Reichhold Chemicals, Inc.

REICHHOLD CHEMICALS, INC 619 3 The Respondent above named has not now and has not been engaged in violation of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, as alleged in the complaint as amended The following proposed conclusions of law, submitted on behalf of the Respondent, are accepted by the Trial Exammer, and adopted as his own (2) That Respondent has not discriminated in regard to the hire, tenure or any term or condition of the employment of Irvin Joseph Meche, Alex Gurka, Robert Brown, Lewis Ross, Charlie Gant, Robert Perry and Jewel Taylor, in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act (3) That Respondent has not interfered with, restrained or coerced its employees in the exercise of rights, guaranteed to them by Section 7 of the Act, in violation of Section 8(a) (1) of the Act (Recommendations omitted from publication I Reichhold Chemicals, Inc and International Union of Operat- ing Engineers, Local 465, AFL-CIO and International Chemi- cal Workers Union, AFL-CIO and General Drivers, Ware- housemen & Helpers, Local 509, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Petitioners. Cases Nos 11-RC-1294, 11-RC-1300, and II-EC-1301 February 12, 1960 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 James R. Webster, 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 National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Members Rodgers, Jenkins, and Fanning] 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 The Employer has no bargaining history at its Hampton, South Carolina, plant, involved herein International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 465, AFL-CIO, herein called Operating Engineers, seeks to represent a unit of all production and maintenance employees of the Employer at its Hampton, South Carolina, plant , including plant operators, helpers, and laborers , but excluding truckdrivers, office clericals, chemists, laboratory employees, guards, watchmen, and 1 The captioned cases were consolidated for hearing by order of the Regional Director dated November 2, 1959 126 NLRB No 76 620 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD all supervisors as defined in the Act. The International Chemical Workers Union, AFL-CIO, herein called the Chemical Workers, seeks to represent a unit similar to that sought by the Operating Engineers, except that it would include in the unit the Employer's truckdrivers. General Drivers, Warehousemen & Helpers, Local 509, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware- housemen and Helpers of America, herein called the Teamsters, seeks to represent a unit of truckdrivers only at the Employer's Hampton, South Carolina, plant. The Employer at its Hampton, South Carolina, plant is engaged in the manufacture and processing of formaldehyde; it employs approxi- mately 18 employees, excluding office clericals and supervisors. The truckdrivers are classified on its payroll as truckdrivers and when they drive trucks, which takes almost all of their time, they are paid on a mileage basis. All other employees involved are paid on an hourly basis. On occasions, infrequently, the truckdrivers, in order to avoid a brief layoff, accept other work in the plant that is usually performed by the production and maintenance employees and on such occasions they are paid on an hourly basis. Truckdrivers are not obliged to accept any other type of work. They have the choice of going home and returning when there is driving to be done. It is clear from the record that the greater portion of their working time is taken up with actually driving trucks. In so doing they are per- forming a function which is materially different from that performed by the other employees. In such circumstances we find that the truck- drivers constitute a functionally distinct group such as the Board has traditionally accorded the right of self-determination.2 Accordingly, we find that the Employer's truckdrivers may, if they so desire, con- stitute a separate appropriate group. Accordingly, we shall direct elections in the two following groups of employees at the Employer's Hampton, South Carolina, plant, excluding from each group office clericals, chemists, laboratory em- ployees, guards, watchmen, and all supervisors as defined in the Act. Group 1. All production and maintenance employees including plant operators, helpers, and laborers. Group 2. All truckdrivers. We shall place the names of the Operating Engineers and the Chem- ical Workers on the ballot in the election among the employees in voting group 1, and the Operating Engineers, Chemical Workers, and Teamsters on the ballot in the election among the employees in group 2.3 Intcrchemical Corporation , 116 NLRB 1443 See also Tropicana Products, Inc., 122 NLRB 121. 8If the Operating Engineers does not wish to appear on the ballot in voting group 2, we shall permit it to withdraw from the election in that group upon written notice to the Regional Director within 10 days from this Decision and Direction of Elections WILMINGTON BUILDING & CONSTRUCTION TRADES, ETC. 621 5. If a majority of the employees voting in group 2 select the Team- sters, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to constitute a separate unit, and the Regional Director conducting the elections di- rected herein is hereby instructed to issue a certification of representa- tives to the Teamsters for such unit, which the Board, in such circum- stances, finds appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining. If, however, a majority in voting group 2 does not vote for the Teamsters, such a group will appropriately be included with the em- ployees in voting group 1 and their votes will be pooled with those in voting group 1.4 The aforesaid Regional Director is instructed to issue a certification of representatives to the labor organization se- lected by the majority of the employees in the pooled group, which unit the Board, in such circumstances, finds to be appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining. [Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.] " If the votes are pooled, they are to be tallied in the following manner : The votes for the labor organization seeking a separate unit in group 2 shall be counted as valid votes but neither for nor against the labor oigamzations seeking to represent the production and maintenance unit All other votes are to be accorded their face value, whether for representation by the unions seeking the more comprehensive group or for no union. Wilmington Building and Construction Trades Council, AFL- CIO and James H. Wood. Case No. 5-CC-114. February 15, 1960 DECISION AND ORDER On November 19, 1959, Trial Examiner Louis Plost issued his In- termediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had not engaged in and was not engaging in the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and recommending that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the General Coun- sel filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report, together with a sup- porting brief; the Respondent filed a brief in support of the Inter- mediate Report. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter- mediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in the case, and finds merit in the General Counsel's exceptions. Accord- ingly, the Board adopts the findings of the Trial Examiner, but not his conclusions and recommendations. In 1959, Charging Party Wood, a general contractor, was engaged in three construction projects in the vicinity of Dover, Delaware. 126 NLRB No. 79.