E.I. duPont de Nemours and Co., Inc.

In the Matter of E. I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND Co., INC., EMPLOYER and INTERNATIONAL BROTIIERTIOOD OF FIREMEN AND OILERS, LOCAL No. 320, A. F. L., PETITIONER Case No. 9-RC-609.Decided January 16, 19,50 DECISION AND ORDER Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before William Naimark, 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 National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Reynolds]. 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 and the Intervenor, Affiliated Chemical Workers of Kentucky, are labor organizations claiming to represent employees of the Employer. 3. The alleged question concerning representation; the alleged ap- propriate unit : The Petitioner seeks to sever from a plant-wide unit of employees represented by the Intervenor since 1943, a unit composed of power- house and refrigeration employees. The Employer and the Inter- venor contend that because of the integration of the Employer's op- erations the unit requested by the Petitioner is inappropriate, and that the only appropriate unit is the plant-wide unit now represented by the Intervenor 1 1 In 1947 the Petitioner sought to establish a separate unit of substantially these same employees (E. I. duPont de Nemours & Company, Inc., Neoprene Plant, 73 NLRB 439), but was not successful in an election conducted by the Board in this voting group. The record in the earlier case did not disclose the factors indicating integration of the Employer's operations , and the similarity of the work of the powerhouse and refrigeration employees to that of other employees , which are evident in the present record. 88 NLRB No. 31. 882191-51-9 115 116 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The Employer operates a synthetic rubber plant in Louisville, Ken- tucky, housed in 85 buildings scattered throughout a 130-acre tract.2 The entire operation is divided into 6 divisions, or areas, known as power, refrigeration, HCL (hydrochloric acid), DIVA (monovinyl- acety]ene), CD (chlorobutadiene), and Poly (polymerization). All the 6 divisions are operated as 1 unit, and the finished product of one is a part of the raw materials of one or more of the other divisions. Thus, the main function of the powerhouse is to produce steam, of which 25 percent goes into the operation of the turbines of the re- frigeration areas, and 8 percent to heating the entire plant. The balance is distributed for use in the processing operations of all the other divisions or areas. The powerhouse produces a soft water for the CD areas and filtered water for the Poly areas. It also produces compressed air which goes into all the other areas. The primary function of the refrigeration division is to produce low temperature brine for cooling purposes, which is piped to all the production areas. This division also produces condensate or distilled water, a product used mainly in the Poly area. The Employer's entire operation is a continuous flow of steam, gases and liquids through pipes from one division to another. The plant is operated 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. There is no storage facility for any of the substances used in the entire operation, except such as is required to take care of peak and low needs for 1 day. The processes in each of the various divisions or areas are controlled by valves, operated either manually or automatically. The petitioner claims for its proposed unit some 53 employees out of a complement of approximately 1,000 employees. Of those claimed by the Petitioner, there are 17 chief operators, 27 power operators,-, 6 helpers, 1 laboratory analyst, 1 special laboratory technician, and 1 bulldozer operator. All the operators, including the chief opera tors, work on 1 of 4 shifts, except the bulldozer operator who works only during the day. The powerhouse operators work in a building which is separated from the refrigeration buildings by 1,400 to 1,500 feet, and during working hours have no contact whatever with the refrigeration employees. Several operators assigned to the refrigera- tion area work in the river pump house which is about one-half mile distant from the refrigeration buildings. There is no contact at all between the pump house and other refrigeration employees. On the 2 The Employer also makes use of another tract of land of about 93 acres which is sepa- rated from the main tract by a property not belonging to the Employer. Upon this tract are located a number of wells supplying water for the Employer's operations. 2 Since the earlier Board decision referred to in footnote 1, supra, the Employer has changed the names of the classifications here involved, although their duties remain essentially the same. E. I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND CO., INC. 117 other hand, the refrigeration and the MVA divisions are under the same roof, and the operators of these 2 divisions work in close prox- imity. On the first floor of each of the 3 buildings where these 2 divisions are located there is no wall separating the different operators, and they have occasion to go into each other's areas during their work shift. On the second floor there is a wall, or "barricade" between the 2 divisions, but the operators of each division must, in the course of their duties, cross into the other division to handle valves extending thereto. The record indicates that the production employees,of the HCL, MVA, CD, and Poly divisions are operators whose duties are com- parable with those of the power and refrigeration divisions. Among the principal duties of all the Employer's operators, including those of the power and refrigeration areas, are to observe instrument panels, to record readings of pressures, temperatures, and liquid levels, and to handle valves for the purpose of regulating and maintaining desig- nated temperatures, pressures, and rates of flow. The employees of all the divisions receive the same rates of pay for the same general types of work. The Employer has inaugurated what it calls a progression system of pay for all its employees. The operators of all the 6 divisions receive the same pay during the first 2 months of a training period, equivalent periodic increases, and gen- erally, when employed for a period of 3 years, all operators receive the same highest rate. Seniority is plant-wide for purposes of reduction in force, but preference in promotion is given to employees within a division. All employees of the entire plant enjoy the same vacation, change-house, smoking corral, cafeteria, and parking privileges. Out of the 53 employees claimed by the Petitioner, 30 were transferred to the power and refrigeration areas from other areas in the plant. Of the 23 hired from the outside, only 14 had some previous experi- ence in power and refrigeration. Nine had no previous experience at all. In view of the foregoing, including the highly integrated nature of the Employer's operations, the similarity of the work of the power and refrigeration operators to that of operators in the other divi- sions, and the sharing of common conditions of employment and employee benefits by all the employees in the plant, we find that the unit requested by the Petitioner is inappropriate.4 'See Monsanto Chemical Company, 80 NLRB 1675; Monsanto Chemical Company, 83 NLRB 106; Monsanto Chemical Company, 83 NLRB 109; see also Corn Products Refining Company, 87 NLRB No. 30; Southwestern Electric Service Company, 85 NLRB 153; Lynn Gas & Electric Company, 78 NLRB 3. 118 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Accordingly, we find that no question affecting commerce exists concerning the representation of the employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, and we shall, therefore, dismiss the petition. ORDER Upon the basis of the entire record in this case, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the petition filed herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed.