Proctor & Gamble Manufacturing Co.

MONROE CALCULATING MACHINE COMPANY 315 Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. 2. The labor organizations named below claim to represent certain employees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion of certain employees of the Employer, within the meaning of Sec- tion 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The following employees of the Employer constitute a unit ap- propriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the mean- ing of Section 9 (b) of the Act: All production and maintenance em- ployees at the Employer's office machine plants at Morris Plains and Orange, New Jersey, including timekeepers, truckdrivers, and cafeteria workers, but excluding expediters, office clerical employees, profes- sional employees, technical employees, watchmen ,3 superintendents, assistant superintendents, foremen, assistant foremen, and supervisors as defined in the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] using it; that Local 432 has withheld the records from the duly elected officers of Local 431 ; that it has prevailed upon a bank to refuse payment of the deposits of Local 431 ; and that, although the contract between the Employer and Local 431 does not expire until July 1, 1954, Local 432 has communicated with the Employer and has succeeded in in- ducing it not to comply with the provisions of the contract , including those relating to the remittance of checked off dues. Local 431, accordingly , moved to dismiss the petition. The motion is hereby denied without prejudice to its renewal if objections are filed to the election hereinafter directed. 8 Watchmen at the Morris Plains plant, who do not wear uniforms or carry firearms; spend about 80 percent of their working time in cleaning and sweeping and the remainder in patrolling the plant. Although the record is not entirely clear as to the watchmen at the Orange plant, it appears that these watchmen wear uniforms but do not carry firearms and are divided into two classes : ( 1) Those who work during the day and spend all their time as gatemen , controlling admissions to and departures from the plant , and (2) those who work at night and spend all their time making hourly rounds. We find that all watch- men, both those at the Morris Plains plant and those at the Orange plant, are guards within the meaning of the Act, and we therefore exclude them from the unit . Weterboro Manufacturing Corporation, 106 NLRB 1383, PROCTER & GAMBLE MANUFACTURING COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS , LOCAL 30-30-A, AFL , PETITIONER. Case No. l-RC-5748. July 22,1954 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 Leonard Bass, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prej- udicial error and are hereby affirmed. Motions for dismissal of the petition made by the Employer and the Intervenor at the hearing are 109 NLRB No. 43. 316 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD hereby denied for the reasons set forth in paragraphs numbered 3 and 4, below. 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. Procter & Gamble Independent Union of Port Ivory, New York, was permitted to intervene at the hearing on the basis of its contact with the Employer. . 3. The Employer and Intervenor claim that the petition in this proceeding was untimely filed and must therefore be dismissed. These parties executed in 1951 a contract containing a 60-day automatic re- newal provision and an expiration date of July 27, 1953. In 1952 they amended this contract to extend the expiration date to January 27, 1954. The petition herein was filed on April 8, 1953. The Peti- tioner contends that the petition was timely filed in relation to the original contract, that the expiration date of the amended contract is not controlling because the amendment constituted a premature ex- tension of the contract. The Employer and Intervenor contend, for various reasons, that the Board's usual contract-bar rule regarding premature extensions should not be here applied. We find it unnecessary to resolve the issue concerning premature extension. Both the original and amended contracts have already expired and cannot therefore operate as a bar to the petition at this time. Accordingly, we find that 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. 4. The Petitioner seeks the establishment of a powerhouse unit consisting of all engineers, firemen, boiler cleaners, a feed water treat operator, and a cleanup man stationed in the powerhouse and a licensed crane operator working throughout the plant. The Em- ployer and Intervenor contend that the unit sought by the Petitioner is inappropriate and ought not be severed from the existing produc- tion and maintenance unit. The Employer at its Port Ivory, Long Island, plant, produces soap, glycerine, edible oils, and related products. The powerhouse employees have been included in the existing production and main- tenance unit which has from 1937 been represented by the Intervenor or its predecessor; the Board has twice certified the Intervenor as the bargaining representative of the employees in this comprehensive unit 1 i The Procter & Gamble Manufacturing Company, 2-RC-231, not reported in priptQdrvol- umes of Board Decisions and Orders ; The Procter & Gamble Manufacturing Company, 92 NLRB No. 130, not reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions and Orders. PROCTER & GAMBLE MANUFACTURING COMPANY 317 The powerhouse is separately housed in a centrally located building and contains high-pressure boilers, turbo-generators, pumps, and compressors. Powerhouse personnel also operate the saltwater pump- house, an absorption refrigeration plant, and a fire tower located out- side the powerhouse. Stationed in the powerhouse are 9 engineers, 4 firemen, 2 boiler cleaners, a water treat operator, and a cleanup man. These employees perform the duties customarily associated with their job classifications, being concerned principally with the operation of the instruments, machinery, and equipment located in the powerhouse and used for the production and distribution of steam, electricity, compressed air, and brine as required by plant operations. The engineers are licensed by the city of New York to operate sta- tionary steam, refrigeration, and fuel oil systems, as required by their Employer. There is little interchange or intermingling of duties between powerhouse and other plant employees, and power- house employees have little working contact with other employees. Finally, unlike most of the remainder of the plant, the powerplant operates on a continuous 3-shift schedule and is separately supervised by a foreman who also supervises the Crisco engineroom in a production department. The requested powerhouse unit excludes 8 licensed engineers and 2 oilers working in production departments. The eight engineers operate high-pressure boilers or refrigeration equipment and many of them are qualified for powerhouse work, having been stationed there in the past. The oilers, as do the firemen in the powerhouse, oil refrig- eration and other equipment. The Employer and Intervenor contend that the unit sought by the Petitioner is rendered inappropriate by the Westinghouse decision 2 since the unit requested does not include all employees having similar skills and duties. In the recent American Potash 3 case the Board reexamined and redefined its rules with regard to the severance of craft and depart- mental groups. In that case the Board established an electrician's unit .without including employees with similar skills in the power- house. Indeed, in American Potash the Board severed a power division notwithstanding the existence of boilers and other devices similar to those in the power division which were operated by produc- tion workers.4 In the more recent A. P. Controls cases the Board found appropriate a departmental unit of toolroom and model shop employees although it excluded an employee who possessed similar craft skills. The existence therefore of employees with similar skills outside of a craft or departmental unit otherwise appropriate under 2 Westinghouse Electric Corporation , 101 NLRB 441, at 443. 8 American Potash & Chemical Corporation, 107 NLRB 1418. * See Member Peterson's dissent. 5 A. P. Controls Corporation, 108 NLRB 593. 318 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the American Potash decision does not preclude the severance of such a unit.6 The Employer and Intervenor also urge as factors precluding sev- erance of the powerhouse the long history of collective bargaining on a more comprehensive basis, the special degree of integration of the functions of the powerhouse in the production process, the simi- larity of benefits, employment interests and working conditions among all employees in the plant, and the general pattern of plant- wide bargaining in this industry in the area. We find no merit in these contentions, having decided in American Potash that such fac- tors will not preclude the severance of certain departmental units, of which a powerhouse is one. Under all the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the powerhouse employees here sought by the Peti- tioner constitute a functionally distinct and separate departmental group. And as the Petitioner is affiliated with an international union which traditionally has represented separate units of employees in powerhouse and boilerrooms in industrial plants, the requirements laid down in American Potash for the severance of such a unit have been met.' The Employer requested that, in the event the powerhouse unit is severed, the 8 engineers and 2 oilers discussed above be included in the unit. However, these employees have little contact with the powerhouse employees, and, except for the three engineers in the Crisco engineroom, are separately supervised. As they are not closely associated with the powerhouse employees we shall exclude them from the unit.8 The Petitioner requests that the crane engineer or operator be in- cluded in the unit as an accessory employee. During those periods in the past in which the powerhouse used coal-for the past year it has been operated on oil-the crane operator devoted 20 percent of his time to hoisting coal. As he has no other and more substantial contact or interest in common with the powerhouse employees, we shall exclude him from the unit. Because no party requests their inclusion we shall exclude from the unit the machinist, pipefitter, and four apprentices in the same trades who, although assigned to 9 While Member Murdock would follow Westinghouse where applicable (see his dissents in American Potash and A. P. Controls, cited above ), he does not consider it controlling here for the following reason: Westinghouse concerned the severance of departmental units having a nucleus of skilled craftsmen . A powerhouse is not such a unit-severance of a powerhouse is predicated not upon its containing a craft nucleus but upon the fact that a powerhouse is a functionally distinct department having historically established sepa- rate interests. Industrial Rayon Corporation, 107 NLRB 1518. But for the fact that he considers himself bound by the Board's decision in American Potash, Member Peterson would not sever the powerhouse employees in view of their inclusion for 17 years in the broader unit and the absence of any facts showing the need for severance. 8 Ford Motor Company, 100 NLRB 813, at 820; Blatz Brewing Company, 94 NLRB 1277, at 1280-1282. TEXAS PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE CO . 319 the powerhouse, remain under the supervision of their respective craft foremen." In view of the foregoing and upon the entire record, the. Board finds that the following employees may, if they so desire, constitute a separate appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining: All powerhouse employees at the Employer's Port Ivory, Long Island, ,plant, including engineers, firemen, boiler cleaners, the water treat operator, and the cleanup man ; but excluding the crane operator, the machinist, pipefitter, and apprentices of these crafts stationed in the powerhouse, all other employees and supervisors as.defined in the Act. We shall make no final unit determination at this time, but shall first ascertain the desires of these employees as expressed in the elec- tion hereinafter directed. If a majority vote for the Petitioner, they will be taken to have indicated that they desire to constitute a separate appropriate bargaining unit, and the Regional Director conducting the election directed herein is instructed to issue a certification of representatives to the petitioner for the unit, which the Board, under such circumstances, finds to be appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining. In the event a majority vote for the Intervenor, the Board finds the existing plantwide unit to be appropriate and the Regional Director is instructed, in that event, to issue a certification of results of election to such effect. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] CHAIRMAN FARMER and MEMBER BEESON took no part in the consid- eration of the above Decision and Direction of Election. 9 Ford Motor Company, supra, at 819-820; Blatz Brewing Company, supra, at 1283. Compare American Potash & Chemical Corporation, 107 NLRB 1418 , in which craftsmen electricians located in the powerhouse were included in the powerhouse unit, over Member Murdock's dissent. There no party objected to the Operating Engineers' request that they be so included. TEXAS PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE Co. and OFFICE EMPLOYEES INTERNA- TIONAL UNION, LOCAL #27, AFL, PETITIONER. Case No. 39-RC- 782. July 9.2.1954 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 Louis S. Eberhardt, 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 this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 109 NLRB No. 34.