Thiokol Chemical Corp.

THIOKOL CHEMICAL CORPORATION 547 with those in voting group (d),18 and the Regional Director conducting the election is instructed to issue a certification of representatives to the union selected by a majority of the employees in the pooled pro- duction and maintenance group, which the Board, in such circum- stances, finds to be appropriate for the purposes of collective bargain- ing. [Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.] CHAIRMAN FARnuiR took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Direction of Elections. >e If the votes are pooled, they are to be tallied in the following manner : The votes for the unions seeking separate units shall be counted as valid votes, but neither for nor against the unions seeking to represent the more comprehensive production and mainte- nance unit ; all other votes are to be accorded their face value whether for representation by a union seeking the more comprehensive group or for no union, Thiokol Chemical Corporation (Longhorn Division) and Local Union No. 324 of The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,' Petitioner Thiokol Chemical Corporation (Longhorn Division) and Interna- tional Chemical Workers Union, AFL,2 Petitioner Thiokol Chemical Corporation (Longhorn Division) and Plumb- ers and Steamfitters, Local No. 301, AFL,3-Petitioner. Cases Nos. 16RC 1633, 16-RC-1633, 16-RC-1661) 16-RC-1665, and 16-RC- 1666. August 10,1955- DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9 _ (c) of the Na- tional Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before J. Howard Stark, 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 a Delaware corporation, with plants in several States, engaged primarily in the manufacture of chemicals and syn- thetic rubber. The Employer's Longhorn Division (Karnack, Texas) operation is the only operation of the Employer ` involved here. There, the Employer, under a cast-plus-fixed-fee contract with the United States Government, provides the maintenance for a "mothballed" TNT plant, and also maintains and operates a rocket propellant plant. The legal title to these plants, all equipment and materials used, and all products manufactured, is at all times vested in the Government. 1 Herein called the IBEW, 0 Herein called the Chemical Workers. a Herein called the Plumbers. The Plumbers name appears as amended at the hearing. 113 NLRB No. 59. ,548 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The Employer contests the Board's jurisdiction herein on the grounds that (a) it is not the "employer," within the meaning of the Act, of the employees involved, asserting that by virtue of the many govern- mental controls to which it is subjected under its contract, it is merely an agent and that the Government is actually the employer; and (b) it is not engaged in "commerce" within the meaning of the Act. As to its first contention, it is clear from an examination of its con- tract with the Government the Employer retains the initial responsi- bility to effect the hire and discharge of the workers at the Longhorn Division operation, as well as most, if not all, of the other usual man- agement prerogatives. Thus, although many of the Employer's initial decisions may remain subject to the review and approval of the Gov- ernment, a fact necessitated by the desire of the Government to con- trol the "cost" feature of the "cost-plus" contract, the Employer re- tains a definite area of effective control over the labor relations at the Longhorn Division operation. In these circumstances, we find, con- trary to the Employer's contention, that it is the "employer" of the employees involved within the meaning of Section 2 (2) of the Act.' As to its second contention, during the past year the Employer sold and delivered directly across State lines products produced in its plants having a total value in excess of $3,000,000. Moreover, al- though security measures prevented the Employer's witnesses from revealing the figures exactly, they did testify that the Longhorn Divi- sion Government contract had a "multimillion dollar" value, and that during the past year the Employer had earned a fee of $56,000, over and above all expenses, for its services pursuant to that contract. As this $56,000 figure represents only the Employer's annual fee from services it provided, the total annual value of the services rendered pursuant to the "multimillion dollar" contract would appear to be far in excess of $100,000. Thus, it is apparent, that considering either the magnitude of the Employer's multistate operations,5 or the value of its,Longhorn Division's services pursuant to the defense contract,' the Employer's business meets the Board's jurisdictional standards. Accordingly, we find that the Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act and that it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. 2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em- ployees of the Employer.? A Garner Aviation Service Corporation, 101 NLRB 517, 518, and cases there cited ; Gar- ner Aviation Se> vice Corpwation, 111 NLRB 191; Great Southern Chemical Corporation, 96 NLRB 1013 , 1014-1015. 5 See American Steel Foundries . 112 NLRB 531, footnote 1; Jonesboro Grain Drying Cooperative, 110 NLRB 481. e See E I Dupont De Nemours and Company (Indiana Ordnance Works ), 112 NLRB 434. T International Association of Machinists , AFL, herein called the Machinists , was per- initted to intervene in Case No. 16-RC-1661 on the basis of its adequate showing of interest in the unit it sought. THIOKOL CHEMICAL CORPORATION 549 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, in each of the cases consoli- dated herein. 4. The Employer's Longhorn Division here involved consists of two plants, plant #1 and plant #3, located on the 8,500 acre Longhorn Ordnance Works reservation, near Karnack, Texas." Activation of the Longhorn Division commenced in early 1953. The employer's function there, to date, has been largely limited to that of a maintenance opera- tion and, as a consequence, most of the employees involved herein may be generally classified as maintenance employees. There is no history of collective bargaining for any of the employees at the Longhorn Division. The Chemical Workers, the Petitioner in Case No. 16-RC-1661, seeks to represent a plantwide unit of production and maintenance employees. Such a unit is presumptively appropriate.' Accordingly, no reasons being advanced to the contrary herein, we find that the pro- duction and maintenance unit sought by the Chemical Workers con- stitutes an appropriate unit. The other petitioners herein desire, basically,10 to represent various separate craft units, as follows: In Case No. 16-RC-1665, the Plumb- ers seeks a unit of plumbers and pipefitters and their apprentices. In Case No. 16-RC-1666, the Plumbers seeks a unit of carpenters and their apprentices and helpers, and a separate unit of millwrights and their apprentices and helpers." In Case No. 16-RC-1632, the IBEW seeks a unit of instrument repairmen and their apprentices. In Case No. 16-RC-1633, the IBEW petitioned for a unit of all maintenance electricians, linemen, and their apprentices. The Machinists, the In- tervenor in Case No. 16-RC-1661, seeks a separate unit of tool- and die-makers, machinists, and their apprentices and helpers. With respect to the foregoing unit requests, the Employer contends that only a plantwide unit is appropriate and that the separate units sought are inappropriate, in substance, because (a) the Employer's plant is a basic industry and is highly integrated; (b) the Employer's other plants, and ordnance plants in general, are organized on a plant- wide basis; and (c) with respect to the Plumbers' requests, that the Plumbers are not the traditional representative for two of the units they seek (carpenters and millwrights). As to contentions (a) and 8 There is a third plant located on the reservation, plant #2, which is operated by another company having no corporate relationship to the Employer here. 8 Southern Paperboai d Corporation, 1 12 NLRB 302. 10 The Plumbers, the IBEW, and the Machinists sought to include certain other classi- fications of employees with their basic craft unit requests These unit placement issues are discussed infra 11 The Plumbers, in this case, originally petitioned only for a unit of carpenters. At the hearing, presenting an adequate showing of interest among the millwrights and without objection of the other parties, the Plumbers were permitted to amend their petition to seek also a separate unit of millwrights. 550 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (b) above, they are insufficient under Board doctrine to preclude the separate representation of employees on less than a plantwide basis, provided the requisites for such separate representation are otherwise met." Moreover, contention (c) is relevant only to severance cases- which the instant case is not.13 Accordingly, we reject the Employer's contention that only the plantwide unit is appropriate. There appears to be no dispute as to the craft status of the various maintenance groups sought to be represented herein. The record re- veals undisputed testimony to the effect that, although no formal train- ing or apprentice programs are presently established at the Longhorn Division, when employees are hired into the various maintenance classifications here involved, they are required to have already under- gone extensive training and experience, and have for the most part already acquired a journeyman's status in their respective craft; and that these various groups of employees work at the skills of their craft, without interchange with other employees, and, for the most part, under separate supervision. From the foregoing, we find, that insofar as the Plumbers seeks to represent a separate unit of plumbers and pipefitters, and the Machin- ists a separate unit of tool- and die-makers and machinists, that each of these groups is composed of craftsmen having duties and interests clearly separable from the other employees herein, and that each may properly indicate their choice of representatives as a separate voting group. As noted, the IBEW sought separate units of electricians and instru- ment repairmen. However, it appears from the record that the instru- ment repairmen work exclusively upon instruments of an electrical nature, and that some of the electricians work under the same imme- diate supervision as do the instrument repairmen. From this record, it appears that the instrument repairmen and the electricians are craftsmen having essentially the same interests, and we shall therefore place them in the same voting group.14 With respect to the Plumbers' requests for separate units of carpen- ters and millwrights, in view of the similar nature of the duties and interests of these craftsmen, we shall, in accord with the alternate unit request of the Plumbers, and as has often been done in the past, com- bine the carpenters and the millwrights herein, into a single voting group 15 There remains for consideration issues concerning the unit place- ment of welders, air-conditioning mechanics, instrument mechanics- electrical, machine shop inspectors, and the tool crib attendants. Is Southwestern Portland Cement Company, 110 NLRB 1388; Beaunit Mills, Inc., 109 NLRB 651, 652-653. 13 Mock, Judson, Voehringer Company of North Caroltina, Inc., 110 NLRB 437. 14 See Buick Motor Dcvision, General Motors Corporattion Jet Plant, 105 NLRB 488. 25 See Montgomery Ward & Co., 110 NLRB 256; The Kroger Co., 103 NLRB 218, 219. THIOKOL CHEMICAL CORPORATION 551 Welders: The Plumbers and the Machinists seek to include in their voting groups any welders who are regularly assigned to work with the craftsmen they seek. However, it is clear from the record that the welders work out of a pool and are not regularly assigned to any of the craft groups herein. Accordingly, we shall not include the welders in any of the craft voting groups but instead shall include them in the production and maintenance voting group, hereinafter described.16 Air-conditioning mechanics : The Plumbers would include the air- conditioning mechanics with the voting group of plumbers and pipe- fitters, which we have heretofore found may be an appropriate unit. The Employer contends the air-conditioning mechanics are sepa- rately supervised and would not so include them. The record shows that the air-conditioning mechanics, or refrigeration mechanics, al- though working under different immediate supervision from the pipe- fitters and plumbers, have undergone similar training, perform quite similar duties, and receive the same rates of pay as the pipefitters and plumbers. Their pipefitting and plumbing skills are, however, utilized solely upon the installation and maintenance of air-condition- ing and refrigeration equipment. In these circumstances, we shall include them in the voting group with the pipefitters and plumbers.17 Instrument mechanics-electrical: The IBEW would include a classification entitled instrument mechanic-electrical in the unit of instrument repairmen it sought in Case No. 16-RC-1632. The record, however, fails to establish that the Employer has any such classifica- tion of employees. We shall, therefore, not include the term instru- ment mechanic-electrical in the description of the electrician-instru- ment repairmen voting group. Machine shop inspectors: The Machinists would include machine shop inspectors in the tool- and die-makers unit. The Employer's contention that it has no such employee classification is undisputed. We therefore shall not include this classification in the tool- and die- maker voting group. Tool crib attendants: The Machinists would include these em- ployees in the voting group of tool- and die-makers. The tool crib attendants are not craftsmen. The Employer's contention that the tool crib attendants issue tools not only to tool- and die-makers and machinists, but to all classifications of employees as well, is undis- puted. It further appears that these tool crib employees are not in the same department or line of progression as the tool- and die-makers and machinists. Accordingly, we shall exclude the tool crib attend- 10 Cf. Clayton & Lambert Manufacturing Company, Ordnance Division, 111 NLRB 540:; Rayonier Inc., 111 NLRB 1090. 17 See Automatic Heating and Equipment Company, 100 NLRB 571, 572--573. 379288-56-vol. 113-36 552 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ants from the tool- and die-maker voting group and shall include them in the production and maintenance voting group.18 In view of the foregoing, we shall direct that elections be conducted in the following voting groups of employees at the Employer's Long- horn Division operation : (1) All plumbers, pipefitters, and air-conditioning mechanics and their helpers. (2) All millwrights and carpenters, and their helpers, but exclud- ing the "inside millwrights." le (3) All maintenance electricians, maintenance linemen, and instru- ment repairmen and their helpers. (4) All tool- and die-makers and machinists, including floor Ina- chinists 20 and leadmen 21 and their helpers. (5) All production and maintenance employees, including laborers and janitors, but excluding employees in voting groups (1) through (4), office clerical employees, professional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. If a majority of the employees in each, or any, of voting groups (1), (2), (3), and (4) select the labor organization seeking to repre- sent them separately, those employees will be taken to have indicated their desire to constitute a separate appropriate unit and the'Regiohal Director conducting the elections is instructed to issue a certification of representatives to the labor organization thus selected in each group, which the Board, in such circumstances, finds to be an appropriate unit for purposes of collective bargaining. If a majority of the em- ployees in each of voting groups (1), (2), (3), and (4) vote for the labor organizations seeking to represent them separately and if a majority of the employees in voting group (5) vote for the Chemical Workers, the Regional Director is instructed to issue a certification of representatives to the Chemical Workers for a separate-unit of em- ployees described in voting group (5) which the Board, under, the circumstances, finds appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining. On the other hand, if a majority of the employees in each, or any, of voting groups (1), (2), (3), and (4) do not vote for the labor organization which is seeking to represent them in a separate unit, the employees in each such group will be included in, and their votes See The Venda Company, 110 NLRB 807. iB See footnote 20, infra. The Plumbers and the Machinists agreed, without objection by any of the other parties, that the so-called "inside millwrights" or "floor machinists" work regularly with' the machinists, perform only machinists' duties, and, properly, should be classified as ma- chinists. Accordingly, we shall include these employees in the voting group with the machinists. ai The Machinists sought the inclusion of the leadmen in the tool- and die-makers voting group The other patties expressed no objection. However, the record is silent as to the scope of the leadmen's duties In view of tliis, and the fact that none of the other unit re- quests involved leadmen, we shall permit the leadmen to vote with the tool- and die-makers voting group subject to being challenged as possessing supervisory authority. CATERPILLAR TRACTOR CO. 553 pooled with those of, voting group (5),22 and the Regional Director conducting the elections is instructed to issue a certification of repre- sentatives to the labor organization selected by a majority of the em- ployees in the pooled group which the Board, in such circumstances, finds to be a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining. 5. The Employer contends that no election should be directed herein earlier than January 1, 1956, because it will not be engaged in full production before that time and, as a consequence, will not have a representative complement of employees until that time. The Em- ployer admits in its brief that it cannot predict with accuracy the date on which full production will begin. Such a date hinges upon the receipt of Government orders by the Employer. Further, the Em- ployer's general manager testified at the hearing that employees were presently working in almost every classification that the Employer would ever utilize and that at peak production the working force would be "about double" that now in effect. In such circumstances, we find that the Employer's present complement of employees consti- tutes a substantial and representative segment of the employees to be employed eventually at the Employer's Longhorn Division, and shall, in accordance with our usual practice in such situations, direct an immediate election herein 23 [Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.] J "If the votes are pooled, they are to be tallied in the following manner : The votes for the unions seeking the separate unit shall be counted as valid votes, but neither for nor against the union seeking to represent the more comprehensive unit ; all other votes are to be accorded their face value, whether for representation by the union seeking the com- prehensive group or for no union. 23 General Electric Company, 112 NLRB 839 ; Simmons Company, 112 NLRB 83. Caterpillar Tractor Co. and District No. 55, International Asso- ciation of Machinists, A.F.L. Case No. 13-CA-169. August 11, 1955 DECISION AND ORDER On October 15, 1954, Trial Examiner Arthur E. Reyman issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Inter- mediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief.' The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. 1 The Respondent's request for oral argument is hereby denied as, in our opinion, the record and the Respondent 's exceptions and brief , adequately present the issues and the positions of the parties. 113 NLRB No. 37.