American Enka Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 1, 1951

95 N.L.R.B. 911 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

AMERICAN ENKA CORPORATION (LOWLAND PLANT) 911
and supervisors as defined in the Act constitute a unit appropriate for
purposes of collective bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9
^b) of the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
AMERICAN ENKA CORPORATION ( LOWLAND PLANT ) and UNITED TEX-
TILE WORKERS OF AMERICA , AFL, PETITIONER . Case No. 10-RC-955.
August 1, 1951
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 Jerold B. Sindler, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings mace 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 [Chairman Herzog and Members Reynolds and Murdock].
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 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.
4. The appropriate unit :
The Petitioner and the Employer agree that the appropriate unit
should include all hourly paid employees of the Employer at its Low-
land, Tennessee, plant, but excluding all office and clerical employees
(including those in the employment, hospital, protection, payroll, ac-
counting, purchasing, standards, filing, industrial relations, records,
plant manager's and chief chemist's offices and chemical laboratory,
engineering and telephone departments), and excluding, further, pro-
fessional employees (including inspectors and technicians), part-time
,or summer employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.'
The Petitioner would include, whereas the Employer would exclude,
the employees in the textile laboratory. Furthermore the Petitioner
1 This unit is substantially the one found appropriate by the Board in an earlier decision
involving this plant , American Enka Corporation, ( Lowland Plant), 80 NLRB 298. The
Petitioner also sought to exclude specifically "temporary construction employees" and
"instructors ." It was brought out at the hearing that there are no employees presently
employed in these classifications.
95 NLRB No. 108.
912 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
would exclude probationary employees and trainees; the Employer
takes no position on their inclusion or exclusion.
Textile laboratory employees were included within the unit by the
Board's earlier decision upon the Employer's testimony that only
nonskilled, hourly paid personnel would be hired for the laboratory?
Contrary to these plans, the Employer thereafter hired laboratory
employees on a salary basis and has insisted that they have a high
school:" education and, in additign, pass an intelligence test before com-
mencing work. Their duties consist chiefly of the determination, by
various tests, of the qualities and characteristics of the Employer's
products in order to evaluate their suitability for various uses. On
occasion, they conduct special tests to discover uses for new products.
Although the tests are routine, the procedure for performing them is
changed from month to month. Consequently, instruction for their
duties requires approximately a year of on-the-job training.
Although the Board's certificate in the prior proceeding covered
the textile laboratory employees, there has been no history of collective
bargaining with respect to them. Their work is under .the direction
and control of a chief chemist who also is in charge of the chemical
laboratory employees who the parties agree should be excluded from
the unit. The textile laboratory employees work in a separate depart-
ment of the Employer's main plant; they have different working hours,
vacations, and life insurance provisions than the hourly paid em-
ployees. There is no interchange of employees from the,textile labora-
tory to other departments. We find that the interests of the textile
laboratory employees are not allied with those of the employees sought
by the Petitioner, and shall therefore exclude them from the unit.8
Probationary employees.-All hourly paid employees are put on a
probationary basis for 6 months, and are considered trainees for the
first 6 weeks of this period. During this time, seniority, insurance,
and vacation benefits do not accrue to them. However, probationary
employees work along with other hourly paid employees and are hired
with the expectation that their jobs will become permanent. We find
that their interests are substantially the same as those of the perma-
nent employees and shall include them within the Unit .4
Part-time employees.-The Petitioner and the Employer seek to
exclude from the unit a group of part-time employees who work dur-
ing the summer months and during certain 3-month periods. It
appears that these part-time employees are salaried students who are
in training, as a rule, for positions that are excluded from this unit.
They have the same benefits as salaried employees and work the same
hours as the office employees. We find, therefore, that the ' students
180 NLRB 298, supra.
8 United States Gypsum Company, 92 NLRB 18.
4 Southland Manufacturing Company, 91 NLRB No. 88, and cases cited therein.
ILLINOIS BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY 913
employed part time at the Employer's plant do not have common.
interests with the other employees in the requested unit. Accordingly,
we shall exclude them.
We find that the following employees constitute a unit appropriate
for the purpose of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section
9 (b) of the Act: All hourly paid employees of the Employer at
its Lowland, Tennessee, plant, including probationary employees, but
excluding all office and clerical employees (including those in the em-
ployment, hospital, protection, payroll, accounting, purchasing, stand-
ards, filing, industrial relations, records, plant managers, and chief
chemists offices and chemical laboratory engineering, and telephone
departments) and further excluding textile laboratory employees,
professional employees (including inspectors and technicians), part
time or summer employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the
Act.
[Text of Direction of. Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
ILLINOIS BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY and COMMIINICATION WORKERS
OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER
ILLINOIS BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY, and INTERNATIONAL BROTHER-
HOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS OF AMERICA. AFL, PETITIONER. Cases
Nos. 13-RC-1843 and 13-RC-1869. August 1, 1951
Decision and Direction of Election
Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Albert Gore,
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 these cases to a three-member
panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Reynolds].
Upon the entire record in these cases, 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.
4. Communication Workers of America, CIO, herein called the
CWA, seeks to represent a unit of employees of the Employer's State
95 NLRB No. 106.