Chas. Lennig & Co., Inc.

In the Matter Of CHAS. LENNIG & CO., INC., EMPLOYER and INTER- NATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, LOCAL 541, PETITIONER Case .Yo. 4-R-24173.-Decided April 14, 1947 Mr. J. Arvid Jonsson, of Philadelphia, Pa., for the Employer and for Resinous Products. Mr. Albert J. Persichetti, of Philadelphia, Pa., for the Petitioner. Miss Muriel J. Levor, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Phila- delphia, Pennsylvania, on January 7, 1947, before Helen Humphrey, hearing officer. 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 I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER Chas. Lennig & Co., Inc., is a Pennsylvania corporation with its principal place of business at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, where it operates its Bridesburg plant. It is there engaged in the manu- facture, sale, and distribution of heavy chemical specialties . During the year 1945, the Employer purchased raw materials, consisting of ammonia, sulphur, methanol, sodium chloride, and copper, valued in excess of $500,000, of which approximately 80 percent was shipped to the plant from points outside Pennsylvania. During the same period, the Employer sold manufactured products valued in excess of $1,000,000, of which more than 75 percent was shipped to points outside Pennsylvania. The Employer is a subsidiary of Rohm & Haas Company, which also operates chemical plants in its own name. Affiliated with Rohm & Haas Company is Resinous ' Products and Chemical Co., called Resinous Products, herein. Resinous Products, a Delaware corpora- tion with its principal place of business at the Bridesburg plant at 73 N. L. R B.. No. 74. 389 390 DECISIONS OF NATTONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Philadelphia, which it operates jointly with the Employer, is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of synthetic resins. During the year 1945, Resinous Products purchased raw material consisting of phenol, formaldehyde, castor oil, rosin, glycerine, butyl-alcohol, and pythalic anhydride, valued in excess of $500,000, of which ap- proximately 70 percent was shipped to the plant from points outside Pennsylvania. 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 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 mean- ing of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT The Employer and Resinous Products, the subsidiary and affiliate, respectively, of Rohni & Haas Company, as noted above, jointly oc- cupy a site of about 50 acres, on which are situated many buildings devoted to the manufacture of chemicals and chemical specialties, collectively called the Bridesburg plant. A plant manager heads their joint operations. Under him are two assistant plant managers, one in charge of the Employer's operations, and the other in charge of the operations of Resinous Products. Maintenance and power- house employees service the entire plant, but are listed solely on the Employer's pay roll. There are no maintenance and powerhouse employees on the pay roll of Resinous Products. The Petitioner seeks a unit limited to maintenance and powerhouse employees on the Employer's pay roll at the Bridesburg plant. The Employer, urging that the Employer and Resinous Products to- gether operate the one plant as a single "Company," and that work- ing conditions of all production and maintenance employees are similar, contends that production and maintenance employees at the joint plant, on the pay rolls both of the Employer and of Resin- CHAS. LENNIG & CO., INC. 391 ous Products, excluding research, salaried, supervisory, office, and plant-protection employees, constitute a single appropriate unit. Approximately 750 production, 200 maintenance, and 35 power- house employees, having uniform working conditions such as, vaca- tions, holidays, bonuses, etc., work in this joint plant. Production employees, however, work on a shift basis while maintenance em- ployees work only 1 shift. In addition to their strictly production work, production employees perform minor maintenance tasks and, on those rare occasions when some large job is undertaken, they work side by side with maintenance employees to assist them in the less skilled work. There is, however, little interchange of employees between the production and maintenance departments. Maintenance men do the work of electricians, carpenters, riggers, machinists, pipe welders, pipe fitters, and lead burners. The powerhouse and maintenance employees are headed by a chief engineer, under whom is a powerhouse engineer in charge of the powerhouse, and a plant engineer with six to eight engineers assisting him in the supervision of maintenance employees. Below these super- visors are foremen, whom both parties desire to exclude, and working leaders, whom they desire to include.' There has been no previous collective bargaining history at this plant to bear on the appropriateness of the proposed unit.2 The Peti- tioner has not sought to organize the production employees at the joint plant nor is any labor organization seeking to represent them. The proposed unit, however, is similar to the unit of maintenance employees found appropriate for employees at a plant of Rohm & Haas Com- pany,3 of whom the Employer is a subsidiary. Although the Bridesburg plant operations are integrated and a unit composed of production and maintenance employees working there for both concerns might be appropriate, nevertheless, the inainte- nance and powerhouse employees comprise a clearly identifiable and homogeneous group such as we have previously held to constitute an appropriate unit' Moreover, no labor organization has attempted to organize the employees on a broader basis. Under all the circum- stances, we are of the opinion that maintenance and powerhouse em- ployees listed on the Employer's pay roll may constitute a unit appro- priate for collective bargaining at this time. 'Working leaders do not have supervisory authority within our definition of the term 'In Matter of Resinous Products and Chemical Company, Charles Lena g and Com- pany, Inc, 50 N L R B 991, where a unit of "operators and helpers" was sorght by the Independent Chemical Workers Organization, the Board dismissed the petition because the unit was inappropriate 3 Matter of Rohm if Maas Company, 51 N L R B 1232 The Petitioner herein was there- after selected as collective bargaining representative by the maintenance employees 4 Matter of Wilhain R. Warner if Co , Inc, 65 N L R B 1350 ; Matter of Rohm if Baas Company, supra. 392 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The Petitioner would include in the maintenance unit the locomotive engineer, the crane man and helper, and a switchman. The Employer would exclude them. Since these employees are production employees, working under the supervision of production foremen, we shall exclude the locomotive engineer, crane operator and helper, and the switchmen from the maintenance unit. We find that all maintenance and powerhouse employees listed on the Employer's pay roll at the Bridesburg plant, including working leaders, but excluding production and clerical employees, the locomo- tive engineer, the crane operator and helper, switchman, foremen, and all other supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, dis- charge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of em- ployees, or effectively recommend such action, constitute a unit appro- priate 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 pur- poses of collective bargaining with Chas. Lennig & Co., Inc., Philadel- phia, Pennsylvania, 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 Fourth 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 Regulations- Series 4, among-the employees in the unit found appropriate in Section IV, 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 Union of Operating Engineers, Local 541, for the pur- poses of collective bargaining. CHAIRMAN HERZOG took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Direction of Election.