Anderson, Clayton & Co., Inc.

MRS. TUCKER'S PRODUCTS 533 In view of this disposition of the case, it becomes unnecessary to discuss the contract-bar issues raised by the Intervenor. [The Board dismissed the petition.] MRS. TUCKER'S PRODUCTS. DIVISION OF ANDERSON, CLAYTON & COMPANY, INC.'and OIL WORKERS INTER- NATIONAL UNION, CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 13-RC-3308. July 31, 1953 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 Rush F. Hall, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hear- ing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Y 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-member panel [Members Houston, Murdock, 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 employees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representation of employees of the Employer within the mean- ing of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The Petitioner seeks a unit of all production and mainte- nance employees at the Employer's Jacksonville, Illinois, plant, including truckdrivers and plant clericals, but excluding all office clerical employees, guards, professional employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act. The Employer generally agrees with the appropriateness of a production and mainte- nance unit but would exclude from the unit all office and plant clerical employees, mail-truck drivers, guards, watchmen, gatemen, professional and technical employees, such as chemists, junior chemists, analysts, engineers, junior engi- neers, engineer trainees, supervisory trainees, and super- visors as defined in the Act.' i The Employer's name appears as amended at the hearing. 2 The hearing officer reserved for the Board's determination the motion of United Brother- hood of Carpenters and Joiners, Local No. 904, AFL, to intervene at the hearing For reasons hereinafter set forth, the motion to intervene is hereby denied. International Chemical Workers Union, AFL, International Union of Operating Engineers, Local No 7, AFL, and United Association of Journeyman Plumbers and Steamfitters, Local 553, AFL, although served with notice, did not appear at the hearing. 3The Employer also requested that temporary construction and maintenance employees be excluded from the unit. As the record indicates that these individuals are not employed by the Employer but are employed by independent contractors, they are excluded from the unit. 106 NLRB No. 89. 534 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The Employer is engaged in the manufacture of vegetable oil food products from crude vegetable oils . Its plant in Jacksonville , Illinois , which is the only plant herein involved, has been under construction since 1951. This plantis, however, rapidly nearing completion and is scheduled to have its formal opening approximately the middle of August 1953. At the date of the hearing there were 59 hourly paid employees on the pay- roll and an undetermined number of other employees whom the Employer would exclude. Plant clericals : At the time of the hearing the Employer had 7 plant clerical employees on its payroll. Although these em- ployees have the same job classifications as the office clerical employees and work under the general supervision of the office division , they will be assigned desks or office space in the plant area and will keep records of the various plant processes and perform other related functions. In view of the fact that plant clerical employees will per- form their duties in the plant among the production employees, we find that they have a sufficient community of interest with production and maintenance employees in the terms and conditions of employment to warrant their inclusion in the unit in accordance with well -established Board practice. Professional and technical employees : The Employer and the Petitioner are in general agreement that professional and technical employees should be excluded from the unit. However, the Petitioner , while apparently having no objection to the ex- clusion of chemists , engineers , junior engineers , and engi- neer trainees , does not agree with the Employer that junior chemists and analysts should be excluded from the unit. As the evidence in the record is inadequate to enable us to ascertain the exact duties and responsibilities of the junior chemists and analysts , we shall not make any specific unit determinations concerning these employees . We, however, shall exclude from the unit chemists , engineers , junior engineers , and engineer trainees and permit the junior chemists and analysts to vote subject to challenge in the election hereinafter directed. Supervisory trainees : The Employer would exclude, while the Petitioner would include, employees classified as super- visory trainees . The record discloses that the supervisory trainees at the time they are hired are not necessarily required to possess any special qualifications ; in fact, the Employer indicated that it is attempting to select "bright high school graduates " for these positions . These employees may become supervisors after undergoing training courses for the super- visory positions which in some instances extend over a period of approximately a year and a half. During this training period the trainees are transferred from department to department and are assigned to actual production work alongside other production employees. The Employer stated that during the training period the supervisory trainees perform no super- visory functions or duties . Under these circumstances , we find that the interests and working conditions of the supervisory MRS. TUCKER'S PRODUCTS 535 trainees are not materially different from those of the Em- ployer's other production employees. We, therefore, shall in- clude them in the unit.4 Accordingly, we find that the following employees may constitute an appropriate unit for the purpose of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act: All production and maintenance employees at the Employer's plant in Jacksonville, Illinois, including truckdrivers,s plant clericals, and supervisory trainees, but excluding office clericals, professional and technical employees, guards, watch- men, gatemen , ' and supervisors as defined in the Act. 5. The Employer contends that an election should not be held at this time because its plant has not yet been completed and it does not currently employ a substantial and representa- tive complement of employees. It is agreeable , however, to the holding of an election about 2 weeks after the formal opening of the plant, which is expected to take place approximately the middle of August 1953. At that time, the Employer asserts that it will have approximately 156 employees which will represent slightly over one-half of the anticipated total complement of 291 employees not expected to be reached for at least a year. The record discloses that at the time of the hearing no em- ployees had been employed in the packing, shipping, and transportation departments. The Employer asserts that by the opening date of the plant it will have in the packing depart- ment approximately 25 employees out of an estimated ultimate total of 57; in the shipping department, about 12 employees out of a total of 16; and in the transportation department, approximately, 7 employees out of a total of 37. In view of the foregoing, we find that the Employer will not have a substantial and representative number of employees in its employment until about the middle of August 1953. There- fore, we shall not direct an immediate election but, instead, shall direct that an election be held at such time after the middle of August 1953, as the Regional Director determines that a substantial and representative number of employees have been employed, subject to submission by the Petitioner of a sufficient current showing of interest in such enlarged group. The Carpenters sought to intervene in this proceeding for the purpose of representing a craft unit of carpenters and millwrights or general mechanics , or, in the alternative, all employees in the maintenance department. The Employer, at the date of the hearing, had not yet hired any carpenters, millwrights , or general mechanics or a representative com- plement of maintenance department employees. By the middle 4The Plastex Corporation, 72 NLRB 1341; Peal Manufacturing Company, 80 NLRB 827. 5 The Employer apparently does not oppose the inclusion of truckdrivers However. it re- quests the exclusion of mail-truck drivers As the hiring of such employees is speculative, we shall make no unit determination with respect to them. 6 The record indicates that watchmen and gatemen perform generally the same duties as the guards 536 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD of August 1953, it expects to have a representative complement of about 4 employees in the Carpenters' proposed craft group and about 19 employees in the maintenance department group. The Carpenters submitted no showing of interest in support of its motion to intervene . In these circumstances , we deny the Carpenters ' motion to intervene , without prejudice , however, to its right to file a petition or petitions before the date of the election herein directed, covering either or both of the above- described groups of employees , supported by a proper showing of interest. In such event , the employees so affected will be permitted to vote subject to challenge pending processing of the petitions by the Board. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] J. O. RHUDE AND GILBERT CORPORATION , a Joint Ven- ture 1 and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGI- NEERS, LOCAL NO. 49, AFL, Petitioner GILBERT CORPORATION and UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, Petitioner . Cases Nos . 18-RC-1940 and. 18-RC-1957. July 31, 1953 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before Clarence A. Meter, hearing officer. The hearing offi- cer'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 these cases to a three -member panel [ Members Houston, Styles, and Peterson]. Upon the entire record in these cases , the Board finds: 1. J. O. Rhude and Gilbert Corporation, a joint venture, and Gilbert Corporation, which are hereinafter found to constitute a single employer , are engaged in commerce within the mean- ing of the Act. 2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain employees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and ( 7) of the Act. 1 The name of this Company appears in the caption as amended at the hearing. 2 At the hearing, the Steelworkers, the Petitioner in 18-RC-1957, moved to dismiss the petition of the Operating Engineers in 18-RC-1940, on the ground that the unit sought therein was inappropriate. The hearing officer referred the motion to the Board . For the reasons stated in paragraph numbered 4, infra, the motion is denied. 106 NLRB No. 100.