International Minerals & Chemical Corp.

INTERNATIONAL MINERALS & CHEMICAL CORPORATION 53 tion has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. 3. By maintaining a contract containing unlawful security provisions, thereby encouraging membership in Respondent Union, Respondent Association has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. 4. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, Respondent Association has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. 5. By causing an employer-member of Respondent Association to discriminate against A. B. Coates in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, and by maintaining a contract containing unlawful union-security provisions, Respondent Union has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (2) of the Act. 6. By restraining and coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, Respondent Union has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act. 7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com- merce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. [Recommendations omitted from publication.] International Minerals & Chemical Corporation (Potash Divi- sion) and International Union of Operating Engineers, ]Local 855, A. F. ]L., Petitioner. Case [Vo. 33-RC--505. July 7,1955 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 Harold L. Hudson, 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. 2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em- ployees 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.2 'The International Union of Mine, Mill and Smelter workers, Local Union 415, Inde- pendent, herein called Smelter workers, and the International Association of Machinists, Permian Basin Lodge 1900, herein called IAM, were permitted to intervene at the bearing on the basis of existing contracts with the Employer covering employees in the unit sought by the Petitioner United Stone and Allied Products workers of America, CIO, herein called CIO, and Carlsbad Potash Basin Union, Independent, herein called Independent, were permitted to intervene on the basis of a proper showing of interests. The Petitioner, IAM, and Smelter workers do not agree that the Independent is a labor organization As the Independent exists for the purpose of representing employees in collective bargaining with employers, we find that the Independent is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2In its brief to the Board, the IAM filed motions to dismiss the petition, insofar as it concerned the various groups of employees represented by IAM, on the grounds that the Petitioner was not the traditional union and had not made a sufficient showing of interest for each group of said employees The motions are hereby denied As no severance prob- lem is involved herein, the Petitioner need not be the traditional representative of the employees sought Furthermore, we are administratively satisfied that the Petitioner has made a proper showing of interest in the unit in which an election is directed herein 113 NLRB No. 3. 54 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The Employer contends that its contracts with the Smelter Workers and the IAM are a bar to the instant petition. The Smelter Workers agrees with this position. All other parties to the proceeding, in- cluding the IAM, contend that the contracts were prematurely ex- tended, and that the petition was therefore timely filed. In 1953, the Employer negotiated contracts with the Smelter Work- ers and the IAM, together covering all of the employees sought herein by the Petitioner. These contracts became effective on May 1, 1953, and had common expiration dates of May 31, 1955, subject to reopen- ing on economic matters. Pursuant to the reopening clauses, supple- ments to these contracts were separately negotiated and executed in the summer of 1954, and the expiration dates of the contracts were extended to May 31, 1956. The instant petition was filed on March 4, 1955. The Employer asserts that the premature extension doctrine should not be applied here because (1) the contractual supplements were not made in order to forestall the claims of rival labor organizations or to frustrate the desires of the employees to select other bargaining agents; (2) the 15 contracts between the unions and the 5 companies engaged in the mining and refining of potash in the Carlsbad potash basin have common expiration dates of May 31, 1956; 1 (3) it granted a substantial wage increase to its employees in the supplemental agree- ment; and (4) the purpose of the unions and the companies in extend- ing their contracts until 1956 was to contribute toward the stabiliza- tion of labor management relationships in the Carlsbad potash basin. We find no merit in these contentions. The Board has consistently held that in the application of the Board's premature extension doc- trine, the question of good faith in executing such extension is not determinative of the issue,4 nor does the fact that the contract was prematurely extended because of economic reasons affect the appli- cability of this doctrine.' As it is clear that the petition in this case, though filed after the extension agreements had been executed, was nevertheless timely filed with respect to the automatic renewal dates of the original contracts, we find no bar to a present determination of representatives 6 4. The appropriate unit : The Petitioner (Operating Engineers) seeks a unit of all production and maintenance employees, excluding welders, electricians, and trans- port salesmen drivers, in addition to certain groups normally excluded 8 The record , however, reveals that the 1954 supplemental contract between the Employer and the IAM did not result from multiemployer bargaining. 4 American Steel Foundries, 85 NLRB 19, at p. 20 e Worthington Corporation ( Holyoke Works ), 109 NLRB 1306. e See also General Electric Companuy (River Works), 107 NLRB 70, at pp . 70, 71 ; Ken, nedy Van Saun Manufacturing and Engineering Corporation, 108 NLRB 1662; La Pointe Machine Tool Company, 109 NLRB 514. INTERNATIONAL MINERALS & CHEMICAL CORPORATION 55 and not in issue here. The Smelter Workers, Independent, and CIO agree that the unit sought is appropriate, except the Independent and CIO would also exclude the machinists. The CIO would, alterna- tively, either exclude all maintenance employees except the black- smiths, or acquiesce in the unit sought. The IAM contends that the unit sought is inappropriate and that the seven groups of employees' which it represents are appropriate, but contends that if the Board finds the unit sought appropriate, each of its seven groups should con- stitute a separate voting group. The Employer agrees that the unit sought is appropriate. As an alternative, the Employer contends that two separate units are appropriate : one composed of the employ- es represented by the Smelter Workers and the other composed of all the employees represented by IAM. The Employer opposes the es- tablishment of separate voting groups for each of the seven groups represented by I AM. The Employer is engaged in the mining and refining of potash and employs a total of about 800 employees in its operations. From 1941 to 1947 the employees of the Employer were represented by various labor organizations in a production and maintenance unit. The Smelter Workers was certified as representative of the production and maintenance unit on July 13, 1945. Subsequent thereto many em- ployee groups were severed therefrom as craft units. On January 3, 1947, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local No. 643, AFL, herein called IBEW, was certified as bargaining repre- sentative of the Employer's electricians. On October 18, 1948, the IAM was certified as representative of the Employer's machinists. On July 6, 1950, the IAM was certified as representative of seven units of employees, as follows: (1) Painters; (2) steelworkers, riggers, and hoist drivers; (3) pipefitters and plumbers; (4) carpenters and cement finishers; (5) lampmen; (6) maintenance mechanics, automotive me- chanics, and oiler-pumpers; and (7) powerhouse employees. The certifications of the IAM for these seven units, as well as its certifica- tion for the machinists unit, were issued pursuant to consent elections. The oilers and pumpers of the maintenance mechanics' unit were later added to the lampmen unit, which group was then designated by the Employer as utility servicemen, and the IAM was recognized as their bargaining agent. The powerhouse employees were transferred into the maintenance mechanics unit and the powerhouse unit no longer exists. On December 2, 1952, the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers, and Help- ers of America, herein called Boilermakers, was certified as represe-Ita- tive of the Employer's welders, and the Smelter Workers was certified Machinists, maintenance mechanics, carpenters, painters, steelworkers, pipefitters, and utility servicemen 379288-56-vol 113-5 56 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD as representative of all production employees in the mine, refinery, storage and loading, sampling, chemical plant, and common labor de- partments, and all blacksmiths, their helpers, and apprentices. At the present, the Employer has separate contracts with the Smelter Workers, IBEW, and Boilermakers covering their respective units. Each contract between the Employer and the TAM from 1950 to the present has covered all employees of the eight units for which the IAM had been certified. As above indicated, the Petitioner seeks a production and mainte- nance unit, with certain exclusions, while the Smelter Workers and the IAM oppose the absorption of the units for which they had been certi- fied. The IAM contends that the units of employees for which it had been certified are appropriate. As already indicated, these certifica- tions were all made pursuant to consent elections, and are not therefore by themselves controlling of the unit determination.' It is clear from the record that despite the separate certifications, the Employer and the IAM since 1950 have bargained for these employees on the basis of a single unit, with one contract covering all of these employees. In view of this bargaining history, we find that the separate groups have been merged into a single unit.' We, therefore, reject the con- tention of the IAM that each of the seven groups be established as a separate voting group. Accordingly, we find that the following em- ployees of the Employer constitute an appropriate unit for the pur- poses of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act : All of the Employer's maintenance employees at its Carlsbad, New Mexico, plant, including machinists, maintenance mechanics, painters, carpenters, steelworkers, pipefitters, and utility servicemen, but exclud- ing electricians, welders, office clerical employees, professional em- ployees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act, and all other employees. We now turn to the group represented by the Smelter Workers consisting of the production employees in the mine, refinery, storage and leading, sampling, chemical plant, and common labor depart- ments, and the blacksmiths. The Smelter Workers was certified for these employees on December 2,1952, after a Board-directed election,lo and they have been bargained for as a separate unit since that date under a collective-bargaining agreement. However, before directing an election for employees who have been separately represented, the Board must be administratively satisfied that the petitioning union 8 General Electric Compan4J (River Works), supra 0 Un,tted States Time Corporation, 108 NLRB 1435. At the hearing, the Petitioner requested an election in any group the Board finds to constitute an appropriate unit. 101nternatsonal Minerals & Chemical Corporation, 100 NLRB No 254 (not reported in pirated volumes of Board Decisions and Oiders). FRANCIS I. DU PONT AND COMPANY 57 has sufficient representative interests among those employees." In the instant case, we have administratively determined that the Peti- tioner has failed to make the necessary showing of interest among the production employees and blacksmiths. We shall, therefore, not direct an election for these employees. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] u See Tan Processing Corporatton, 96 NLRB 300, at p. 303 , Standard d Poor's Corpora- tton, 95 NLRB 248, at pp 249, 250 Francis I. Du Pont and Company and Western Broker Division of Commercial Telegraphers Union , AFL, Petitioner. Case No. 13-RC-4242. July 7,1955 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 Allen P. Haas, 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. 2. The labor organization involved claims 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 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The Petitioner seeks a unit of telegraphic employees at the Em- ployer's 62 offices in California, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma, Ne- braska, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Ten- nessee, Texas, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia, including telegraphers, teletypists, and trainees, but excluding all other em- ployees, professional employees, and all supervisors as defined in the Act. The Employer contends that the only appropriate unit should be confined to the telegraphic employees at its Chicago, Illinois, office. The Employer is a partnership with its principal offices in New York, New York, where it operates as a broker and dealer in securities and commodities and is a member of various national and local securities and commodities exchanges. Prior to April 1, 1954, the Employer maintained offices in 10 States and the District of Columbia under the Francis I. Du Pont title, with its main offices in New York City where it dealt primarily in the sale and purchase of stocks. On that date, the Employer acquired the business of James E. Bennett 113 NLRB No. 6.