Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corp.

In the Matter of OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLASS CORPORATION, EM PLOYER and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF' MACHINISTS , LOCAL 463, PETITIONER Case Nos. 8-RC-6 and .8-RC-22.Decided September 13, 1948 DECISION AND ORDER Upon separate petitions 1 duly filed, a consolidated hearing in these cases was held before a hearing officer of the National Labor Rela- tions Board. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record in the 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. For reasons stated hereinafter, no question affecting commerce exists concerning the representation of employees ' of the Employer, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. The Employer is engaged in the business of manufacturing fibrous glass products. Its plant consists of approximately 30 buildings, several of which are used as a laboratory for experimental research. A fence separates the research laboratory building from the rest of the plant. There are over 1,500 productioi_ and maintenance em- ployees in the Employer's plant, most of whom are paid on an hourly basis. Of this number, 350 work in the research laboratory. The wage rates of the hourly paid workers have been integrated into a single coordinated wage structure. They receive the same night-shift premiums and enjoy like vacation, insurance, and pension benefits. There is practically no interchange between production and mainte- nance employees. 1 These cases were consolidated by order of the Board on January 15, 1948. 79 N. L. R. B., No. 79. 594 'OWENS-CORNING' FIBERGLAS CORPORATIOINT 595- - The Petitioner desires to represent two - different - groups', of , the, Employer's:'employees in separate.units. In Case No.- 8-RC-6; it, seeks' a.unit composed primarily of maintenance. employees'- in, the, researchslaboratory.- In Case No., 8-,RC-22, it seeks a iunit "of-mainte nance Lemployees;. in the factory: The Textile Workers -Union-- of, America, CIO,, herein, called thetTextile Workers, and the Employer- contend thatmeither,of the units proposed by the Petitioner. is appro- priate•and,that the only appropriate unit is one that embraces all the production and maintenance employees of the Employer- The, alleged appropriate unit in Case, No. 8-RC-, r6.• - The 'unit requested by the Petitioner in this case would include the, following categories of employees in the research laboratory : painters, carpenters, sheet metal workers, pipe fitters, millwrights, pattern mak- ers, alloy welders,, refractory fitters, ' their apprentices and helpers ; assistant storekeepers and storeroom helpers, the testing mechanics in' the Testing Division; and the technologists, technicians, and machin- ists in the fiber forming department.2 Although the proposed unit consists for the most part of maintenance employees, there are classi- fications included who do very little or no maintenance work. I Among these 'are' the 'Sheet ''Metal workers, the pipefitters, the technologists, the technicians, the pattern makers, and the storeroom helpers.3 The Petitioner contends that the requested employees are distinguishable from the other employees in the research laboratory because they are all skilled workers and because they are not directly engaged in the production of the Employer's finished products.4 1 ,' The Employer's research laboratory functions on a departmental basis. The employees in the proposed unit work in the following 5 departments : the fiber forming, the testing, the laboratory shops and engineering, the laboratory alloy fabrication, and the pilot plant. Each of these 5 departments is under the separate supervision of a 2 There are approximately 150 such employees ' The sheet metal workers, the pipe fitters , the technologists, and the technicians devote most of their time to the construction of new machinery which is used for experimental purposes or for the manuf acture of the Employer's finished products . The pattern makers make patterns for the research laboratory. The storeroom helpers, all of whom work in the storeroom in the research laboratory , receive supplies and distribute them to employees upon request. 4 The Petitioner currently represents two classifications of maintenance employees in the research laboratory not here requested . These are the machinists and the welders in the laboratory shops and engineering department , on behalf of whom the Petitioner has been bargaining since 1944 , when, following a Board-directed election , it was certified as the exclusive bargaining representative of these employees (Matter of Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp, 57 N L. R B. 345). Although these employees are now covered by a collective bargaining agreement , the Petitioner stated at the hearing that it would merge them with the employees here sought to form a single unit. . ,596. DECISIONS' OF NATIONAL LABOR" RELATIONS BOARD department head who is responsible, either- directly to the vice presi- dent in charge of research or to an individual who is answerable to the vice president. It appears that each of the afore-mentioned 5. departments employs other workers than those whom the Petitioner- would, represent. For, example, in the pilot plant, where new- manu-. facturing processes are tested, there are between 50 to 75 hourly paid, .employees, only 4 of whom are included in4he• requested unit. These 4 employees are millwrights. The majority of the-other employees in the pilot plant are machine operators.5 The Petitioner would, also: exclude the janitors assigned to these departments. The proposed unit'', not only excludes employees ', ho work under the'same supervision,' but it also does not cover all similarly. classified ',employees in the research 'laboratory. Thus, -at least seven depart- ments employ technologists and technicians, yet the Petitioner seeks only those in the fiber forming department. These employees are' highly skilled machinists, who, unlike the other employees herein in- volved, are paid on a salary basis, with different hours of employment' and vacation privileges. Also there is a considerable difference in the work performed, and the skill possessed by the various classifications .of employees sought by the Petitioner. The pattern makers, among, others, have definite. craft, skills, while' the storeroom ;hell ers . as l the testing mechanics 6 possess no special' skills. It is clear that the unit petitioned'fbr in Case No. 8-RC-6 is neither a departmental unit nor a unit composed-of recognized craft work- ers and their apprentices. It is a heterogeneous grouping of certain .employees in the research laboratory whose working conditions and interests are substantially similar to those of other employees whom the Petitioner would arbitrarily exclude. Under these circumstances,. we-find'that the proposed unit is inappropriate for the purposes of' collective bargaining. Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petition in Case No. 8-RC-6. The alleged appropriate unit in Case No. 8-RC-,02 In this case, the Petitioner has requested a unit of maintenance em- ployees, in the Employer's factory, including, air. compressor opera- tors, engineers, firemen, oilers, coal passers, meter'repair men, main- tenance men, fire inspectors, auto,mechanics,•blower room mechanics, blacksmiths, iron workers, machinists, millwrights, pipe fitters, paint- 5 The record does not disclose the number of hourly paid employees in each of the other departments in the research laboratory. 6 The testing, mechanics take care of the equipment in the testing department and the skill' required foi their jobs is no greater than . that of the janitors whom the Petitioner would exclude. OWENS-CORNING- FIBERGLAS CORPORATION-' 597'- ers, signn^paiiiter's; carpenters, tool crib-employees, sheetlnetal4-orker's;- bricklayers,-welders; their apprentices, and- helpers. It-would-also in'-' clude, -the alloy fabrication employees; and, the= precious4 metal- ems plbyees; although-they-are' classified' as production-workers: - In the factory the- Employer`' empl'oys' skilled; semi-skilled and'- un_^ skilled workers to perform general plant maintenance work. The e]assifications of ,maintenance employees which the Petitioner seeks to represent constitute the skilled-and semi-skilled,workers. The,Peti-, tioner would exclude all unskilled workers, such, as- janitors; laborers; yard cleaners, and sweepers. - _ - , It appears that the factory maintenance employees here requested, are- assignedto the following five' departments : utilities, plant engi- neering, machine repair, furnace, and personnel. The utilities do- partment, also known as the powerhouse, is in a building by itself, whereas the other four departments are located iih' the inaiiiteilance building 'which' is 'located' approximately' 50'feet-from, the- powerhouse` building. The maintenance building also houses' other de'paAlhents; including some- production ' departments. The majority of the, em= ployees sought"by the Petitioner are-in the plant engineering arid'the utilities, departments; both of which-also employ numerous. unskilled' maintenance, workers. The other three departments mentioned above each employs only one of the categories requested? The record- does not indicate the total number of workers or their classifications in each of these departments, but it would appear that at least in the personnel department there are other classifications than the requested sign painter. Each of the five departments has its own supervisor. The supervisors in the utilities and machine repair departments are under the chief engineer of the plant engineering department. The other supervisors are answerable to different individuals. The proposed unit does not embrace all the Employer's maintenance workers. It includes employees of varying degrees of skill, ranging from members of well-defined craft groups such as the -welders and painters, to employees whose skills may be acquired in a few weeks, as for example, the coal passers who unload coal or the fire inspectors who inspect the fire-fighting equipment. The various employees in the proposed unit are not subject to the same supervision. A substantial number of the maintenance employees whom the Petitioner would ex- clude work under the same supervision as a number of those included. It further appears that the working conditions and hours of employ- ment of all the maintenance workers are the same. We find nothing in the record to indicate that the employees desired by the Petitioner 7 The furnace department employs the bricklayers ; the machine repair department, the machinists ; and the personnel department, the sign painter. 809095-49-vol. 79-39 598 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD have a special community of interest apart from the other maintenance employees of the Employer. In view of these circumstances, and the: entire record in the case, we find that unit proposed by the Petitioner, in Case No. 8-RC-22 is inappropriate for collective bargaining pur- poses." We shall, therefore, dismiss the petition." ORDER Upon the basis of the entire record in these consolidated cases, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the petitions filed in Cases Nos. 8-RC-6 and 8-RC-22 be, and they hereby are, dismissed. CHAIRMAN HERZOG took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Order. 8 See Matter of Raybestos-Manhattan Company, Inc ., 74 IN. L. It. B. 1312. 9 The Bricklayers, Masons, and Plasterers International Union, AFL, herein called the Bricklayers , appeared informally at the opening of the hearing, but did not then request intervention inasmuch as the Petitioner apparently was not seeking to represent employees whom the Bricklayers claimed to represent. However, following the Petitioner's later amendment of the petition in Case No. 8-RC-22 to include bricklayers , the Bricklayers moved to intervene. This motion was granted by the hearing officer . In view of our dismissal of the petition in Case No . 8-RC-22, we shall not, under the circumstances of this case, pass upon the Bricklayers' contention that the Employer' s bricklayers constitute a separate appropriate unit. Our decision in this respect in no way prejudices the right of the Bricklayers to file a petition in its own behalf for the employees whom it claims to represent.