Duval Sulphur & Potash Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 17, 1952

100 N.L.R.B. 1528 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

1528 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
material control department, chief office clerk in the jobbing depart-
ment), the typists in the jobbing, toolroom, and Second Street de-
partments , the secretaries in the inspection, cold extrusion, and
specialty departments, the stenographer in the Second Street depart-
ment, and the safety inspectors, timekeepers, draftsman in the cold
extrusion department, welding school instructors, janitors, matrons,
dispensary attendants, and all employees in the laboratory department.
Exclusions : All employees in the administrative, sales , purchasing,
accounting, mail room , reception and travel, telephone, rate, engineer-
ing, tool engineering, plant engineering, estimating and tool estimating
departments, draftsmen and designers in the Second Street depart-
ment, confidential, professional, and technical employees, guards, and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
DUVAL SULPHUR & POTASH COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF
MINE, MILL, AND SMELTER WORKERS ( IND.) FOR ITSELF AND ON BE-
HALF OF ITS CARLSBAD POTASH WORKERS LOCAL 415, PETITIONER
DUVAL SULPHUR & POTASH COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION
OF MACHINISTS , AFL, PETITIONER. Cases Nos . 33-RC-390 and
33-RC-391. October 17, 195°0
Decision and Direction of Elections
Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before
Alan Bruce, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at
the hearing are free from prejudical error and are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its power 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 Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
Act.
2. The labor organizations involved 1 claim to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
i In addition to the two Petitioners , herein respectively called Mine Mill and IAM,
Carlsbad Metal Trades Council , AFL, herein called the Intervenor , was permitted to inter-
vene in Case No. 33-RC-390, upon the basis of an adequate showing of interest. Mine
Mill was permitted to intervene in Case No 33-RC-393
100 NLRB No. 255.
DUVAL SULPHUR & POTASH COMPANY 1529
3. Questions affecting commerce exist concerning the representa-
tion of certain employees of the Employer, within the meaning of
Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. Mine Mill's primary request is for a unit consisting generally
of hourly rated employees in the mine and maintenance departments
at the Employer's Carlsbad, New Mexico, operations, excluding re-
finery department employees and the common laborers in the main-
tenance department. Alternatively, Mine Mill is willing to repre-
sent any unit found appropriate, but requests that each department
and the common laborers be set up as a separate voting group to
determine their wishes. IAM seeks a unit confined to the maintenance
department, including common laborers. The Intervenor requests a
unit of hourly rated employees in the mine and refinery departments,
excluding the maintenance department. The Employer contends pri-
marily that only an over-all unit of hourly rated employees in all three
departments is appropriate. Alternatively, the Employer would
establish the units sought by IAM and the Intervenor.
The Employer, which began operations in March 1952, is engaged
in the production of potassium salts. Its plant consists of a mine, a
refinery, storage buildings, and other miscellaneous facilities, all at
the same site. Production begins with the underground mining of
potash ore. Thereafter, at the bottom of the main hoisting shaft in
the mine, the ore goes through primary crushing, and is then brought
to the surface and stored pending further processing. The remain-
ing production steps are secondary dry crushing and wet grinding,
which are done in the refinery.
The Employer's organization is divided into separately supervised
mine, refinery, and maintenance departments. The latter department,
which comprises such craftsmen as maintenance mechanics, electri-
cians, carpenters, and painters, their helpers, and common laborers,
services both mine and refinery. Working conditions are similar for
employees in all these departments. The record also indicates that
employees have transferred from one department to another, but
because of the comparative newness of the Employer's operations, it
is not certain whether, or to what extent, such practice will continue.
There is no bargaining history affecting the employees here involved.2
It is clear, as the Employer contends, that a plant-wide unit may
be appropriate. It is also clear, in view of the absence of any con-
trolling history of collective bargaining, that a separate maintenance
department unit may be appropriate, if the employees therein so
desire .3 Contrary to Mine Mill's contention, there is no persuasive
'The electricians and their helpers, who are, as above noted, part of the maintenance
department, have been separately represented following a consent election (33-RC-284),
and are not here involved.
' Aluminum Foils, Inc., 94 NLRB 806.
'1530 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
reason for.excluding the refinery department from a plant-wide unit.4
or for "Globing" either the refinery, which is one of the production
departments, or the common laborers, who are a part of the mainte-
nance department .6
Accordingly, we shall make no final unit determinations at this
time, but shall direct elections in the following voting groups at the
Employer's Carlsbad, New Mexico, operations, excluding watchmen,
guards, office and clerical employees, professional employees, and
supervisors as defined in the Act:
Group 1: All hourly rated employees in the mine and refinery de-
partments, excluding hoistmen.6 -
Group 2: All hourly rated employees of the Employer's mainte-
nance department excluding electricians, their helpers, and appren-
tices.
If a majority of the employees in voting group 2 select a collective
bargaining agent different from that selected by a majority of em-
ployees in voting group 1, the employees in voting group 2 will be
taken to have indicated their desire to constitute a separate unit; and
if a majority of the employees in voting group 1 also select a collective
bargaining agent, the Regional Director conducting the elections di-
rected herein is instructed to issue separate certifications of repre-
sentation to the collective bargaining agents so selected for (1) a unit
consisting of the employees in voting group 1, and (2) a unit consisting
of the employees in voting group 2, which units the Board finds under
such circumstances to constitute units appropriate for the purposes
of collective bargaining. In the event a majority of the employees in
voting group 1 and 2 select the same collective bargaining agent, the
employees in voting group 2 will be taken to have indicated a desire
to be included in the same bargaining unit as the employees in voting
group 1, and the Regional Director conducting the elections directed
herein is instructed to issue a certification of representatives to the
collective bargaining agent so selected for a unit consisting of all em-
ployees in voting groups 1 and 2, which unit the Board under such
Mine Mill points to the bargaining history at another potash company in the area
where the refinery has constituted a separate unit. However, such bargaining history
is'not controlling . Moreover, the refinery of that company Is located a substantial distance
away from its mine and , at other companies In the area where the mine and refinery are
located at the same site, bargaining has included both departments in a single unit.
Mine Mill also contends that no question concerning the representation of refinery
employees has properly been raised in this proceeding . We find no merit in this conten-
tion . ' Mine Mill's original petition requested a unit of mine and refinery employees, and,
although it excluded the refinery by amendment of Its petition, Mine Mill has Indicated
Its willingness to represent the refinery and has made an adequate showing in a unit of
mine and refinery employees . Cf. SiZverwood 's, 92 NLRB 1114.
6 The common laborers are under the same immediate supervision as the other mainte-
nance employees , and a substantial part of their work is done together with such em-
ployee9. The laborers are therefore properly included in the maintenance voting group.
General Electric Company, 89 NLRB 949.
"All parties agree to the exclusion of the hoistman from any units herein found appro-
priate.
INGERSOLL PRODUCTS DIVISION OF BORG -WARNER CORP. 1531
circumstances finds to constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes
of collective bargaining.
[Text of Direction of Elections' omitted from publication in this
volume.]
' Mine Mill in its brief urges that the record herein be reopened for the purpose of
taking testimony with respect to an alleged conspiracy of the Employer and District 50,
UMW, to circumvent the Act. The motion is denied . To the extent that it alleges a
noncomplying union is conducting a "no-union " campaign , it is immaterial to our Decision
herein . As to the allegation , in effect, of unfair labor practices , such charges cannot be
litigated in a representation proceeding.
INGERSOLL PRODUCTS DIVISION of BORG -WARNER CORPORATION and
DISTRICT No. 8, INTERNATIONAL AssoCIATION OF MACHINISTS , PETI-
TIONER . Cases Nos.13-RC-2736,13-RC-2737,13-RC-2738,13-RC-
2739.13-RC-2740, and 13-RC-2741. October 20,186$
Decision and Direction of Elections
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Marie A. Pierce, 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 [Chairman Herzog and Members Styles and Peterson].
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 labor organizations involved claim to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
3. Questions affecting commerce exist concerning 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 Petitioner seeks to sever six alleged craft groups from the
existing production and maintenance unit at the Employer's Chicago,
Illinois, plant, currently represented by United Farm Equipment and
Metal Workers, Local 139, UE, herein called the Intervenor. The
Employer and Intervenor contest the craft status of the employees
comprising these groups and in addition contend that the units sought
herein are inappropriate because the history of collective bargaining
at that plant has been on a plant-wide basis and the work performed
by these employees is. integrated with plant production.
100 NLRB No. 250.
22T260-53----vol. 100-88