Phillips Chemical Co.

582 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the office employees in Dallas being the highest paid-, The Dallas clerical employees, however, appear not to have participated in the Employer's group hospitalization plan. Although there have been some employee transfers, mostly on a permanent basis, among the various terminals, these have not included the Dallas office. For the reasons stated in the Board's recent decision in the Seagram case,2 we find the bargaining history for the Employer's over-the- road drivers and pickup and delivery employees not to be determina- tive of the appropriate unit, or units, for its office and clerical em- ployees. In view of the substantial degree of autonomy at the local terminal level, the geographic separation of the various terminals, and other facts above set forth, we believe that a unit confined to the office and clerical employees at Dallas may be appropriate.3 Accordingly we find that all office and clerical employees at the Employer's Dallas, Texas, terminal office, excluding all other em- ployees and all supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this volume.] 1 The Employer asserts, in explanation of this differential, that many employees perform work outside the scope of their nominal classifications , as, for example, several types of clericals at Dallas who, in addition to their regular tasks , do Bing, which 'la normally the function of file clerks. 2 Joseph B. Seagram d Sons, 101 NLRB 101. 3 Southeastern Greyhound Lines, 60 NLRB 1403 ; Associated Transport, Inc., 93 NLRB 1564. PHILLIPS CHEMICAL COMPANY and On., WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, CIO AND ITS LOCAL 227, PETITIONER and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WoRSERs, LOCAL UNION 716, AFL, INTERVENOR.' Case No. 39-RC-524. November 25,1959 Decision and Direction of Election Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before a hearing officer of the National Labor Relations Board. 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 1 The Intervenor appeared at the hearing only for the purpose of protecting its con- tractual interest as representative of the Employer's electricians . It does not wish to appear on the ballot in any election directed herein. 101 NLRB No. 100. PHILLIPS CHEMICAL COMPANY 583 this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Styles and Peterson]. 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. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion of employees of the Employer, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. The petition requests a unit consisting of certain employees at the Employer's pyridine plant in Pasadena, Texas. However, at the hear- ing, the petitioner stated that it desired an election in this unit only if the Board determined that such employees were not already covered by the Board's unit finding in 83 NLRB 612 (and subsequent certifica- tion) or by its current contract with the Employer. The Employer contends that the employees of the pyridine plant are not covered by the certification or the contract. In the prior case, the Board, on May 13, 1949, found appropriate, with certain exclusions, a unit of production and maintenance em- ployees at the Employer's ammonium sulphate plant in Pasadena. As the pyridine plant was not yet in existence on that date, it is clear that the Board's unit finding and subsequent certification of the Peti- tioner did not embrace the employees at that plant. The Petitioner's current contract with the Employer, signed June 5, 1952, covers employees of the ammonium sulphate plant "and all im- mediate additions thereto." The Petitioner contends, contrary to the Employer, that the quoted phrase referred to the pyridine plant, which began operations in June 1952. The pyridine plant is located about 1,000 feet from the other plant. It manufactures material used in making synthetic fibres, while the ammonium sulphate plant pro- duces fertilizer. In September 1952, 26 of the 29 operators in the proposed unit were transferred to the pyridine plant from the other plant after a few months' training in their new work. It is con- templated that maintenance work in the pyridine plant will be done by the maintenance crew at the other plant. Upon the entire record, we find that the pyridine plant is a separate plant and not an "addition" to the ammonium sulphate plant, and that the employees in the pyridine plant are therefore not covered by the 1952 contract. 4. The Employer contends that the employees in the pyridine plant constitute a separate appropriate unit. As already indicated, the Petitioner would include these employees in the same unit with the employees of the ammonium sulphate plant. 584 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Upon the entire record, including the proximity of the two plants and the interchange of employees, we find that the two-plant unit may be appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within Section 9 (b) of the Act. We will be guided in our final unit determination by the outcome of the election directed below. We will direct an election in the following voting group : All employees at the Employer's pyridine plant at Pasadena, Texas, excluding electricians and their helpers, laboratory testers, guards, P. B. X. operators, clerical, administrative, professional, and technical employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act.2 If a majority of the employees in the foregoing voting group vote for the Petitioner, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to be added to the existing unit of employees at the Employer's am- monium sulphate plant, and the Regional Director conducting the election is instructed to issue a certification of results of election to that effect. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this volume.] 2 The foregoing exclusions were stipulated by the parties. The record shows that the Employer does not intend to hire any electricians or other maintenance employees for the pyridine plant but , as already stated, intends to use its maintenance crew at the ammo- nium sulphate plant to service the other plant. CONSOLIDATED VULTEE AIRCRAFT CORPORATION , FORT WORTH DIvISION and AERONAUTICAL INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT LODGE No. 776, INTERNA- TIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, AFL, PETITIONER. Case No. 16-RC-1153. November 25,1952 Decision and Direction of Election Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Sulton J. Boyd, hear- ing 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 Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-mem- ber panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Styles and Peterson]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em- ployees of the Employer.' I The Federated Independent Texas Unions , Aircraft Local No. 900, intervened at the bearing. 101 NLRB No. 112.