Morton Salt Co.

610 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ber 25, 1949), supervisors as defined in the Act, and Stewart Die Casting Division employees. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this volume.] MORTON SALT COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL CHEMICAL WORKERS UNION, AFL, PETITIONER. Case No. 15-RC-756. August 13,19592 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 Charles A. Kyle, 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 [Members Houston, 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 organization involved claims 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. 4. The appropriate unit: The Employer owns and operates a salt mine and processing plant, together with a chemical plant, at Weeks Island, Louisiana.' These operations are conducted in an area approximately 1 mile in diameter. Within the area, 75 percent of the employees reside with their families, and the Employer provides and maintains their homes, schools, churches, stores, and recreation centers. A third operation, a village services division, is charged with maintenance of the roads, the hous- ing, lighting, and other living facilities in the area. There are approximately 221 employees in the salt operation, 122 in the chemical operation, and 15 in the village operation. The Petitioner seeks a unit composed of all production and mainte- nance employees in the salt and village operations, excluding those in 1 Since September 30, 1948, the Employer has been sole owner of all the operations on Weeks Island . Prior to that date, the salt operation was conducted by Myles Salt Com- pany, Ltd., and the chemical operation by Bay Chemical Company. From 1925 to 1948, both Myles and Bay, though separate corporations , were owned by similar interests. In 1948, the Employer acquired all the assets of Myles and Bay, and the latter corporations were dissolved. The name, Bay Chemical Company, however, is still retained in referring to the chemical operation. 100 NLRB No. 99 MORTON SALT COMPANY 611 the chemical operation. The Employer contends that only an island- wide unit is appropriate. There has been no history of collective bargaining among these employees. The chemical and salt operations are contiguous. The chemical operation processes salt derivatives into salt chemicals, obtaining its basic raw material from the salt operation, which also produces salt for commercial consumption. The salt operation mines and processes salt in part by hydraulic means, obtaining its water from the purifica- tion plant run by the chemical operation. The same purification plant also provides the water for village consumption. Pumps, run by the salt operation, supply other industrial water and supply water for vil- lage fire-protection. The three island operations use the same ma- chine shop, blacksmith shop, boiler and steamroom, stockroom, and landing slip. Although each operation has its own manager and maintains a sepa- rate office and payroll, the three managers serve under the same over- all supervision of the Employer's vice president and meet regularly to coordinate their respective organizations and to effectuate the Em- ployer's policies established in Chicago, including labor relations policies. There is only an occasional interchange of employees. When the chemical operation was established, however, it was staffed entirely by employees drawn from the salt operation, the work being suffi- ciently similar to enable the employees to perform it after a reasonable training period. Likewise, when the village operation was later or- ganized under separate management, its crew was drawn from the salt or chemical operation. Applicants for employment with one op- eration, if unsuccessful, may be referred to another operation. The employees of all three operations are subject to uniform working hours, shift schedules, vacation and holiday periods, leaves of absence, group insurance policies, and pensions. Under all the circumstances of the case, including the integration and interdependence of the operations, the uniformity in conditions of employment and the close community of interest among all the em- ployees, who both work and live on the island, we are of the opinion that a unit confined to the employees in the salt and village operations, but excluding those in the chemical operation, is inappropriate.2 The controlling basis for establishing the unit sought by the Petitioner is the extent of union organization on the island. The Act, as amended, of course precludes a finding of appropriateness on that basis alone.3 We would, therefore, ordinarily dismiss the petition, but since the 2 See Riegel Paper Corp., 96 NLRB 779. 8 Montgomery Ward & Co., 90 NLRB 609; Delaware Knitting Company, Inc., 75 NLRB 205. 227260-53-vo1. 100--40 612 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Petitioner has made an adequate showing of interest in an island- wide unit, we shall direct an election in the more comprehensive unit. The following employees of the Employer constitute a unit appro- priate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act : All production and maintenance employees of the salt mine and plant, the chemical plant, and the village services division, including laboratory employees,4 but excluding laboratory technicians, office and clerical employees,5 professional employees and supervisors as de- fined in the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this volume.] 4 A question was raised at the hearing as to the unit placement of laboratory employees. These employees perform daily tests that are essentially routine, unlike the laboratory technicians, who carry on research under a chief chemist's direction. We find, contrary to the Employer's contention, that the laboratory employees are neither technical nor professional employees, and, accordingly, we shall include them in the unit. 6 In accordance with the agreement of the parties, we shall exclude clericals who, though employed in the plant, exclusively keep records or do similar clerical work. CHEROKEE BRICK AND TILE COMPANY and MIDDLE GEORGIA LOCAL No. 843, INTERNATIONAL UNION OF MINE , MILL AND SMELTER WORK- ERS, PETITIONER . Case No. 10-RC-1688. August 14, 1952 Supplemental Decision and Amended Description of the Unit On March 4, 1952, the Board issued a Decision and Direction of Election in the above-entitled proceeding. Thereafter, on March 17, 1952, the Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the aforesaid Decision with respect, to certain disputed classifications 1 of employees whom the Board, on the basis of uncontradicted testimony, found to be supervisors as defined in the Act. The Board, on March 21, 1952, denied the Petitioner's motion without prejudice to the Petitioner's right to challenge the ballots of the individuals in these categories at the election. An election was held and the Board, by its Regional Director for the Tenth Region, on April 3,1952, issued a certification of representatives in which the Petitioner was certified as the duly designated representa- tive of a unit of production and maintenance employees of the Em- ployer. On April 11, 1952, the Petitioner filed a "Petition to Recall and Amend Certification of Representatives and to Amend the Deci- sion and Direction of Election herein and for other relief." There- 1 disputed classifications comprise the clay storage shovel operator and foreman, head setters, head dryermen , head transfer men, pug mill operators , head kiln burners at plant No. 3 , and head loaders. 100 NLRB No. 100.