein , Matter of B. F. Goodrich Chemical Compahy'(Geon Plant), 75 N. L. It. B. 1142; Matter of Heyden Chemical Corporation, 72 N. L. It. B. 1240 ; Matter of Firestone Tire & Rubber Company, 56 N. L. It. B. 1038 . Cf. Matter of Monsanto Chemical Company, 78 N. L. R. B. 1249. 4 Matter of American Fixture and Manufacturing Company, 76 N. L. R. B. 444. JEFFERSON CHEMICAL COMPANY 587--1, nature differing from that of-the production employees and that, taken as a single whole, they comprise an integrated unit appropriate for- the purposes of collective bargaining, apart from the other employees. On the other hand, the Employer and Petitioner assert that the inte- gration of manufacturing operations in the plant makes the production and maintenance departments dependent upon each other and, there- fore, only a plant-wide unit is appropriate. The unit proposed by the IAM is essentially a multi-craft grouping, of employees in the maintenance department. The record shows that there is some overlapping in the functions and duties of production employees and maintenance employees. Thus, while the latter handle' major repair work, the former perform routine maintenance work on their particular units to keep them in operation. Also, it is expected- that about twice a year, for periods of about 2 to 4 weeks, production employees will do maintenance work. This will occur when the plant' is shut down for a "turn-around." Apparently, therefore, there is some similarity in the skills of the production and maintenance em- ployees. Although transfers between the production and maintenance' departments which have occurred in the brief past have involved em- ployees in the lower classifications such as helpers; the Employer asserts that interchange will be permitted in the future for all em- ployees. The production employees and the maintenance employees have similar hours, shifts, wage rates, use the same facilities, enjoy the same benefits with regard to insurance, hospitalization, vacation and pension plans, and operate under the same general working condi- tions. Upon the entire record in this case, we are unable to find that the maintenance department employees constitute a single true craft hav- ing sufficient homogeneity and cohesiveness to warrant recognition as a separate bargaining unit. In fact, the proposed unit embraces essentially a multi-craft grouping of employees with varying skills. On this record, consistency with the Board's unanimous decision dis- missing the various AFL craft units seems to us to dictate a similar result with respect to the IAM's over-all request. We believe these employees can be most effectively' represented in a plant-wide unit.5 We find that all production, maintenance, and laboratory employees at the Port Neches, Texas, plant of the Employer, excluding office; professional, plant-protection employees, 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._ 6Matter of (ieorpe S. Mepham Corporation, footnote 3,' supra; Matter of Pepsi Cola Company, 78 N. L. R. B. 790 ; Matter of Kimberly-Clark Corporation, 78 N., L. R B. 478. -588 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD DIRECTION OF ELECTION As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining with the Employer, an election by -secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than 30 days from the date of this Direction, under the direction and super- vision of the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region, and subject -to Sections 203.61 and 203.62 of National Labor Relations Board -Rules and Regulations-Series 5, among the employees in the unit found appropriate in Section 4, above, who were employed during ,the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of this Direction, including employees who did not work during said paytroll period because they were ill or on vacation or temporarily laid off, but exclud- ing those employees who have since quit or been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or reinstated prior to the date of the elec- tion, and also excluding employees on strike who are not entitled to reinstatement, to determine whether or not they desire to be represented by Oil Workers International Union, CIO, for the purposes of collec- tive bargaining. MEMBERS REYNOLDS and GRAY, dissenting in part: We agree with our colleagues' action in dismissing the separate peti- tions of the IBEW, Carpenters, Pipefitters, and Painters. We cannot join, however, in so much of this decision as holds that the employees in the maintenance department do not constitute an appropriate single unit for the purposes of collective bargaining. The maintenance me- chanics are primarily skilled employees working under separate super- vision with a clear demarcation between their duties and functions and those of the production workers. Although the latter perform routine maintenance work on their particular units while operating, and the Employer asserts that it intends to have the production em- ployees perform maintenance work twice year for periods of about 2 to 4 weeks, presumably all such work is, or will be, of a routine nature not requiring a high degree of skill. There has been no inter- change between production and maintenance employees, with the minor exception of helpers. Thus, the unit sought by the I AM is essentially -a skilled and functionally coherent multi-craft group of maintenance employees clearly distinguishable from the production workers. The Board has for many years accorded such groups separate rep= resentation.° 6Matter of Southern Fertilizer d Chemical Company, 73 N. L. R. B . 100; Matter of (Ienerat"El-ectrsc Company;"71 N L R. B: 1192 ; Matter of ' Doughnut `Corporation of America, 66 N L R- B. 1231; Matter of Electro Metallurgidal Company, 56 N. L. R. B! 1464; see Matte of Raybestos-Manhattan Company, Inc, 74 N. L. R. B. 1321, 1323. JEFFERSON CHEMICAL COMPANY 589 It is true that more recently, in the interest of stable bargaining relations, the Board has been reluctant to permit separate representa- tion for a multi-craft group of employees in the face of a broader his- tory of collective bargaining.' However, we believe the reason for .adopting-such a position is inapplicable to the instant case, where a ,relatively new plant is involved and there is no -valid collective -bar- ,gaining :history covering the employees therein. Under these cir- cumstances, we would accord the maintenance mechanics,an opportu- nity to express their desires as to representation in a self-determination election. . See footnote 5, supra.