General Chemical Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 12, 1944

58 N.L.R.B. 944 (N.L.R.B. 1944)

In the Matter of GENERAL CHEMICAL COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, A. F. OF L.
Case No. 5-R-1573.-Decided October 12, 1944
Mr. Edward M. Preston and Mrs. Sarah Geer Dale, of Richmond,
Va., for the Company.
Mr. C. C. Cochran, of Roanoke, Va., for the I. A. M.
Mr. Paul A. Ashew, of Norfolk, Va., for the Engineers.
Mr. W. E. Nelson, of Pulaski, Va., and Mr. H. J. Paar, of Waterloo,
Iowa, for the C. W. U.
Mr. Philip Licari, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon petitions duly filed separately by International- Association
of Machinists, A. F. of L., herein called the I. A. M., and International
Union of Operating Engineers, A. F. of L., herein called the En-
gineers, each alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen
concerning the representation of employees of General Chemical
Company, Pulaski, Virginia, herein called the Company, the National
Labor Relations Board consolidated the cases and provided for an
appropriate hearing upon due notice before Herman Goldberg, Trial
Examiner. Said hearing was held at Pulaski, Virginia, on September
7, 1944. The Company, the I. A. M., the Engineers,' and Chemical
Workers Union, No. 21621, A. F. of L., herein called the C. W. U.,
appeared and participated. All parties were afforded full oppor-
tunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to
introduce evidence bearing on the issues. The Trial Examiner's rul-
ings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are
hereby affirmed. All parties were afforded an opportunity to file
briefs,with the Board.
1 At the hearing, the Engineers requested permission to withdraw its petition in Case
No 5-R-1589 The request was referred to the Board by the Trial Exapniner . On Septem-
ber 12, 1944 , the Board granted the Engineers ' request and ordered the above-mentioned
case severed and closed.
58 N. L. R. B., No. 179.
944
GENERAL CHEMICAL COMPANY 945
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COiIPANY
General Chemical Company, a New York corporation, is engaged in
the production, manufacture, and sale of acids and other chemicals.
It is a subsidiary of Allied Chemical & Dye Corporation and"operates
plants in various parts of the United States. In Pulaski, Virginia,
the-Company-operates two plants known respectively as the "Pulaski
Works" and the "Foundry." The "Pulaski Works" is the sole plant
involved in this proceeding. The Company uses annually, at its
Pulaski Works, raw materials valued in excess of $500,000, of which
approximately 20 percent is shipped from points outside the State of
Virginia. The Company produces annually, at its Pulaski Works,
finished products valued in excess of $500,000, of which approximately
25 percent is shipped to points outside the State of Virginia.
The Company admits, and we find, that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
International Association of Machinists, affiliated with the Ameri-
can Federation of Labor, is a labor organization admitting to member-
ship employees of the Company.
International Union of Operating Engineers, affiliated with the
American Federation of Labor, is a labor organization admitting to
membership employees of the Company.
Chemical Workers Union, No. 21621, affiliated with the American
Federation of Labor, is a labor organization admitting to member-
ship employees of the Company.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
On September 1, 1943, the Company and the C. W. U. entered into
a 1-year collective bargaining agreement covering all hourly rated
employees working at the Company's Pulaski Works, including store-
keepers and contact operators.
On April 4, 1944, the I. A. M. requested recognition as the exclusive
bargaining representative of certain of the Company's employees at
its Pulaski Works. The Company replied that, since it was operat-
ing under a current collective bargaining agreement covering all the
employees at, that plant it could not recognize the I. A. M.
It appears that, prior to the expiration of the 1943 agreement, the
Company offered to stipulate with the C. W. U., the I. A. M., and the
609591-45-vol 58-61
946 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Engineers to continue the 1943 contract beyond its expiration (late
until new collective bargaining agreements were negotiated or all dis-
putes among the parties settle(l without prejudice, however, to the in-
stant proceeding. Such a stipulation was signed, the sole signatories
being the Company and the Engineers. It is clear that neither the
1943 agreement nor the stipulation precludes a present determination
of representatives.
A statement of a Field Examiner for the Board, introduced into
evidence at the hearing, indicates that the I. A. At., represents a sub-
stantial number of employees in the unit, hereinafter found appro-
priate.2
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Company, within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The I. A. M. seeks a craft unit composed of all machinists, mill-
wrights, maintenance mechanics, and their apprentices and helpers
employed at the Company's Pulaski Works:- The Company urges that
the appropriate unit should consist of all its productionaiid iriainte-
nance employees engaged throughout its plant, inclusive of all those
sought by the I. A. M.
The Company employs at its Pulaski Works 121 workers, 7 of whom
devote the greater portion of their time to the dismantling, repairing,
assembling, and maintaining of all machiiiery used at the Pulaski
Works.3 The 7 employees constitute part of the maintenance depart-
ment.
Although the Company contends, among other things, that, since
1938, as a result of several consecutive consent elections held under the
auspices of the Board, the C. W. U. has represented all the Company's
production and maintenance employees at-the Pulaski Works, in-
cluding the employees sought by the-I. A. M., on May 5, 1944, the
C. W. U. relinquished the right to represent the v. orkers sought by the
I. A. M. and ceded to that organization jurisdiction over them. It
3 The Field Examiner reported that the I A AT submitted 21 authorization cards dated
between March and May 1944 He further reported that there were 20 employees in the
alleged appropriate unit At the hearing the I A M claimed that, since the filing of the
petition herein, it made an investigation which disclosed that there were only 8 workers
in its claimed unit The Trial hhannnei made a check of the authorization cards submitted
by the I A Al and found that it represented all 8 workers
3 Although the I A M asserts that eight workers fall within its claimed unit, namely,
J C Scott, G T Austin, G C Donithan, J C Fagg, It H Huff, It E Huff , It D. Swain,
and G M Bralley. the record discloses that the last named employee's main duty is to
assist the blacksmith in straightening out iron bars ' It is clear that he is not a
machinist, a millwright, or a maintenance mechanic, nor does lie perform any other work
which would bring him within the scope of the unit sought by the I A. H. We shall
exclude hiin
GENERAL CHEMICAL COMPANY 947
further appears that these employees desire to be represented by the
I. A.• M.
In view of the foregoing facts, we find that all machinists, mill-
wrights, and their helpers, employed at the Company's Pulaski Works,
including such employees who devote the majority of their time to
maintenance mechanics work.4 but excluding production, office and
clerical employees, and all supervisory employees with authority to
hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the
status of employees, or effectively recommend such action, constitute
a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.5
V. THE DETERMINATION OF llEl'RESENTATIVES
We shall direct that the question concerning representation which
has arisen be resolved by an election by secret ballot among the em-
ployees in the appropriate unit who were employed during the pay-
roll period immediately preceding the date of the Direction of Elec-
tion herein, subject to the limitations and additions set forth in the
Direction.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
By-virtue of and pursuant to the poN er vested in the National
Labor Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Re-
lations Act, and pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3, as amended, it is
hereby
DIREOEEn thtit, as part of the investigation to ascertain represent-
atives for the purposes of collective bargaining with General Chem-
ical Company, Pulaski, Virginia, 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 super-
vision of the Regional Director for the Fifth Region, acting in this
matter as-agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject
to Article III, Sections 10 and 11, of said Rules and Regulations, among
the employees in the unit found appropriate in Section IV, above,
who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding
the date of this Direction, including employees who did not work dur-
ing said pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation or tem-
porarily laid off, and including employees ill the armed forces of the
United States who present themselves in person at the polls, but ex-
cluding those employees who have since quit or been discharged for
* All employees mentioned in footnote 3, supra, except G. M. Bralley, are included in the
appropriate unit.
See Matter of Caterpillar Tractor Co ., 56 N. L. R. B . 122 ; Matter of General T, c and
Rubber Co ., 55 N. L. It. B. 250.
948 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL, LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
cause, and have not been rehired or reinstated prior to the date of the
election, to determine whether or not they desire to be represented by
International Association of Machinists, A. F. of L., for the purposes
of collective bargaining.
DIR. GERARD D. REILLY took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Election.