Filtrol Corp.

In the Matter of FILTROL CORPORATION, EI\IrLOYER and INTERNATIONAL CHEMICAL WORKERS UNION, LOCAL 253, AFL, PETITIONER Case No. 15-R-1730.-Decided October 11,19/.6 Messrs. Robert Burins and Donald W. Adamns , of Jackson , Miss., for the Employer. Cllr. Arvil Inge, of Houston, Tex., for the Petitioner. Mr. David C. Buchalter, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Jackson, Mississippi, on July 31, 1946, before T. Lowry Whittaker, hearing offi- cer. 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 National Labor Relations Board makes the following:: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER The Filtrol Corporation, a Delaware corporation, operates plants in various parts of the United States, including a plant at Jackson Mis- sissippi, which is solely involved in this proceeding. The Employer engages at this plant in the manufacture of a special type of powder and pellet filter known as filtrol. During the last calendar year the Employer purchased for use at its Jackson plant, raw materials valued in excess of $300,000 , of which approximately 50 percent was shipped from points outside the State of Mississippi . During the same period the Employer manufactured at its Jackson plant finished products ex- ceeding $500,000, in value, of which approximately 90 percent was shipped to points outside the State of Mississippi. The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, claiming to represent employees of the Em- ployer. III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION The Employer refuses to recognize the Petitioner as the exclusive representative of its laboratory employees until the Petitioner has been certified by the Board in an appropriate unit. 71 N L R. B., No 44. 325 326 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the representation of employees of the Employer, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT The Petitioner seeks a unit of all laboratory employees of the Em- ployer, excluding chemist Tom Goodwin, technician D. S. Adams, the secretary, process engineer, chief chemist and laboratory manager.' The Employer agrees generally with the proposed unit except that it would also include the chemist and the technician sought to be ex- clucled. Chemist Tom Goodwin: The Petitioner would exclude this employee on the asserted ground that he has certain supervisory duties and is performing a different type of work from that performed by the other testers and chemists included in the unit. The record discloses that Goodwin carries on research and special plant studies designed to im- prove the processing of materials, and works on other research prob- lems. In the course of his work he conducts laboratory tests and correlates laboratory and research data. There is no material differ- ence between the nature of the work performed by Goodwin and that performed by the other chemists in the laboratory. In addition, lab- oratory employees, including Goodwin, are under the same direct supervision of the laboratory manager, work in the same building and enjoy the same hours of employment and privileges. While Goodwin's salary is higher than that of the other chemists, the dif- ferential is attributable to his greater length of service with the Em- ployer. It further appears that he has no authority to hire, dis- charge, or promote, to take disciplinary action against others, to grant wage increases or to effectively recommend such action.' In view of the foregoing we shall include him in the unit hereinafter found appropriate. Technician D. S. Adams: The Petitioner objects to his inclusion in the unit on the ground that he is an assistant to Tom Goodwin and does a different type of work from that performed by the other laboratory employees. Adams exercises no supervisory functions, is under the supervision of the laboratory manager, uses the same equip- ment and works in the same building and enjoys the same hours of employment and privileges as the other laboratory employees included 1 Petitionei amended its unit request as above at the hearing The Petitioner is currently the contractual bargaining representative of the Employer's production in(] maintenance employees 2 Although some testimony was introduced b-• Petitioner for the purpose of showing that early in the spring of this sear Goodwin performed supervisory duties for a 3-week period, we find it unnecessary to evaluate the testimony since it is clear that Goodwin has not performed any supervisory functions since that time and that his present employment is non-supervisory FILTROL CORPORATION 327 in the unit. He not only assists Goodwin, as Petitioner contends, but assists others in the laboratory as the work requires. In this con- nection it appears that the laboratory operates as a unit and the labora- tory employees cooperate by assisting one another in the various problems in the laboratory regardless of their classification. Although the Petitioner attaches some significance to the fact that Adams was originally hired as a technician and not as a control tester, the lowest technical position in the laboratory, this does not appear to be an unusual practice and affords no basis for distinguishing Adams from the other laboratory employees agreed to be included in the unit. We shall include technician D. S. Adams in the unit hereinafter found appropriate.3 We find that all laboratory employees of the Filtrol Corporation at its plant in Jackson, Mississippi, including chemist Tom Goodwin and technician D. S. Adams, but excluding the secretary, process engineer, chief chemist, and laboratory manager, and all or any other supervisory employees with -authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively recommend such action, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. DIRECTION OF ELECTION As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Filtrol Corporation, Jackson, Mississippi, an election by secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than thirty (30) days from the date of this Direction, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region, acting in this matter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject to Sections 203.55 and 203.56, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regula- tions-Series 4, among the employees in the unit found appropriate in Section ITT, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of this Direction, including employees who did not work during said pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation or temporarily laid off, and including employees in the armed forces of the United States who present themselves in person at the polls, but excluding those employees who have since quit or been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or reinstated prior to the date of the election, to determine whether or not they desire to be represented by International Chemical Workers Union, Local 253, AFL, for the purposes of collective bargaining. 9 .Adams is the son of the plant superintendent However, we consider this fact in and of itself insufficient to warrant his exclusion from the unit