Heyden Chemical Corp.

520 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Company" In accordance with the Board's policy, Respondent shall make available to the Board, upon request, such payroll and other records necessary to facilitate the computation of the amount of back pay due. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, I make the following : CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. United Stone and Allied Products Workers of America, CIO, and Insula- tion Workers Federal Labor Union, No. 24716, AFL, are labor organizations within the meaning of the Act. 2. By discriminating in regard to hire and tenure of employment of Frank Boll, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. s 3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. [Recommendations omitted from publication in this volume.] 1190 NLRB 289. HEYDEN CHEMICAL CORPORATION 1 and LOCAL 68 OF THE INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, AFL,2 PETITIONER. Case No. 3-RC-4816. August 6, 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 Norman A. Cole, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.3 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 Styles]. 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 representa- tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section S (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 1 The name of the Employer appeara as amended at the hearing. ' The name of the Petitioner appears as amended at the hearing. 8 The Employees Welfare Association of Heyden Chemical Corporation , Garfield, New Jersey, was permitted to intervene on the basis of its contractual interest. 100 NLRB No. 82. HEYDEN CHEMICAL CORPORATION 521 4. The Petitioner seeks a unit of all powerhouse employees including engineers and firemen at the Employer's Garfield, New Jersey, plant, but excluding all other employees and supervisors as defined in the Act. The Employer and the Intervenor contend that the unit sought is inappropriate because of a bargaining history on a plant-wide basis, the integrated nature of the Employer's operations, and the alleged disruptive effect on labor relations. The Employer is engaged in the production of chemicals and anti- biotics at its Garfield, New Jersey, plant, which alone is involved in this proceeding. The 8 powerhouse employees-4 firemen and 4 en- gineers-are currently represented by the Intervenor along with more than 300 other production, maintenance, and clerical employees. The firemen and engineers, who are required to be licensed by the State of New Jersey, have their headquarters in a separate building at the Employer's plant where they perform the usual duties of their classifications. The engineers, however, spend about one-fourth of their time in the plant servicing equipment which for the most part is connected with the refrigeration system and the power plant. Al- though the powerhouse employees receive the same benefits as the plant personnel, they work under separate immediate supervision and have separate locker and workroom facilities. Despite the contract pro- vision which permits employees to bid for jobs throughout the plant, there have been during recent years few transfers and little inter- change between the powerhouse and the other plant departments. It is clear from the foregoing and the entire record that the power- house employees constitute a distinct, homogeneous, and functionally coherent group of the type which the Board has customarily held may be accorded separate representation 4 Nor is such a unit rendered in- appropriate by the past bargaining history on a more comprehensive basis, the alleged disruptive effect on labor relations, or the fact that the steam and coolants produced by the powerhouse are used through- out the Employer's operations.5 Accordingly, we shall direct an election in the following voting group : All powerhouse employees at the Employer's Garfield, New Jersey, plant, including firemen and engineers, but excluding all other employees and supervisors as defined in the Acts If a majority vote for the Petitioner they will be taken to have indicated their desire to constitute a separate appropriate unit, and the Regional Director con- ducting the election directed herein is instructed to issue a certification of representatives to the Petitioner for that unit as described in the •American Hard Rubber Company, 95 NLRB No. 129; The Gates Rubber Company, 95 NLRB 351. Charles A. Krause Milling Co., 97 NLRB 536; Armour & Company, 88 NLRB 309. The parties agree, and we find, that Ambrose Lawlor, chief operating engineer, and John Seckley, working foreman , are supervisors under the Act. 522 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD voting group, which the Board, under such circumstances, finds to be appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining. In the event a ma= jority vote for the Intervenor, the Board finds the existing unit to be appropriate and the Regional Director will issue a certification of results of election to such effect. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this volume.] BURKE MILLWORK Co., INC. and LOCAL 193, INTERNATIONAL BROTHER- HOOD OF FIREMEN & OILERS, AFL, PETITIONER. Case No. 19-RC- 1017. August 7, 195E 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 Rachel Storer, hearing 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- member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members 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 1 claim to represent employees of the Employer. 3. The Employer and the Intervenor allege their current contract is a bar to the petition. We do not agree. By its terms, the contract became automatically renewed on March 1, 1952, for a 2-year period succeeding its May 1 anniversary date. As the petition herein was filed February 29, 1952, it was clearly timely, and thus prevented the contract from operating as a bar. We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen 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 to carve out from the existing production and maintenance unit, a unit confined to the steam licensed employees in the Employer's boiler room. The Employer and the Intervenor object to the severance of these workers from the existing plant-wide I Lumber and Sawmill Workers , Local 2519, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL, Intervened in this proceeding. It is referred to hereafter as the Intervenor. 100 NLRB No. 80.