E. I. Dupont de Nemours and Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 27, 1971

192 N.L.R.B. 1019 (N.L.R.B. 1971)

E. I. DUPONT (FLORENCE PLANT) 1019
E. I. Dupont de Nemours and Company (Florence
Plant) and International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, Local Union 382, AFL-CIO, Petitioner.
Case 11-RC-3252
August 27, 1971
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF
ELECTION
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND BROWN
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a
hearing was held at Florence, South Carolina, before
Hearing Officer Donald' L. Dotson of the National
Labor Relations Board. Following the hearing and
pursuant to Section 102.67 of the Board's Rules and
Regualtions and Statements of Procedure, Series 8,
as amended, the Regional Director for Region 11
transferred this case to the'Board for decision. The
Petitioner and Employer filed briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
Act, the Board has' delegated its powers in connec-
tion with this case to a three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's
rulings made at the hearing and finds that they are
free from prejudicial error. They are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record, in' this case, the Board
finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act, and it will -effectuate the
purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
2. The labor organization involved claims to
represent certain, employees of the Employer.
3. , A question affecting commerce exists concern-
ing the representation 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 manufactures "mylar," a polyester
film, at its Florence, South Carolina, plant. The film,
which is the end product of a complex polymeriza-
tion process, is used primarily as recording tape and
as a first coat of insulation for telephone or electrical
cable.
The plant operates 241ours a day, 7 days a week.
The manufacturing process is a closed one, in that
the raw materials flow continuously through closed
vessels and supply lines. Although the plant has
limited storage facilities, a shutdown of key prod-
uction lines could cause the polymer to solidify with
severe consequences.
The Employer has, approximately 444 wage roll
employees, 89 of whom are in the maintenance
department. Within that department there are 5
routine repairmen, 57 general mechanics, -and 27
control mechanics. It is these control mechanics
whom Petitioner seeks to represent. The Employer
contends that only a production and maintenance
unit is appropriate. There is no bargaining history.
After completing their training program, the
control mechanics reach the most highly paid
classification in the plant, group 8. Their job,
although diversified, basically consists of mainte-
nance and repair of the electrical and pneumatic
control instruments and machinery. It includes
checking circuitry, measuring voltage, working on
control panels, installing and replacing components,
layout work, and valve maintenance.
Until June 1970, the control mechanics had
separate control-mechanic group supervision. In an
effort to streamline operations, management shifted
supervision of the control mechanics to two works
engineering supervisors, who also supervise the
general mechanics and routine repairmen. However,
the control mechanics have retained their own
foreman with whom they meet each morning to
obtain their work assignments. Once they have been
sent to one of the various plant areas, where they
spend in excess of 90 percent of their time, the lines
of supervision become less distinct. A production
area supervisor may tell a control mechanic how a
malfunctioning machine operates, when it should be
fixed, and where the problem might he, but only the
control mechanic has the expertise necessary for
analyzing and correcting such problems.
In order to qualify for the 3-year control mechanic
training program, an employee transferring in from
another section of the plant must pass a maintenance
department test. The program consists of more than
1,000 hours of classroom training, supervised on-the-
job training, and periodic examinations as, trainees
progress from group 3 to group 8 in 3 years. While
the program is geared to ' the Florence plant' opera-
tion, it includes instruction in basic electricity and
basic electronics, pressure fundamentals, pneumatic
instrumentation, and some general maintenance'
instruction. According to one who had completed the
training program,- the instruction adequately prepar-
ed him to pass the Master Electrician Test given by
the city of Florence. The rigorous nature of the
program has compelled 13 out of 55 participants to
abandon it.
Although the control mechanics work in close
cooperation with other employees, both maintenance
and production, their particular function and skills
remain identifiable. While the former safety rule that
192 NLRB No. 164
1020 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
only control mechanics may perform electrical work
has-been removed from the plant manual, the rule is
still operational for all intents and purposes.' Only
the ' control mechanics use pneumatic charts which
guide• electrical work, only control mechanics can
remove and replace components, only control me-
chanics can handle circuitry and regulators, and only
control mechanics can work on control panels.
Where electrical work is involved, general mechanics
and routine repairmen help control mechanics only
as standby men. Conversely, when control mechanics
do work of a nonelectrical nature, such as insulation,
welding," ri gging, millwright and carpentry, painting,
motor alignment, and sheetmetal work, they do so
only in the context of electrical work. Thus, in order
to repair, a faulty circuit in a machine, the machine
must be rigged, the insulation of the wiring must be
removed, and upon completion the motor must be
realigned.
The functional overlap between the control me-
chanics and other employees is negligible. The rule of
thumb is that control mechanics work primarily on
energy systems, be they pneumatic, electrical, elec-
tronic;' or drive, -whereas the general mechanics work
primarily on mechanical equipment. While both
groups remove valves, align, motors, place edgers on
slitters ,, and install batteries, and while control
mechanics and production operators work together
in overhauling casting machines, adjusting polymer
viscosity, and operating potentiameters, these in-
stances of teamwork are outnumbered by those
where control mechanics, although synchronized
with other employees, do their own skilled work.
As, indicated the Petitioner seeks a craft - unit
composed of all control mechanics. During the
lengthy, and comprehensive t hearing, and in its
exhaustive brief, the Employer contended that the
control mechanics do, not comprise an appropriate
unit because neither their training, their supervision,
nor; their function or skill sets them sufficiently apart
from the other employees at the Florence plant. The
Employer relies heavily on Monsanto Company, 172
NLRB No. 159, wherein the Board dismissed a
petition seeking representation of mechanical electri-
cians . We believe, however, that the instant case is
controlled not by Monsanto, but by E. I. DuPont de
Nemours and Company (May Plant, Camden), 162
NLRB 413 (1966).2 In that case, where, as here, there
was an absence of bargaining history at the plant, the
1' The rule was changed when the routine repairmen were added to the
maintenance department and permitted to assist the control mechanics,
for safety reasons, on certain electrical tasks, the wording of the rule no
longer being technically accurate.
2 Employer's May plant is involved in the companion case, E I. DuPont
de Nemours and Company (May Plant), 192 NLRB No. 165.
3 This case is similarly distinguishable from the other cases upon which
the Employer relies. In Potlatch Forests, Inc., 165 NLRB 1065, the
Board /found appropriates a craft unit composed of
approximately .40 electrical mechanics. Despite the
fact that the employees sought worked in coordina-
tion with others to maintain the smooth functioning
of an integrated and continuous manufacturing
process, the Board found the separate craft identity
of the electrical mechanics ,had-not been-obliterated.
That finding was supported by evidence that the
electrical mechanics received 3 years of training in a
program which included classroom instruction, on-
the-job training, and, homework, and that only they
were authorized to _perform electrical work, under
separate supervision.
In contrast to the evidence in the 1966 DuPont
case, and to that presented in the instant case, the
facts regarding the Monsanto"plant operation did not
compel recognition by the Board, of the craft unit
sought there. The only training for the mechanic
electricians sought in Monsanto consisted of informal
classes, their work was repetitive and required,,only
minimal electrical expertise and skill,, and much of it
was performed by interlocking teams of employees in
various classifications, with ,considerable overlap of
functions, under production supervision. In addition,
work demanding a high degree of skill was contract-
ed out.
In all crucial respects,^'the case' at bar parallels the
1966 DuPont case, and differs ' from Monsanto. 3 In
line with the Board's case-by-case approach when
determining, the appropriateness of a, craft unit, we
have, considered, all of the factors 'relevant, to such a
determination, I and conclude that the unit sought
herein is' appropriate. The control mechanics' rigor-
ous training' program, their. 'exclusive jurisdiction
over difficult electrical work, and the diversified
nature of their job=requiring mastery of a' wide
range of skills sufficiently distinguish' them from
the other DuPont employees and justify recognition
of them as a separate, entity within the plant.
We find, therefore, that "the following employees of
the Employer constitute a unit 'appropriate for the
purpose of.collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9(b) of the Act:
All control ' mechanics and trainees at the, Em-
ployer's Florence, South Carolina, , plant, ,5but
excluding all the maintenance, employees, all
office clerical employees, professional employees,
guards, and Supervisors as defined in the Act.
maintenance electricians sought were assigned to specific machines at the
plant and given little training. In Dundee Cement Company, 470 NLRB 422,
and Alton Box Board Company, 164 NLRB 919, the„latter case involving
craft severance, the maintenance electricians sought similarly were,, only
marginally trained and engaged in largely'routiniied work.
Member Fanning would not so distinguish this case. See his dissent in
Dundee Cemen; 170 NLRB at 426, referring to DuPont, 162 NLRB 413, as
parallel. He did not participate in Potlatch or Alton Box.
E.I. DUPONT (FLORENCE PLANT)
[Direction of Election4 omitted from publication]
4 In order to assure that all eligible voters may have the opportunity to
be informed of the issues in the exervise of their statutory right to vote, all
parties to the election should have access to a list of voters and their
addresses which may be used to communicate with them . Excelsior
Underwear Inc., 156 NLRB 1236; NLRB. v. Wyman-Gordon Co., 394 U.S.
759. Accordingly , it is hereby directed that an election eligibility list,
1021
containing the names and addresses of all the eligible voters, must be filed
by the Employer with the Regional Director for Region II within 7 days of
the date of this Decision and Direction of Election. The Regional Director
shall make the list available to all parties to the election. No extension of
time to file this list shall be granted by the Regional Director except in
extraordinary circumstances. Failure to comply with this requirement shall
be grounds for setting aside the election whenever proper objections are
filed.