Great Southern Chemical Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 19, 1951

96 N.L.R.B. 1013 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

GREAT SOUTHERN CHEMICAL CORPORATION 1013
All firemen, oilers, aid helpers] employej; by the Employers 8 in
their brewery plants located in ,Vhe New York area.9
[Text of Direction of Election-omitted from publication in this
volume.]
8In an earlier case, see footnote 4, supra, involving the same parties ( or their pred-
ecessors ) as this proceeding , the Board set aside a stipulation of the parties which pro-
vided for the inclusion of the employees of the Peter Breidt Brewing Company in any
multiple -employer unit found appropriate by, the Board . The Employer and Intervenor
herein urge again the inclusion of the Peter Breidt Brewing Company employees in the
unit to be found appropriate . We find no reason to depart from our previous determina-
tion on this point. All the parties to this proceeding , agreed as to the categories of em-
ployees to be included in the unit
P The designation "New York ai ea" appears to be intended by the parties to cover the
plants of the Employer -members of the Association that are situated in New York City
and Newark , New Jersey.
GREAT SOUTHERN CHEMICAL CORPORATION and OIL WORKERS INTERNA-
TIONAL UNION, CIO, PETITIONER . Case No. 39-RC-313. October
19, 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 Clifford W. Potter, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed' At the hearing, the
Employer moved to dismiss this proceeding on the grounds that it is
not an "employer" within the meaning of the Act and that it is not
engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. For the reasons
stated in paragraph 1, below, the Employer's motion to dismiss is
hereby denied 2 Great Southern Chemical Corporation Employees
Independent Union, herein called the Intervenor, also moved to dis-
miss the petition on the ground that it has already been recognized by
the Employer and that, therefore, no question concerning representa-
tion exists. The Intervenor's motion to dismiss is also denied, for the
reasons stated in paragraph 3, below.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
I The hearing officer properly refused to permit the Employer to question the Petitioner
as to the number of employees the Petitioner purported to represent when it requested
recognition on April 17 , 1951. The Board has repeatedly held that a labor organization's
showing of interest is a matter for administrative determination and is not subject to
collateral attack by the parties . Lloyd A Fry Roofing Company, et al. , 92 NLRB 1170, and
cases cited therein , Moreover , we are satisfied that the Petitioner has made an adequate
showing of interest in this proceeding.
2 The hearing officer also referred to the Board the Employer 's request that the record
in this case be kept open until the Employer and the Reconstruction Finance Corporation
had entered into a definitive operating agreement so that this agreement might be made
part of the record. As the Letter of Intent , referred to hereinafter , and the testimony of
the Employer ' s representatives afford sufficient basis for determining whether Great South-
ern Chemical Corporation is an employer within the meaning of the Act and whether it
is engaged in commerce , and as the agreement may not be forthcoming in the immediate
future, the Employer 's request is hereby denied.
96 NLRB No. 148.
974176-52-vol. 96-65
1014 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
this case to a three-mem1wr panel [Members Houston, Reynolds, and
Styles].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. Great Southern Chemical Corporation is a New York corpora-
tion, incorporated in October 1950, with a permit to do business in
the State of Texas. It is owned, equally, by Pontiac Refining Corpo-
ration, The Chicago Corporation, and LaGloria Corporation, and, at
the time of the hearing, in July 1951, was operating a plant in Corpus
Christi, Texas, pursuant to a Letter of Intent granted to these three
corporations by the Reconstruction Finance Corporation in October
1950. The Letter of Intent provided for the rehabilitation of this
plant, which had been idle for 31/2 years, for the production of butylene
concentrates by Pontiac, Chicago, and LaGloria, on behalf of the
Reconstruction Finance Corporation. It provided, further, that these
three corporations might transfer title to a corporation in which they
owned all the capital stock and which would, in the event of such
transfer, assume all obligations under the Letter of Intent. The Em-
ployer is that corporation.
Pursuant to the Letter of Intent, the Employer leases to the Recon-
struction Finance Corporation, and operates, these plant facilities in
Corpus Christi. The Reconstruction Finance Corporation, Office of
Rubber Reserve, supplies the Employer with normal butane, which
the latter, in return for a fixed fee, processes into butylene concen-
trates. The normal butane and the finished product, the butylene
concentrates, at all times remain the property of the Reconstruction
Finance Corporation, which also bears all the expenses incurred in
operating these facilities. According to the Letter of Intent, the
Employer will process at least 650 barrels, and up to 850 barrels, of
butylene each calendar day. The annual value. of the minimum
amount of butylene concentrates to be processed by the Employer was
estimated at approximately $1,500,000. Normal production was
scheduled to begin on or about August 1, 1951.
The Employer contends that, in operating its butylene facilities,
it is acting as an agent of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, a
wholly owned Government corporation, and that it is, therefore, not
an employer within the meaning of Section 2 (2) of the Act. We find
no merit in this contention. Even if the Reconstruction Finance Cor-
poration does determine, to a large extent, the Employer's operating
procedures, and even if, as the Employer contends, its authority over
conditions of employment at its Corpus Christi plant may be subject
to the review and approval of the Reconstruction Finance Corpora-
tion, there clearly remains with the Employer an area of effective
control over labor relations at the plant involved herein. Thus, the
Employer alone does the hiring and discharging of the employees at
this operation, and pays these employees with its own checks. In ad-
GREAT SOUTHERN CHEMICAL CORPORATION - 1015
dition, the Employer has recently recognized the Intervenor as the
representative of these employees and has thereby, indicated that it
will conduct negotiations with employees at this- plant. We find,
upon the record as a whole, that the Employer's status, is that of a
Government contractor and not that of an agent of the Government
so as to exclude it from the coverage of the Act.3 Moreover, as there
exists, as indicated above, an employer-employee relationship between
the Employer and the employees involved herein, we -find that Great
Southern Chemical Corporation is an employer within the meaning
of the Act.'
The Employer contends, further, that, as it does not own, purchase,
sell, or ship any materials, it is not engaged in commerce or in any
activity affecting commerce within the meaning of the Act. The
Board has often held, however, that the fact that the title to material
produced or processed by a Government contractor, such,as the Em-
ployer herein, remains in the Government does not place the Govern-
ment contractor beyond the jurisdiction of the Board.5 Moreover, it
is clear that the Employer's activities do affect commerce within the
meaning of the Act. Thus, the Letter of Intent pursuant to which
the Employer is operating its butylene facilities recites that it was
granted "in order to increase with the greatest speed the production
of butylene concentrates available to the synthetic rubber program."
At the time of the hearing, the Employer had received two transfer
orders from the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, Office of Rub-
ber Reserve, directing it to ship butylene concentrates to Sinclair
Rubber, Inc., at Houston, Texas, and to Neches Butane Products Com-
pany, at Port Neches, Texas, which companies manufacture butadiene
for use in the manufacture of synthetic rubber. Moreover, we deem
it significant that the Reconstruction Finance Corporation issued its
Letter of Intent to the Employer in October 1950, a few months after
the outbreak of war in Korea. We find, therefore, that the plant in-
volved herein was rehabilitated solely for the purpose of meeting the
need for synthetic rubber created by the present, national emergency,
and that the operation of the Employer's butylene facilities substan-
tially affects national defense. Accordingly, we find that the Em-
ployer is engaged in commerce and that it will effectuate the policies
of'the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.e .
2. The Petitioner and the Intervenor are labor organizations'
claiming to represent certain employees of the Employer.
3 American Smelting and Refining Company, 92 NLRB 1421 ; National Food Corporation,
88 NLRB 1500 ; Reynolds Corporation, 74 NLRB 1622; War Hemp Industries , Inc., 57
NLRB 1709.
* Ibid.
Monsanto Chemical Company, 76 NLRB 767; War Hemp Industries, Inc., footnote 3,
supra.
G Donovan, James, Wasmer, & Becker, 93 NLRB 1562 ; Westport Moving and Storage
Company, 91 NLRB 902.
7 At the hearing , the Employer refused to concede that the Petitioner and the Intervenor
are labor organizations within the meaning of the Act . As the record reveals that both
1016 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
3. The Intervenor contends that no question concerning representa-
tion exists as the Employer recognized it as the representative of the
employees involved herein on April 25, 1951, after the Intervenor had
submitted proof of its alleged majority status. The record reveals,
however, that the Employer recognized the Intervenor after the Pe-
titioner had requested recognition, on April 17, 1951, and after the
filing of the petition herein. Moreover, even if the Employer had
recognized the Intervenor before the Petitioner's request for recog-
nition, it is well-established that a mere statement of recognition, not
consummated in a collective bargaining agreement, will not bar a
current determination of representatives.8
Accordingly, we find that a question affecting commerce exists con-
cerning 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. We find, in accordance with the agreement of the parties, that
all operating and maintenance employees employed at the Employer's
Corpus Christi, Texas, plant, excluding office and clerical employees,
professional employees, watchmen and guards, and all supervisors as
defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the 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.]
the Petitioner and the Intervenor exist for the purposes of representing employees and
dealing with employers concerning wages, hours, and other working conditions, we find
that they are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2 ( 5) of the Act.
8 The Board has repeatedly held that even an executed collective bargaining agreement
which does not contain the usual substantive provisions concerning conditions of em-
ployment cannot operate as a bar to a determination of representatives . R-P d- C Valve
Division and Reading Steel Casting Division of the American Chain and Cable Company,
Inc., 94 NLRB 1023 ; Independence Lumber S Manufacturing Company , Inc., 93 NLRB
1353; The Laclede Gas Light Company, 76 NLRB 199 , and cases cited therein.
UNION OIL COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA, PETITIONER and INDEPENDENT
UNION OF PETROLEUM WORKERS and LOCAL UNION 248, PETROLEUM
DRIVERS AND HELPERS, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS,
CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, AFL.
Case No. 21-RM-192. October 19, 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 Harry G. Carlson,
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are
free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
96 NLRB No. 152.