Buckeye Oil Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 21, 1952

101 N.L.R.B. 30 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

30 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
BUCKEYE OIL COMPANY, CHEMICAL PULP DIVISION and INTERNA-
TIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF PULP, SULPHITE AND PAPER MILL WORK-
ERS, AFL, PETITIONER. Case No. 32-RC-1516. October 91, 1952
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 John E. Cienki, hear-
ing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Pusuant 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 [Members Houston, Styles, and Peterson].
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.
4. The appropriate unit :
The Employer, an Ohio corporation, operates plants in a number of
southern cities. The plants involved in this proceeding are its Jackson
Avenue plants in Memphis, Tennessee. They consist of a chemical
pulp division, herein called Pulp, and an oil mill, herein called Oil.
A routine-and-control laboratory and an oil-mill laboratory operate in
connection with Pulp and Oil respectively. In addition, there is a
chemical division laboratory, which engages in work not only for
Pulp and Oil, but for all plants of the Employer.
The Petitioner seeks a unit confined to production and maintenance
employees of Pulp, including machine tenders, as well as the laboratory
technicians and other nonprofessional employees in the chemical divi-
sion laboratory. The Intervenor (Local 19, Distributive, Processing
and Office Workers of America) contends that, as to scope, the unit
should also include the employees of Oil, who have been part of the
bargaining unit in the past. As to composition, the Intervenor would
exclude the machine tenders in Pulp and laboratory technicians in the
chemical division laboratory. The Employer is neutral, except that,
as to composition, the Employer, like the Intervenor, would exclude
the machine tenders.
Pulp and Oil are separate plants and, with regard to production and
maintenance, are subject to separate immediate supervision. The em-
ployees of each plant punch separate time clocks and appear on sepa-
101 NLRB No. 5.
BUCKEYE OIL COMPANY, CHEMICAL PULP DIVISION 31
rate payrolls. There is no functional integration between the respec-
tive production operations, Pulp producing cellulose in bulk and sheet
form from cotton linters and Oil producing oil and meal from soy-
beans. The two plants thus generally require different skills. How-
ever, both plants are located within the same yard and utilize the same
machine shop, car pool, and facilities for unloading heavy materials.
Pulp supplies Oil with water, power, heat, riggers, and a yard crew.
The employees of both plants use the same parking lot, washrooms, and
lockers. There has been some interchange and transfer of personnel.'
All employees are hired through the same employment office, where
personnel records are maintained together, and where the payrolls
are prepared by the same clerk. Control of both plants respecting mat-
ters of policy and administration, including labor relations, is cen-
tered in one superintendent. Furthermore, there has been an 11-year
history of collective bargaining between the Employer and the Inter-
venor, under various names, covering both plants as a single Unit .2
Upon the entire record, including the long history of collective bap-
gaining covering both plants and the centralized control respecting
labor relations and other policy matters, we find that a unit limited
to the Pulp employees is inappropriate 8 and that only a unit embrac-
ing both the Pulp and Oil employees is appropriate'
There remains for consideration the inclusion or exclusion of the
machine tenders in Pulp and the laboratory technicians in the chem-
ical division laboratory.
The machine tenders: These individuals are responsible for the
quality of the finished cellulose in sheet form, from its production on
the sheet mill to its packaging. Formerly there was some question
as to whether or not they were included in the unit. However, follow-
ing a grievance presented by the Intervenor relating to the machine
tenders ,5 and shortly before the present petition was filed, their as-
' In 1951 , four mechanics were transferred from Pulp to Oil and then were transferred
back . Three common laborers were transferred from Oil to Pulp to work in the same capac-
ity, and one to work as a tractor driver . One bean sampler was transferred from Oil to
Pulp to be a lint weigher, and one painter was transferred from Pulp to Oil to be a mill-
wright
R In 1941, after a Board Decision and Direction of Election , the Intervenor (then called
United Cannery, Agricultural , Packing and Allied Workers of America, Local 19, CIO)
was certified as bargaining representative for the more comprehensive unit. 36 NLRB 76 ;
37 NLRB 48 . In 1950 , after a stipulation for certification upon a consent election, the
Intervenor ( then called Food, Tobacco, Agricultural and Allied Workers Union of America,
Local 19 ) was again certified as bargaining representative for the same unit, and in
1954, after a consent election agreement , was likewise certified under its present name.
32-RC-261; 32-RC-365.
8 Hanovia Chemical and Manufacturing Company, 90 NLRB 650.
Although the unit found appropriate is broader than the unit sought by the Petitioner,
we shall nevertheless direct an election, since the Petitioner 's showing of interest in the
more comprehensive unit is sufficient . However , the Regional Director is authorized to
permit the Petitioner to withdraw its petition without prejudice upon timely request.
6 A machine tender disciplined an employee by laying him off. The Intervenor then
presented a grievance based on the fact that both the machine tender and the employee
were in the bargaining unit. After the grievance proceeding , with its resultant redefinition
32 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
signment was broadened to include stacking, cutting, and packing the
finished product, and their authority was redefined to include disci-
plining and, in cases of serious misconduct, discharging employees.
At the same time, their pay was increased. Notice of their duties and
powers was given to them and their subordinates. Without passing
upon the previous status of the machine tenders, we find, upon a care-
ful scrutiny of the record, that machine tenders are now supervisors
and, therefore, shall exclude them from the unit .6
The laboratory technicians: These employees, 24 in number, work
in the chemical division laboratory, along with 20 admitted profes-
sional employees, 2 mechanics, 3 helpers, and 1 janitor. The parties
agree to exclude the professional employees and to include the me-
chanics, helpers, and janitor. However, the Petitioner and Inter-
venor disagree as to the placement of the laboratory technicians, who
have not previously been in the bargaining unit. These technicians,
for the most part, have had at least a high school education and must
undergo on-the-job training for 1 to 2 years. Unlike the other em-
ployees in the unit, they are salaried. They are supervised by chem-
ists and other professional employees, whom they assist in tests and
problems requiring knowledge of scientific apparatus peculiar to the
cotton linter industry. Often they must exercise their own judgment,
which, in certain cases , is heavily relied on. We find that these labo-
ratory technicians are technical employees and, in accordance with the
Board's usual policy, shall exclude them from the production and
maintenance unit.?
Accordingly, we find that the following employees of the Employer
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act : All production and
maintenance employees employed in the Employer's Jackson Avenue
chemical pulp division and oil mill at Memphis, Tennessee, including
the routine-and-control laboratory employees 8 and oil mill laboratory
employees9 and mechanics, helpers, and janitors in the chemical di-
vision laboratory, but excluding the laboratory technicians in the
chemical division laboratory, professional employees, office and cler-
of authority and raise in pay for the machine tenders, described hereinafter, the Intervenor
agreed with the Employer that the machine tenders were excluded from the bargaining unit.
a The Spicer Manufacturing Division of Dana Corporation, 95 NLRB No. 115; ef.
American Finishing Company, 86 NLRB 412, 416-18.
7Cf. Bell Aircraft Corporation, 98 NLRB 1277; Swift & Company, Technical Products
Plant, Hammond, Indiana, 98 NLRB 746.
s The parties agreed to include these employees.
e The Petitioner took no position as to the placement of the oil mill laboratory employees
in the broader unit; the Intervenor would exclude them. Since the record is insufficient
to determine at this time the status of these employees, we shall permit them to vote
subject to challenge and shall pass upon such challenges if it develops that the election
would be thereby affected.
SWIFT & COMPANY 33
ical employees, watchmen, guards, machine tenders, and other super-
visors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
SWIFT & COMPANY and UNITED PACKINGHOUSE WORKERS OF AMERICA,
CIO, PETITIONER . Case No. 17-RC1374. October 21,1952
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 Eugene Hoffman,
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 this case to a three-
member panel [Members Houston, Styles, and Peterson].
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 represen-
tation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section
9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act 2
4. The appropriate unit :
The Petitioner seeks a unit of all production and maintenance
employees at the Employer's plant in Kansas City, Missouri, in-
cluding plant cafeteria employees, hourly paid scalers and order
fillers in the city sales department, hourly paid dock checkers, hourly
paid scalers, hourly paid storeroom employees, and all dressing room
attendants, excluding truck drivers and dispatchers, weekly paid
dock checkers, weekly paid scalers, weekly paid storeroom employees,
all office and clerical employees, plant clerks, employees in the em-
I Due to extenuating circumstances , the hearing officer granted the motion of Inter-
national Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of America,
Department Store, Package Grocery, Paper House , Liquor and Meat Drivers, Helpers and
Warehousemen , Local No. 955, AFL, to intervene in this proceeding contingent upon the
production of a current showing of interest within 2 days of the close of the hearing.
As this organization has failed to produce the requisite showing within the allotted time,
the motion to intervene is denied . Boeing Airplane Company, 86 NLRB 368.
In its brief , the Intervenor, National Brotherhood of Packinghouse Workers, Local
No. 12 , CTJA, questioned the compliance status of the Petitioner . The fact of compliance
by a labor organization which is required to comply is a matter for administrative de-
termination and is not litigable by the parties . Moreover , the Board is administratively
satisfied that the Petitioner is in compliance . Swift & Company, 94 NLRB 917.
101 NLRB No. 2.