Schuylkill Products Co., Inc.

In the Matter of SCIIUYLKILL PRODUCTS COMPANY, INC., EMPLOYER and DISTRICT 50, UNITED MINE WORMERS OF AMERICA, AFL., PETITIONER Case No. 15-R-1796.Decided April 10, 1947 Messrs. C. W. Phillips and C. E. Bassett, of Baton Rouge, La., for the Employer. Messrs. Archie Anderson and Sam Stevenson, of Baton Rouge, La., for the Petitioner. Mr. Abraham Frank, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES Upon a petition duly filed, the National Labor Relations Board, on December 18 and 19, 1946, conducted a prehearing election among employees of the Employer in the alleged appropriate unit, to deter- mine whether or not they desired to be represented by the Petitioner or by the United Lead Workers, Local Industrial Union, 1593, CIO, herein called the CIO, for the purposes of collective bargaining, or by neither. At the close of the election a Tally of Ballots was furnished the parties. The Tally shows that there were approximately 115 eligible voters. Of the 96 votes cast, 57 were for the Petitioner, 22 for the CIO, 10 against representation by any labor organization, and 7 ballots were challenged. Thereafter, an appropriate hearing 1 was held at Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on January 29, 1947, before C. Paul Barker, hearing officer. At the hearing, the Employer moved to dismiss the proceedings prin- cipally on the ground that the Board does not have jurisdiction over the Employer 2 The hearing officer reserved ruling on the motion for the Board. For reasons discussed in Section I, infra, the motion is hereby denied. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. ' The CIO was served with notice of hearing, but did not appear. The petition was amended by the hearing officer to show the correct name of the Eni- ployer as "Schuylkill Products Company, Inc " Inasmuch as the Employer does not appear to have been misled by the eironeous designation nor its interests prejudiced thereby, we find no merit in its contention that such error affords ground for dismissal. 73 N. L. R. B., No 64 340 SCHUYLKILL PRODUCTS COMPANY, INC. 341 Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACTS 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER Schuylkill Products Company, Inc., a Louisiana corporation, is engaged in the processing of slag, dross, scrap lead and lead waste into pure lead and antimonial lead. Its only plant is located at Baton Rouge, Louisiana. All raw materials and all finished products pro- cessed by the Employer are'owned by the Ethyl Corporation, a Dela- ware corporation, which manufactures general chemical products at two plants, located respectively at Baton Rouge, Louisiana, and Deep- water, New Jersey. Tetraethyl lead is the principal product produced by the Baton Rouge plant of the Ethyl Corporation. For a 5-month period raw materials purchased at the Baton Rouge plant of the Ethyl Corporation exceeded $2,000,000 in value, of which approximately 80 percent was shipped from points outside the State of Louisiana. During the same period, the total products manufactured at this plant exceeded $4,000,000 in value, of which approximately 60 percent was transported to points outside the State of Louisiana. The Ethyl Corporation obtains from 1,000 to 1,500 tons of lead per month from the Employer, constituting an amount in excess of 10 percent of the total lead used in the manufacture of tetraethyl lead by the Baton Rouge plant. We find that the Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.' II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, claiming to represent employees of the Em- ployer. The United Lead Workers, Local Industrial Union, 1593, is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, claiming to represent employees of the Employer. III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION The Employer refuses to recognize the Petitioner as the exclusive bargaining representative of employees of the Employer until the Petitioner has been certified by the Board in an appropriate unit. 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. 3 See Matter of Cason and Tierney Co , 69 N. L. R . B. 523 ; and Matter of Quick Indus- tries, Incorporated, 69 N. L R B. 760. 342 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT The parties agree generally that the appropriate unit should com- prise all production and maintenance employees of the Employer ex- cluding office and clerical employees, chemists, laboratory employees, foremen, and supervisors. They are in dispute, however, as to seven assistant foremen, hereinafter discussed, whose ballots were challenged at the election. The Employer would exclude these employees on the ground that they are supervisory employees, whereas the Petitioner would include them. Furnace Assistant Foremen: H. Corijell, F. Mroshinskie, J. Wilton, H. Stevenson. These four employees are responsible, on their respec- tive shifts, for the operation of the furnaces and the supervision of nine manual workers. They do no manual labor, are hourly paid at a substantially higher rate than the manual workers, and have the authority to reprimand, discipline, and discharge the employees work- ing under their supervision. We find that these employees exercise supervisory authority within the Board's customary definition thereof; we shall exclude them. Yard Assistant Foreman: W. France. This employee supervises the activities of eight men in loading, trucking, and weighing mate- rials. He assists in keeping records relating to hours of employment and acts as substitute foreman. He does no manual labor and has the authority to reprimand, discipline, and discharge the employees working under his supervision. We are of the opinion that France is a supervisory employee ; we shall exclude him. Assistant Foreman: D. Rogers. This employee is in charge of re- pair and construction work and supervises approximately 19 men. He does no manual labor and has the authority to reprimand, dis- cipline, and discharge the employees working under his supervision. We shall exclude him. Assistant Foreman: J. Robertson. This employee operates the drag line and supervises the work of two or three employees. In addition he acts as substitute yard assistant foreman. He is paid a monthly salary. Inasmuch as the record reveals that he exercises the same authority as the other assistant foremen, discussed above, we shall exclude him. We find that all production and maintenance employees of the Em- ployer at the Baton Rouge, Louisiana, plant, excluding office and cleri- cal employees, chemists, laboratory employees, assistant foremen, fore- men, 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. SCHUYLKILL PRODUCTS COMPANY, INC. V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES 343 The results of the election held prior to the hearing show that the Petitioner received a majority of the valid votes cast. Since the num- ber of challenged ballots does not affect the results of the election, we shall certify the Petitioner as the collective bargaining represent- ative of the employees in the unit found appropriate in Section IV, supra. CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that District 50, United Mine Workers of America, AFL, has been designated and selected by a majority of the production and maintenance employees of the Schuylkill Products Company, Inc., Baton Rouge, Louisiana, excluding office and clerical employees, chemists, laboratory employees, assistant foremen, fore- men, and all supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively recommend such action, as their representa- tive for the purposes of collective bargaining and that pursuant to Section 9 (a) of the Act the said organization is the exclusive repre- sentative of all such employees for the purposes of collective bargain- ing with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment. CHAIRMAN HERZOG took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Certification of Representatives.