Proctor & Gamble Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 30, 1945

62 N.L.R.B. 1262 (N.L.R.B. 1945)

In the Matter Of PROCTOR & GAMBLE MANUFACTURING COMPANY and
INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN 'S & WAREHOUSEMEN'S UNION, LOCAL
218, C. I. O.
Case No. 16-R-1195.-Decided June 30,1945
Messrs. George W. McLaughlin, of New York City, and S. P. McCal-
mont, of Dallas , Tex., for the Company.
Messrs. Howard Goddard, Fred S. Estes, and Pat Murphy, of Dallas.
Tex., for the C. I. O.
Messrs. Ely Straus, Dave Cason, and Ben Kerr, of Dallas, Tex., for the
Association.
Messrs. W. J. Cox and F. C. Ford, of Dallas, Tex., for the IBEW
Miss Ruth E. Bliefield, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a petition duly filed by International Longshoremen's & Ware-
housemen's Union, Local 218, C. I. 0., herein called the CIO, alleging
that a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representa-
tion of employees of Proctor & Gamble Manufacturing Company, Dallas,
Texas, herein called the Company, the National Labor Relations Board
provided for an appropriate hearing upon due notice before Glenn R
Moller, Trial Examiner. Said hearing was held at Dallas, Texas, on April
10 and 11, 1945. The Company, the CIO, Proctor and Gamble Employees'
Protective Association, herein called the Association, and International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 1272, A. F. L., herein called the
IBEW, appeared and participated.' All parties were afforded full oppor-
1 At the hearing the Company moved that the Board deny the IBEW' s intervention on the ground
that the unit sought was inappropriate . This is, in effect, a request that the Trial Examiner 's ruling
permitting the IBEW to intervene , be overruled However, since the IBEW made a claim of repre-
sentation which was substantiated in its showing of membership in the unit it alleged to be appro-
priate, the Trial Examiner ruled correctly in the premises We shall therefore deny the Company's
motion
62 N. L R. B., No. 170
1262
PROCTOR & GAMBLE MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1263
tunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to intro-
duce evidence bearing on the issues. The Trial Examiner's rulings made
at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. All
parties were afforded opportunity to file briefs with the Board.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Proctor & Gamble Manufacturing Company, an Ohio corporation, is
engaged in the manufacture of soap and edible products at its Dallas, Texas,
plant with which we are here concerned. The volume of the Company's
business at this plant exceeds $50,000 annually. Approximately 37 percent
of the raw materials used in the manufacturing process comes from points
outside the State of Texas; a similar percentage of the Company's finished
products is shipped outside the State.
The Company admits, and we find, that it is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
TI. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
International Longshoremen's & Warehousemen's Union, Local 218,
affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations ; Proctor and Gam-
ble Employees' Protective Association;' and International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, Local 1272, affiliated with the American Federation of
Labor, are labor organizations admitting to membership employees of the
Company
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The CIO, on two occasions prior to the filing of the petition herein on
February 10, 1945, requested recognition from the Company as the exclu-
sive bargaining representative of the employees at the Dallas plant. The
Company refused these requests on the ground that it was under contract
with the Association. On October 2, 1944, and again on December 12.
1944, the IBEW also requested and was refused recognition by the Com-
pany as the exclusive bargaining representative of the maintenance elec-
tricians at the Dallas plant.
On May 1, 1944, the Company and the Association entered into an
exclusive bargaining contract which provided that it was to continue in
effect for 1 year from the date thereof, and was to be automatically renewed
from year to year, unless notice in writing was given by either party 30
9 The CIO contended that the Association is not a bona fide labor organization within the mean.
ing of the Act. Since the testimony at the hearing shows that the Association exists for the purposes
set forth in Section 2 (5) of the Act, and in view of our findings in Section V, below, we find that
it is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act
1264 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
days prior to the renewal date of the contract. Since the requests by the
Unions for recognition and the filing of the petition herein occurred before
the date the automatic renewal clause of the contract was to take effect, we
find that the contract does not constitute a bar to a present determination
of representatives.
A statement of a Board agent, introduced into evidence at the hearing,
indicates that the CIO represents a substantial number of employees in the
unit hereinafter found appropriate'
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 CIO seeks a unit comprised of all production and maintenance em-
ployees at the Company's Dallas plant, including watchmen, but excluding
laboratory employees, factory clericals, office clericals, and supervisory
employees. The Company and the Association contend that the appropriate
unit should include all employees of the Company except supervisory em-
ployees. The parties are thus in disagreement with respect to the factory
clericals, office clericals, and laboratory employees, whom the CIO would
exclude, and the Company and the Association would include. The IBEW
desires a unit composed of the three maintenance electricians employed
by the Company. The Company and the Association contend that such a
unit is inappropriate, while the CIO takes the position that, depending upon
the desires of the electricians, they may either constitute an' appropriate
unit, or form part of the production and maintenance unit.
The unit proposed by the IBEW
As indicated above the IBEW urges a separate unit of the Company's
three electricians. Each of these electricians works for a different foreman
in the maintenance department and is classified as a maintenance mechanic.
All of them spend about 90 percent of their time on electrical work, and
the balance assisting with other work in the department. The record shows
that the Association has bargained for these electricians since 1937, as part
8 The Field Examiner reported that the CIO submitted 225 authorization cards; that the names of
187 persons appearing on the cards were listed on the Company's February 10, 1945, pay roll con-
taining the names of approximately 350 employees in the appropriate unit; and that, of these cards,
118 were dated between June and August 1944, 18 were dated between September and December
1944, 46 were dated between January and March 1945, and 5 were undated.
The IBEW submitted 3 authorization cards, all of which bore the names of persons appearing on
the aforesaid pay roll There are 3 employees in the unit alleged by the IBEW to be appropriate.
The Association did not present any evidence of representation , but relies upon its contract as
evidence of its interest
PROCTOR & GAMBLE MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1265
of a production and maintenance unit.' It does not appear that the elec-
tricians sought separate representation as a craft unit at any time prior to
the requests of the IBEW in then- behalf on October 2 and December 12,
1944. Indeed all the electricians are presently members of the Associations
and they have not only shared in all the benefits resulting from the bargain-
ing between the Association and the Company since 1937, but have, in fact,
presented their grievances through the Association. Thus at their behest,
the Association on two occasions requested the Company to designate a
single foreman for all three electricians, and in January 1942 and again in
August 1943, urged the Company to designate the electricians as journey-
men electricians.' Moreover, as recently as 3 weeks before the hearing, the
electricians presented other grievances to the Company through the Asso-
ciation. It is clear from the foregoing that the electricians have, since 1937,
merged their identity and interests with those of the production and
maintenance employees and have participated voluntarily in the benefits
of collective bargaining upon a broader basis than the craft unit sought
herein. In addition, it also appears that the work of the electricians is inte-
grated with the Company's other operations. Under these circumstances,
we see no reason for setting the electricians apart from the remainder of
the Company's employees. We therefore conclude that the unit requested
by the IBEW is inappropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining and
that the interests of the production and maintenance employees, including
the electricians, will best be served by the inclusion of the electricians in
the unit hereinafter found appropriate.'
The disputed categories
Laboratory Employees. The Company employs 18 analysts in its labora-
tory, a laboratory clerk, a janitor and a wash girl. The CIO argues that
the analysts are technical employees and should therefore be excluded from
the unit, while the Association and the Company contend they should be
included. It appears that the analysts do purely routine test work requiring
only a high degree of manual dexterity. There is no research done at the
plant. The analysts are not required to have any technical training as a
prerequisite for the position, and, while the Company prefers that appli-
cants for analysts' positions have a high school education with some study
of chemistry, it will employ persons who have only a grade school education.
The laboratory employees work under the same conditions as do the pro-
4 Although the Association was certified by the Born d on October 15, 1943, as the exclusive bar-
gaining representative of the Company ' s production employees as the result of a Board -directed elec-
tion, it, nevertheless , continued as before , to represent the electricians in the more comprehensive
unit'
5 All three electricians are also members of the IBEW , but there is no evidence that the IBEW
has attempted any separate bargaining on their behalf
U The Association 's demands were rejected in each instance
7 See Matter of Harnischfeger Corporation , 55 N L . R B. 909.
1266 D1ECLSLONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD .
duction and maintenance employees, and the laboratory is located as near
as conditions permit to the center of the production operations, in order that
it may be accessible to all production departments Since these employees
work in the plant and are not laboratory technicians in the true sense of the
word, we shall include the laboratory employees in the unit A
Office Clericals The office clericals employed by the Company are located
in the main office and have the functions and duties usually associated with
this type of employee. The office is separated from the rest of the plant, and
these employees have infrequent contact with the employees in the produc-
tion departments The CIO desires the exclusion of the office clericals,
while the Company and the Association contend that these employees
should be included in the unit because they have been covered by their
bargaining since 1937.9 We are not persuaded that the past bargaining
history alone justifies departure from our usual practice of segregating
office workers from production and maintenance workers for collective
bargaining purposes. The office clericals involved herein are a separate
group, under different supervision from that of the production and main-
tenance workers, and, although they may occasionally go into the plant to
obtain certain information, their interests and working conditions are dif-
ferent from those of the production and maintenance workers. We shall
exclude all office clerical employees from the unit.19
Factory Clericals- The CIO would exclude all factory clericals" from
the appropriate unit, while the Company and the Association desire their
inclusion because they have been covered by the bargaining since 1937
Most of the factory clericals' desks.are located in the factory proper, and
their duties bring them in close and continuous contact with the production
and maintenance employees whom they consult frequently in the course of
their work. All factory clerical? are under the supervision and direction
"The laboratory employees were also included in the unit found appropriate by the Board in the
previous decision involving the same parties See Matter of Proctor & Gamble Manufacturing Co.,
50 N L R B 886
9 These employees, although excluded from the unit found appropriate by the Board in the prior
decision, were included in the contract unit See footnote 8, supra
ro See Matter of Socony-Vacuum Oil Company, 60 N L R B 559
it The Board, in the prior case, excluded factory clericals from the unit found appropriate therein
(See footnote 8 above) It would appear, however, that the instant iecord is mole comprehensive
with respect to these employees than the one in that case
>a The Company introduced the following list of 15 employees, which the parties apparently agreed
contained all the factory clericals draftsman, current expense clerk, repair and maintenance clerk,
time bonus clerks (4), supply and invoice clerk, steam and storage clerk, edible process clerk, labo-
ratory clerk, yardman, glycerine and hydrolizer department clerk, chemical department clerk, and
mechanical department clerk.
An examination of the duties of these employees establishes that all but the draftsman do routine
clerical work and that all spend a considerable part of their time in contact with production and
maintenance employees Thus, for example, the four time-bonus clerks work in the factory proper
These employees compute the bonus due production employees under the Company's bonus incentive
system, on the basis of daily production records These records are submitted by the production
employees to their foremen who check and approve them and then turn them over to the time-bonus
clerks This work is completely routine,. requiring no discretion whatsoever.
With respect to the draftsman, the record shows that he has had no college training ; his duties
PROCTOR & GAMBLE MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1267
of production foremen, and they are on the same pay roll, work the same
hours, and use the same lunch room and lockers as do the production
employees. The same seniority and lay-off rules apply to the factory clericals
as to the production employees, but there is a difference in the method of
figuring their vacation and sick leave, due to the fact that these employees
are weekly paid. Their salaries are, however, comparable to those of the
production and maintenance employees, and most of the factory clericals
were employed in the production departments prior to their transfer to
clerical positions. From the foregoing it clearly appears that the interests of
these employees are more closely allied to those of production and main-
tenance employees than to those of office clericals. Moreover, we are not
persuaded that the facts herein justify departure from our policy under
such circumstances of including factory or plant clericals in a production
and maintenance unit. Accordingly, we shall include them."
Cason The CIO contends that Cason is a supervisory employee and
would therefore exclude him from the unit. Cason is a welder in the main-
tenance department and is classified by the Company as a maintenance
mechanic. He has no power to hire or discharge employees, or to recom-
mend such action, nor does he participate in the regular meetings of fore-
men at which the work for the week is laid out, nor attend the special
meetings or dinners for foremen. While it appears that Cason does occa-
sionally direct the work of employees in the group in which he is working,
such direction is given in the interests of coordinating the work of the
employees in the group and does not appear to be of a supervisory nature
From all the testimony, we are of the opinion that Cason is a leadman in
his department and does not possess sufficient indicia of supervisory author-
ity to warrant his exclusion from the unit as a supervisor. We shall include
Cason in the unit as a maintenance employee
We find that all production and maintenance employees at the Com-
pany's, Dallas plant, including electricians, laboratory employees, factory
clerical employees, and watchmen,1" but excluding office clerical employees,
and all supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge,
discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or effec-
-consist of preparing routine mechanical drawings , such as plans for simple revisions or installa-
tion of machinery, subject to the approval of the plant engineer, under whose direction he works
ills drawing board is located out in the plant , and he spends a considerable portion of his time in
contact with the production and maintenance employees Although we have excluded draftsmen from
a pr"oduetion and maintenance unit on the ground that they are technical employees , we are not
persuaded that the work of the diaftsman here involved is of such a technical nature as to warrant
his exclusion Moreover. we note that none of the parties has objected to his inclusion on that
ground Accordingly, since he is the only employee in that classification , since he works in close con,
tact with production and maintenance employees , and since his work as a draftsman is rather
elementary and routine , we shall not differentiate between him and the other factory clericals
is See il isttci of Sees,,, Vacuirni Oil Company, 90 N L R B 559, and cases cited theieni
'' 'I'hl it atclimen emplo' ed b. the Compativ are neither armed no militarized
1268 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tively recommend such action, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes
of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (h) of the Act.
V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
We shall direct that the question concerning representation which has
arisen be resolved by an election by secret ballot among the employees in
the appropriate unit who were employed during the pay-roll period imme-
diately preceding the date of the Direction of Election herein, subject to
the limitations and additions set forth in the Direction "
The CIO moved that the Association be denied a place on the ballot,
inasmuch as it is not a bona fide labor organization within the meaning
of the Act. In support of this motion it urged that: (1) the Association
was dissolved by action of its members at a meeting on September 20, 1944,
and as the result of a poll among its members in February and March 1945,
(2) the Association's chairman, Cason, is a member of the Company's
supervisory staff , and (3) the preamble to the contract between the Com-
pany and the Association states that it is "for and in behalf of the Proctor
and Gamble Manufacturing Company at its factory at Dallas, Texas,"
thereby indicating that the Association is not a bona fide organization. We,
however, find no merit i n any of these contentions.
As to the first contention, it appears that the action taken at the meeting
of September 20, 1944, was not in accordance with the established voting
procedures outlined in the Association's constitution, and there is ample
evidence to indicate that the Assaciation has continued to function as an
active organization subsequent to that date, holding meetings. and handling
grievances as theretofore. With respect to the poll taken among Association
members in February and March 1945, the record shows that the vote was,
at best, a vote to affiliate with the Independent Soap and Edible Oil Work-
ers' Union. The question of the Association's affiliation with this organi-
zation is not germane to this case, and would not, in any event, affect the
Association's right to appear on the ballot.
We have already disposed of the second contention by our findings, in
Section IV, above, that Cason is not a supervisory employee within the
Board's customary definition of that term. As to the last contention, we are
satisfied on the basis of the record that the clause in the contract, while
ambiguous, does not vv=arrant a finding that the Association is not a bona
fide labor organization. Accordingly, the CIO's motion to deny the Asso-
ciation a place on the ballot is hereby denied
Since the unit sought by the IBEW has been found to be inappropriate.
and since the IBEW has stated that it has no interest and does not desire
The CIO's request to appeal on the ballot as IL\Vu-cEO is being left to the disciet i oll of 111C
Regional Duectoi
PROCTOR & GAMBLE 2\1 AN UFACTURi iNG COMPANY 1269
to participate in an election directed in any unit other than that requested
by it, we shall not place its name on the ballot.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National Labor
Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, and
pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of National Labor Relations Board Rules
and Regulations-Series 3, as amended, it is hereby
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representatives
for the purposes of collective bargaining with Proctor & Gamble Manufac-
turing Company. Dallas, Texas, an election by secret ballot shall be con-
ducted as early as possible, but not later than thirty (30) clays from the
date of this Direction, under the direction and supervision of the Regional
Director for the Sixteenth Region, acting in this matter as agent for the
National Labor Relations Board, and subject to Article 111, 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 during the said pay-roll period because they
were ill or on vacation or temporarily laid off, and including employees in
the armed forces of the United States who present themselves i n person
at the polls, but excluding those employees who have since quit or been
discharged for cause and have not been rehired or reinstated prior to the
date of the election, to determine whether they desire to be represented
by International Longshoremen's & Warehousemen's Union, Local 218,
C. I. 0., or by Proctor and Gamble Employees' Protective Association, for
the purposes of collective bargaining , or by neither.
MR. GERARD D. REILLY took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Election.