United States Rubber Co.

In the Matter Of UNITED STATES RUBBER COMPANY (PROVIDENCE PLANT) and RUBBER WORKERS FEDERAL LABOR UNION, LOCAL #22014, AFFILIATED WITH THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR In the Matter Of UNITED STATES RUBBER COMPANY and UNITED RUBBER WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFFILIATED WITH THE C. I. O. In the Matter Of UNITED STATES RUBBER COMPANY and LOCAL UNION B102, IBEW Cases Nos. R-1669, R-1670, and R-1671, respectively.Decided February 16, 1940 Rubber Products Manufacturing In dustry-Investigation of Representatives: controversy concerning representation of employees: rival organizations; em- ployer's refusal to grant exclusive recognition to any of the labor organizations at 2 of 10 plants-Units _Appropriate for Collective Bargaining : dispute as to whether employees at all 10 plants constitute single appropriate unit or whether production , maintenance , and shipping employees , including non-supervisory in- structors , but excluding supervisory employees , watchmen, office employees, and employees in the product development, specialties , laboratory control, loans, and miscellaneous office and draft-room departments at one of the plants constitute a separate appropriate unit: plants separately managed, and each has a labor relations supervisor ; separate exclusive bargaining contracts covering the em- ployees in five plants with union claiming employer-wide unit; although steps taken toward bargaining on employer-wide basis, past collective bargaining recog- nized individual status of plants; unit limited'to one plant of the employer ; craft unit for electrical workers in one plant; ( Smith , dissenting ) favoring employer- wide unit , covering all 10 plants-Elections Ordered: separately among employees in one plant and among craft group in another ; name of union claiming no members at plant in which election ordered among craft group excluded from ballot-Order : dismissing petition for employer -wide unit where employer-wide unit not found appropriate. Mr. Edward Schneider and Mr. Albert Ornstein, for the Board. Mr. Sidney Clifford, of Providence, R. I., and Mr. A. P. Battler, of New York City, for the Company. Mr. Herbert S. Thatcher, of Washington, D. C., for the I. B. E. W. and Local 22014. Mr. Stanley Den.linger, of Akron, Ohio, and Mr. Samuel L. Roth- bard; of Newark, N. J., for the United. Mr. David Kaplan, of Washington, D. C., for the I. A. M. Mr. Louis Cokin, of counsel to the Board. 20 N. L . R. B., No. 50. 473 474 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD DECISION DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS AND ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE On September 15, 1939, Rubber Workers Federal Labor Union, Local #22014, herein called Local 22014, filed with the Regional Di- rector for the First Region (Boston, Massachusetts) a petition alleg- ing that a question had arisen concerning representation of employees at the Providence, Rhode Island, plants of United States Rubber Company, New York City, herein called the Company, and request- ing an investigation and certification of representatives pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. On October 28, 1939, Local Union B102 of International Brother- hood of Electrical Workers, herein called the I. B. E. W., filed with the Regional Director for the Second Region (New York City) a petition alleging that a question had arisen concerning representation of electrical workers at the Passaic, New Jersey, plant of the Com- pany, and requesting an investigation and certification of representa- tives pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the Act. On November 3, 1939, United Rubber Workers of America, herein called the United, filed with the Regional Director for the First Region a petition alleging that a question had arisen concerning rep- resentation of employees of all the rubber plants of the Company, and requesting an investigation and certification of representatives pur- suant to Section 9 (c) of the Act. On November 8, 1939, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, acting pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the Act and Article III, Section 3, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2, ordered an investigation in Cases Nos. R-16691 and R-1670,2 and authorized the Regional Director for the First Region to conduct it and to provide for an appropriate hearing upon due notice, and, acting pursuant to Article III, Section 10 (c) (2), of said Rules and Regulations, ordered that the two cases be consoli- dated for all purposes. On the same day the Board, acting pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the Act and Article III, Section 3, of said "Rules and Regulations, ordered an investigation in Case No. R-16713 and 'Initiated by the petition filed by Local 22014. 2 Initiated by the petition filed by the United. 8Initiated by the petition filed by the I. B. E, w. UNITED STATES RUBBER 00THPANY 475 authorized the Regional Director for the Second Region to conduct it and to provide for an appropriate hearing upon due notice. On November 16, 1939, the Regional Director for the First Region issued a notice of hearing in Cases Nos. R-1669 and R-1670, copies of which were duly served upon the Company, Local 22014, and the United. On November 20, 1939, the Regional Director issued a notice of continuance. Pursuant to notice a hearing was held on November 28, 29, December 11 and 12, 1939, at Providence, Rhode Island, before Joseph Maguire, the Trial Examiner duly. designated by the Board. On November 20, 1939, the Regional Director for the Second Region issued a notice of hearing in Case No. R-1671, copies of which were duly served upon the Company, the I. B. E. W., the United, and upon United Electrical Radio & Machine Workers of America.' On Decem- ber 12, 1939, the Regional Director issued a notice of continuance. On December 13, 1939, the Board, acting pursuant to Article III, Section 10 (c) (3), of its Rules and Regulations, transferred Case No. R-1671 from the Second to. the First Region, and, acting pursuant to Article III, Section 10 (c) (2), of its Rules and Regulations, ordered that all three cases be consolidated for all purposes. A hearing was held in the consolidated cases on, December 21, 1939, at New York City, before Trial Examiner Maguire. At the close of the hearing, Local 22014 and the United moved to amend the petitions in Cases Nos. R-1669 and R-1670 to conform to the proof adduced at the hearing. The motion was granted. During the course of the hearing the Trial Examiner made several rulings on other motions and on objections to the admission of evidence. The Board has reviewed all the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial errors were com- mitted. The rulings are hereby affirmed. On December 26 and 29, 1939, requests for permission to argue orally before the Board were filed by the Company, the United, and Local 22014. On January 11, 1940, the Company filed a brief which the Board has considered. Pursuant to notice duly served upon all the parties, a hearing was held for the purpose of oral argument before the Board on January 11, 1940, at Washington, D. C. The Company, Local 22014, the United and the I. B. E. W. were represented by counsel and participated in the argument. International Association of Machinists, a labor organiza- tion affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, herein called the I. A. M., appeared by counsel at the oral argument. Counsel stated that the I. A. M. had contracts with the Company covering machinists employed at two of the plants involved in these proceedings and that the I. A. M.'s appearance at the oral argument was to protect its inter- ests arising by virtue of such contracts. At the oral argument counsel 476 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD for the United stated that the Company was carrying on negotiations for the purchase of Fisk Rubber Company and on that ground moved that the proceedings be reopened to take evidence in regard to the propriety of including the Fisk Rubber Company plant at Chicopee, Massachusetts, in the unit alleged to be appropriate by the United. In view of the Board's findings in Section V below, this motion is hereby denied. Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY United States Rubber Company, a corporation organized under the laws of New Jersey, is engaged in the manufacture and sale of over 30,000 types of rubber products. Its principal office is in New York City and it has plants in Detroit, Michigan; Indianapolis and Mishawaka, Indiana; Los Angeles, California; Eau Claire, Wis- consin; Naugatuck, Waterbury, and Sandy Hook, Connecticut; Provi- dence and Bristol, Rhode Island; Passaic, New Jersey; Winnsboro, South Carolina; Hogansville, Georgia; and Shelbyville, Tennessee. In 1938 more than 34,000 persons were employed at these plants, and the pay roll for 1938 was approximately $45,000,000. Approximately 50 per cent of the raw materials used by the Com- pany at each of its plants and 50 per cent of the finished products manufactured at each of the plants are transported in interstate com- merce. The Company sold goods valued at approximately $170,000,000 in 1938. H. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED Rubber Workers Federal Labor Union, Local #22014, is a labor organization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor. It admits to membership all the production, shipping, and maintenance employees at the Providence plants of the Company, excluding super- visory employees, watchmen, and clerical employees. United Rubber Workers of America is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations. It admits to mem- bership all the production and maintenance employees at the Com- pany's plants at Providence, Bristol, Passaic, Naugatuck, Sandy Hook, Mishawaka, Indianapolis, Detroit, Eau Claire, and Los Angeles. Local Union B102 of International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers is a labor organization affiliated with the American Federa- tion of Labor. It admits to membership the electrical workers in the Passaic plant of the Company. UNITED STATES RUBBER COMPANY III. THE QUESTIONS CONCERNING REPRESENTATION 477 On August 15, 1939, Local 22014, claiming to represent a majority of the employees at the two Providence plants, requested the manager of those plants to bargain with it as the exclusive representative of the employees. The manager stated that he was willing to recognize Local 22014 for its members only but not as exclusive representative until it had been certified-by this Board as the representative of a majority of the employees. In. October 1939 the I.. B. E. W. requested the manager of the Passaic plant to bargain with it as the exclusive representative of the electrical workers in that plant. He agreed to recognize the I. B. E. W. as exclusive representative provided that this Board found that the I. B. E. W. represented a majority of the electrical workers. We find that questions have arisen concerning the representation of employees of the Company. IV. THE EFFECT OF. THE QUESTIONS CONCERNING REPRESENTATION UPON COMMERCE We find that the questions concerning representation which have arisen, occurring in connection with the operations of the Company described in Section I above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE APPROPRIATE UNITS The United contends that all production and maintenance employees in the rubber plaints of the Company at Providence and Bristol, Rhode Island ; Passaic, New Jersey ; Sandy Hook and Naugatuck, Connecti- cut; Detroit, Michigan; Mishawaka and Indianapolis, Indiana; Eau Claire, Wisconsin ; and Los Angeles, California, including group lead- ers doing a substantial amount of physical production work, but ex- eluding shift supervisors, foremen, assistant foremen, and clerical employees, constitute a single unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining.4 The Company and Local 22014 agree with the United as to the in- clusion and exclusion of the enumerated classifications of employees, but contend that the employees at each plant constitute a separate unit 'The plants of the Company located at Waterbury, Connecticut ; Winnsboro, South Carolina ; Hogansville, Georgia ; and Shelbyville, Tennessee, are not engaged in production of rubber products. 478 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD for the-purposes of collective bargaining, and that in any event the employees at the Providence plants constitute a separate bargaining unit. The I. B. E. W. claims that the electrical workers at the Passaic plant constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bar- gaining. It makes no claim respecting the electrical workers employed in the other rubber plants of the Company. The central office for all plants of the Company is in New York City. Practically all the raw materials for the different plants are purchased at the New York City office, and accounts and sales for all the plants are handled there. Wage increases at each of the plants must clear through the central office in New York City. Each plant is under a, separate manager, has its own labor relations supervisor, and does its own hiring and discharging. No two of the plants- manufacture the same products and there is a substantial difference in.rates of pay, hours, working conditions, and manufacturing processes between the several plants. With the exception of a small amount of chemicals and reclaimed rubber there is no transmission of raw materials or semi-nmanufactured products between the different plants. There is no interchange of employees between plants. In September 1937 officials of the United and the Company met at Cleveland, Ohio, and discussed the possibility of entering into a con- tract covering the employees at all the rubber plants of the Company. Officials of the Company stated that they considered such an em- ployer-wide contract premature at- that time, but that they saw no reason to "shut the door" to negotiations for such a contract- in the future when the parties had had some experience in dealing with each other. On October 27, 1938, the Company and Local 19 of the United en- tered into an exclusive bargaining contract for a 1-year period, cover- ing the employees at the Eau Claire plant. This contract was renewed on October 27, 1939, for a period of 1 year. On May 24, 1939, Local 65 of the United and the Company entered into an exclusive bargaining contract for a period of 1 year covering the employees at the Misha- waka plant. On September 1, 1939, Local 110 of the United and the Company entered into an exclusive bargaining contract for a period of 1 year covering the employees of the plant at Indianapolis, except .machinists. Local 44 of the United and the Company entered into an exclusive bargaining contract on October 31, 1939, for a period of 1 year covering the employees at the Los Angeles plant. On November 27, 1939, Local 101 of the United and the Company entered into a 1-year exclusive bargaining' contract covering the employees at the Detroit plant. All the afore-mentioned contracts were negotiated be- tween local plant managers and officials of various locals of the United. UN[TED STATES RUBBER COMPANY 479 National officers of the Company and the United did not participate in the negotiation or consummation of the contracts . Two of these contracts specifically provided that in the event the parties entered into an employer-wide agreement in the future the terms of these contracts should be modified to conform with that agreement. . The United claims no membership among the employees at the Passaic and Sandy Hook plants . It claims members among the em- ployees at the Bristol , Naugatuck, and Providence plants, but it has never . attempted to bargain for the employees at those three , plants. In May 1939, officials of the United and the Company met at In- dianapolis , Indiana, for the purpose of discussing a vacation policy for all the rubber plants of the Company. The vacation plan dis- cussed at this conference was incorporated into the contracts covering individual plants negotiated with the Company by the United after this conference . This vacation plan was also adopted at the Provi- dence plant, although the United had no contract covering the em- ployees at that plant. The following chart sets forth certain relevant matters in connection with each of the plants: ubber plants of the Company Num- ber of em- Iiloyees Num- ber of mem- hers clabyed United Num- ber of mem- hers claimed by Local 22014 Number of members claimed by I. B. E. W. ollective bargaining agreements 1. Providence , R. I. 2171 457 1500 _______________ . (two plants). 2. Bristol, 'R.I--------- 484 ? ________ --------------- 3 Eau Claire , Wis.... 2100 1884 _ Exclusive bargaining contract with United, October 27, 1939, to October 27, 1940. This contract renewed a contract which was in existence from October 27, 1938, to October 27, 1939. 4. Los Angeles, Calif__ 1060 950 _ Exclusive bargaining contract entered into with United on October 31, 1939. 6. Naugatuck , Conn. 6667 499 _ Membership contract with Interna- (two plants). tional Association of Machinists. 6. Mishawaka , Ind---- 3224 13595 _ Exclusive bargaining contract with United entered into May 24, 1939. 7. Detroit, Mich______ 5346 4234 _ Exclusive bargaining contract with United entered into May 27, 1939. 8. Indianapolis , Ind___ 1252 1174 _ Exclusive bargaining contract with United entered into September 1, 1939. Contract excludes machinists from unit. International Association of Machinists has contract with Com- pany covering machinists. o. Passaic , N. 7________ 2016 0 _ (of 17 elec- trical work- ers). 10. Sandy Hook, Conn 49 0 ______________ I Apparently this figure includes employees laid off and not working. We are of the opinion that the rubber plants of the Company should not at this time be grouped together as a single bargaining unit. While the United made some attempt to bargain on an employer-wide basis, as evidenced by the 1937 conference, the vacation program discussed 480 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD at Indianapolis in 1939, and the modification clauses contained in two of the afore-mentioned contracts, the actual bargaining practice has not been on such basis. On the contrary, the bargaining practice in the past has recognized the individual status of the separate plants.' Also, as pointed out above, the United has not bargained or attempted to bargain with the Company for the employees of 5 of the 10 plants. In two of these five plants the United has no members and in the other three only a small number of members. While the operations of the plants are interrelated in some respects and all are subject to the cen- tral control of the Company's New York office, these facts do not out- weigh the foregoing considerations. In view of all the evidence adduced. at the hearing, therefore, we are unable to conclude that em- ployees of the Company's plants at Providence, Bristol, Passaic, Sandy Hook, Naugatuck, Detroit, Mishawaka, Indianapolis, Eau Claire, and Los Angeles, should be embraced within a single bargaining unit at this time. Accordingly we find that the unit sought by the United is not appro- priate for the purposes of collective bargaining and we shall, therefore, dismiss the petition of the United. The United, Local 22014, and the Company agreed at the hearing that in the event that the Board found that the Company's employees. at Providence could constitute an appropriate bargaining unit, such unit should consist of all production, maintenance, and shipping em- ployees at the two Providence plants,6 including non-supervisory in- structors, but excluding supervisory employees, watchmen, office- employees, and employees in the product development, specialties, laboratory control, loans, and miscellaneous office and draft-room departments. We see no reason why such a unit is not appropriate. We find that all production, maintenance, and shipping employees of the Company at its two Providence plants, including non-super- visory instructors, but excluding supervisory employees, watchmen, office employees, and employees in the product development, specialties, laboratory control, loans, and miscellaneous office and draft-room departments, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collec- tive bargaining and that said unit will insure to employees of the Com- pany the full benefit of their right to self-organization and to collec- tive bargaining and otherwise effectuate the policies of the Act. As stated above, the I. B. E. W. claims that the electrical workers at the Passaic plant constitute an appropriate bargaining unit. The electrical workers, of whom there are 17, are engaged in the installa- tion and maintenance .of equipment used in the manufacture of rubber 'Matter of Chrysler Corporation and United Automobile lVorker8 of America, Local 371, affiliated with C. I. 0., 13 N. L. R. B. 1303. G The two plants at Providence are under the supervision of a single manager and are considered by the Company as one plant. UNITED ST. A°TES RUBBER GOIIIPANY 481 products. They are a well-defined craft group receiving substantially higher rates of pay than production workers and performing their work in a section of the plant set aside especially for them. The United claims no members at the Passaic plant and, so far as the record shows, no other labor organization has members at that plant. We find that the electrical workers of the Company at the. Passaic plant constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bar- gaining and that said unit will insure to employees of the Company the full benefit of their right to self-organization and to collective bar- gaining and otherwise effectuate the policies of the Act. VI. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES The United, Local 22014, and the Company agreed that an election by secret ballot is necessary to resolve the question concerning repre- sentation at the Providence plants. We will direct that an election by secret ballot be held. We find that those eligible to vote in the election at the Providence plants shall be employees in the appro- priate unit who were employed during the pay-roll period immiledi- ately preceding the date of our Direction of Election, including em- ployees who did not work during such pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation and employees who were then or have since been temporarily laid off, but excluding those employees who have since quit or been discharged for cause. Although the I. B. E. W. claimed to represent 13 of the 17 elec- trical workers at the Passaic plant, it introduced no documentary evidence to substantiate its claim. We find that an election by secret ballot is necessary to resolve the question concerning representation of the electrical workers at the Company's plant in Passaic. Since -the United claims no members at the Passaic plant, we will not accord it a place on the ballot. We find that those eligible to vote in the election at the Passaic, plant shall be the employees in the appro- priate unit who were employed during the pay-roll period innne- diately preceding the date of our Direction of Election, including employees who did not work during such pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation and employees who were then or have since been temporarily laid off, but excluding those employees who have since quit or been discharged for cause. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : 1. Questions affecting commerce have arisen concerning the repre- sentation of employees of the United States Rubber Company, New York City, at its Providence and Passaic plants, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act. 482 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 2. All production, maintenance, and shipping employees of the Company at its Providence plants, including non-supervisory instruc- tors, but excluding supervisory employees, watchmen, office employees, and employees in the product development, specialties, laboratory con- trol, loans, and miscellaneous office and draft-room departments, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act. 3. All electrical workers employed by the Company at its Passaic plant "'constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act. 4. No question concerning the representation of employees at the Bristol, Sandy Hook, Naugatuck, Detroit, Mishawaka, Indianapolis, Eau Claire, and Los Angeles plants of the Company in a unit which is appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining has arisen, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Rela- tions Act. DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS By vhtile of and" pursuant to the' power vested in the National Labor Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Rela- tions Act, and pursuant to Article III, Section 8, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2, as amended, it is hereby DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation authorized by the Board to ascertain representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining -Nvith United States Rubber Company, New York City, an election by secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than thirty (30) clays from the date of this Direction, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the First Region, acting in this matter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board and :subject to Article III, Section 9, of said Rules and Regulations, among all production, maintenance, and shipping employees of the 'Company at its two, Providence plants, including non-supervisory instructors, employees who did not work during such pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation, and employees who were then or have since been temporarily laid off, but excluding supervisory employees, watch- Men, office employees, and employees of the product development, specialties, laboratory control, loans, and miscellaneous office and draft-room departments, and employees who have since quit or been •discharged for cause, to determine whether they desire to be represented by Rubber Workers Federal Labor Union, Local #22014, affiliated % ''ith the American Federation of Labor, or by United Rubber Workers - UNITED 'S,TATES RUBBER . G0\IPA\-Y - 483 of America, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, for the purposes of collective bargaining, or by neither; and it is FURTHER DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation authorized by the Board to ascertain representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining with United States Rubber Company, New York .City, an election by secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than thirty (30) days from the date of this Direction, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the First Region, with the assistance of ' the Regional Director for the Second Region, acting in this matter as agents for the National Labor Rela- tions-Board and subject.to.Article III, Section 9, of said Rules and Regulations, among all the electrical workers in the Company's plant at Passaic, who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of this Direction, including employees who did not work during such pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation and employees who were then or have since been temporarily laid off, but excluding employees who have since quit or been dis- charged for cause, to determine whether or not they desire to be repre- sented by Local Union B102 of International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, for the purposes of collective bargaining. AND IT IS ORDERED that the petition for investigation and certifica- tion filed by United Rubber Workers of America be, and it hereby is, dismissed. MR. EDWIN S. SMITH, dissenting: I dissent from the decision that an employer -wide bargaining unit is inappropriate in this case. It is plain from the record that the trend of the collective bargaining process developed by the United and the Company has from the outset been toward bargaining on the broad basis of an employer-wide unit. As early as 1937 the United sought to bargain with the Company on an employer-wide basis and, although such bargaining was not instituted at that time, the Company expressly indicated that subse- quent negotiations, when the parties . had, acquired some experience in dealing with each other, might well result in an employer-wide con- tract. Since 1937 the United has entered into separate exclusive bargaining contracts with the Company covering the workers at five of the plants. A majority of the workers employed by the Company at all its rubber plants work under terms and conditions fixed by these contracts between the United and the Company . Two of these con- tracts recognize an employer-wide contract between the United and the Company as an imminent possibility and contain clauses providing for modification to conforiii ' to an^employer-wide agreement in the event 484 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD one is reached. Also, in May 1939 the Company and the United dis- cussed a vacation plan for all the rubber plants and this vacation plan was . incorporated into the separate plant contracts subsequently executed by the United and the Company . This vacation plan was also put into effect at the Providence plants which do not operate under any collective bargaining agreement , when the employees at Providence learned .that the vacation plan had been adopted in other plants covered by United 'contracts. . The United claims as members a majority of the workers employed at all the rubber plants of the Company and , as stated above, the United contracts govern the terms and conditions of employment of a majority of the workers at all the rubber plants. - No other labor organization has established contractual relations with the Company for the production workers at any of the rubber plants and , except for the Providence plants, no other labor organization has organized any of the production workers at any of the rubber plants. Under these circumstances no adequate reason appears why collective bargaining should not now proceed upon the basis of a single employer- wide unit . Such a unit seems essential , under the circumstances of this case, to insure to the employees equality of bargaining . power with the Company. The Act directs the Board in each case to select the bargaining unit which will insure to employees the "full benefit" of their right to self- organization and collective bargaining and which will otherwise effec- tuate the policies of the Act. The stated objectives of the Act are to restore equality of bargaining power between employer and em- ployees and to encourage the practice and procedure of collective bargaining. By holding the employer-wide unit inappropriate the Board seems to me to be withholding the full benefits of collective bargaining from the workers employed at the rubber plants of the Company. In view of the foregoing I would find that the workers at all the rubber plants of the Company , except machinists at the two plants at which the I. A. M. has had bargaining relationships , constitute a single appropriate bargaining unit and would direct an election to determine their desires as to representation.