International Minerals and Chemical Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 20, 1953

104 N.L.R.B. 1069 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

INTERNATIONAL MINERALS & CHEMICAL CORPORATION 1069
attorney to draft its organizational papers, which the attorney
did. Thereafter, at the Independent Union's request for help in
drafting its minutes showing ratification of the agreement with
the Company, the Respondent had its attorney draft them,
recording the facts as stated bythe secretaryof the Independent
Union. Under the circumstances of this case, we find that the
drafting of the two documents by the Respondent's counsel,
without more, does not preponderate as evidence of a violation
of the Act.
Accordingly, as the Independent Union was not illegally
assisted or dominated, the Respondent acted lawfully in nego-
tiating and entering into a contract with the Independent Union.
We shall therefore dismiss the complaint in its entirety.
ORDER
Upon the stipulated record in this case, and pursuant to
Section 10 (c) of the Act, the National Labor Relations Board
hereby orders that the complaint against the Respondent,
Anaconda Copper Mining Company, be, and it hereby is,
dismissed.
INTERNATIONAL MINERALS & CHEMICAL CORPORATION,
FLORIDA PHOSPHATE DIVISION and INTERNATIONAL
CHEMICAL WORKERS' UNION, LOCAL #35, AFL, Petitioner
INTERNATIONAL MINERALS & CHEMICAL CORPORATION,
MULBERRY, FLORIDA PLANT OF THE PLANT FOOD
DIVISION' and INTERNATIONAL CHEMICAL WORKERS'
UNION, LOCAL #35, AFL, Petitioner. Cases Nos. 10-RC-
2295 and 10-RC-2296. May 20, 1953
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of
the National Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was
held before Frank E. Hamilton, Jr., 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 [Members Houston , Styles, and
Peterson].
Upon the entire record in these cases, the Board finds:
1. The Employers are engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent
certain employees of the Employers.
3. Questions affecting commerce exist concerning the repre-
sentation of employees of the Employers within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
t The Employer 's name appears as amended at the hearing.
104 NLRB No. 143.
1070 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
4. The, appropriate units:
Case No. 10-RC-2295: The Petitioner seeks in this case
a unit of laboratory technicians and laboratory helpers em-
ployed, in the main, at the Employer's Noralyn analytical
laboratory in Florida. The Employer contends that, as the
laboratory helpers are included in the current contract
covering its production and maintenance employees,: the
appropriate unit, if any, should be limited to laboratory
technicians. The Petitioner would also include, and the Em-
ployer exclude, a janitor and laborer at the Noralyn labora-
tory, both of whom also have been covered by the current
contract for production and maintenance employees.
The laboratory technicians, of whom there are approxi-
mately 16, are salaried employees who perform chemical
analyses in the chemical analysis room, assisted and directed
by the chemists and chemist group leaders, who admittedly
are professional employees. The technicians' work is generally
routine but requires a high degree of accuracy. They must
have at least a high-school education, including a course in
chemistry or, in lieu of high-school chemistry, 2 years'
laboratory experience. We find these laboratory technicians
are technical employees' such as the Board has previously
held to constitute a unit appropriate for collective bargaining. 4
Of approximately 20 laboratory helpers, whom the Petitioner
would include with the laboratory technicians, all but 3 are
employed at the Noralyn laboratory, where they share a
locker room with the technicians and are similarly super-
vised.5 However, the helpers at Noralyn work apart from the
technicians in a separate "sample room," where they pre-
pare samples for analysis. Although most of these helpers
mix nonstandard acid solutions used in chemical tests, they
perform no chemical analyses themselves, but only physical
analyses, entering the chemical analysis room merely to
deliver samples, wash bottles, and clean the room.' Four
of these helpers spend only half their time in the laboratory
and the other half as truckdrivers, visiting various locations
of the Employer to secure samples for analysis. The 3 helpers
not at Noralyn work at the Employer's dry mill (screening
laboratory) in Mulberry, 15 miles away, taking samples
which are sent to the laboratory to be analyzed. All the
helpers, unlike the technicians, are hourly paid. They do not
2 The current contract, which was executed June 18, 1951, and will expire May 15, 1953, is
not urged as a bar ; it is now open for negotiation.
'Buckeye Oil Company, Chemical Pulp Division, 101 NLRB 30.
4Cf. United States Metals Refining Company, 93 NLRB 795; Phelps Dodge Refining Corpo-
ration, 69 NLRB 536.
5 This Noralyn laboratory works on a 3 shift, 7-day basis, necessitating 4 shift crews, in
each of which, besides a chemist group leader, there are 1 chemist, 4 technicians, and 4
helpers , including the helper- truckdriver mentioned below.
6On January 5. 1953, as part of a reorganization plan, the duties of the technicians and
helpers were redefined . Before that date, the helpers performed chemical as well as physical
analyses . On reorganization, such helpers as had the requisite educational qualifications were
given an opportunity to become technicians. About 5 to 8 helpers became technicians, thus
losing their bargaining rights under the current contract.
INTERNATIONAL MINERALS & CHEMICAL CORPORATION 1071
in the course of their duties acquire the qualifications required
of technicians.
The Petitioner would also include the janitor and laborer
with the technicians. The janitor performs the customary
duties of his classification, and the laborer acts chiefly as a
porter. Both the janitor and the laborer, like the helpers,
are hourly paid and, as already noted, like the helpers,
have been included in the current contract covering the
Employer's production and maintenance employees.
In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the
interests of the laboratory helpers, janitor, and laborer
are dissimilar from those of the laboratory technicians.
We shall therefore exclude the former employees from the
unit of laboratory technicians.
Accordingly, we find that the following employees of the
Employer constitute a unit appropriate for collective-bar-
gaining purposes within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the
Act: All laboratory technicians at the Employer's Noralyn
analytical laboratory in Florida,' excluding laboratory helpers,
the janitor, the laborer, office and clerical employees, pro-
fessional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in
the Act.
Case No. 10-RC-2296: The Petitioner seeks in this case a
unit of production and maintenance employees, including
truckdrivers, at the Employer's Mulberry, Florida, plant.
The Employer would exclude the truckdrivers. There has
been no collective-bargaining history respecting any of these
employees.
Besides truckdrivers, the Employer employs at this plant only
laborers, key laborers, and occasionally amechanic. During the
busy season, which extends from October to July, the truck-
drivers spend very little time at the plant. Only infrequently in
such season do the drivers assist the laborers in loading the
trucks. However, during the 3-month slack season, the truck-
drivers work in the plant part time, displacing laborers if
necessary, and throughout the year they are supervised by
the same persons who supervise the laborers. The drivers
seldom spend nights on the road but usually return to the
plant, since their farthest destination is never more than
150 miles away. When new drivers are needed, laborers,
if they qualify, are given preference over outsiders. Further-
more, like the laborers, the drivers are hourly paid8 and
7 The Petitioner also sought to include the laboratory employees at the Employer's new
Bonnie plant . At present , the Employer 's- Bonnie chemical plant (analytical ) laboratory is not
fully in operation but will be shortly. The Bonnie laboratory will not employ technicians, but
only helpers similar to those at Noralyn, and possibly "sampler laborers. " We shall exclude
the helpers and sampler laborers at Bonnie for the reasons stated above concerning the
helpers, janitor , and laborer at Noralyn. --
While employed in the plant during the slack season , the drivers continue to receive a
driver 's pay, which is the same as a key laborer's pay and 5 cents an hour more than a
laborer 's. However , the drivers , in the busy season, can earn overtime pay, unlike laborers,
and do not have a standard workday.
1072 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
enjoy identical employee benefits, including insurance, vaca-
tion, and pension plans.
We are of the opinion, under all the circumstances, that
the truckdrivers, whom no union seeks separately, have
interests closely related to those of the other employees in
the unit and, accordingly, we shall include them in-the unit.9
We find that the following employees of the Employer
constitute a unit appropriate for collective-bargaining pur-
poses within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act: All
production and maintenance employees at the Employer's
Mulberry, Florida plant, including truckdrivers and the hourly
paid mechanic, but excluding technical, professional, man-
agerial, and office and clerical employees, salesmen, guards,
and supervisors as defined in the Act."
(Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.]
'Brighton Mills , Inc., 97 NLRB 774.
10 The Employer 's organizational structure calls for a "master mechanic," a salaried man
with allegedly supervisory authority , whom the Petitioner would include and the Employer
exclude . This classification is presently unfilled and has been unfilled for the past 2 or 3
years. Instead, the Employer has employed a temporary hourly paid mechanic , who the
parties agree should be included . Therefore , we shall not at this time determine the unit
placement of the master mechanic . Central Optical Company, et al., 88 NLRB 417.
SHEROLD CRYSTALS, INC.' and CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL
ORGANIZATIONS, Petitioner. Case No. 17-RC-1550. May
20, 1953
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 Cyrus A.
Slater, 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, Murdock, and
Styles ].
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 Employer contends that the CIO is not a labor
organization within the meaning of the Act, for the reason
that the CIO will not itself bargain directly for the employees
herein involved, but will assign them to one of its inter-
national unions or to an industrial local chartered directly
by the CIO. The Employer insists that because of the possi-
t As amended at hearing.
t lnternational Brotherhood of Electrical Engineers, Local 53, AFL, was permitted to
intervene on the basis of its contractual interest.