General Dyestuff Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 30, 1952

100 N.L.R.B. 1311 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

GENERAL DYESTUFF CORPORATION 1311
5. The Employer is engaged at its Ensenada plants in the process-
ing of sugar. Its production or grinding season usually starts in
January of each year with approximately 900 employees, reaches its
employment peak during March, April, and May with approximately
1,000 employees, and ends in June. Thereafter, during "the dead
season," approximately 400 employees are engaged mainly in mainte-
nance duties. Approximately 15 percent of the Employer's employees
leave the Ensenada area. They may go to the United States. They
may not return until the next December or January. Because the
bulk of the Employer's production employees will be employed in
January 1953, we shall direct that the election be held in that month,
on a date to be determined by the Regional Director, among employees,
in the appropriate unit who will be employed during the payroll period
immediately preceding the date of issuance of the notice of election.
Approximately 100 to 150 "occasional" workers constitute a pool
from which the Employer draws year after year to replace regular
employees absent from work because of illness or other emergencies.
They receive the same wage rates and work under the same conditions
as regular employees. During the production season, some work vir-
tually "all the time," others work scarcely at all. As their employ-
ment is casual and sporadic and the number of hours they work- in
any period is irregular, we find that they do not have sufficient interest
to entitle them to vote in the election 4
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
* Charlotte Barth Howell and Van Schaack & Company, 95 NLRB 1028.
GENERAL DYESTUFF CORPORATION and UNITED GAS, COKE AND CHEM-
ICAL WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER. Case No. 2-RC-4659.
September 30,1952
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 John J. Fitzsimmons, hear-
ing 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 Murdock and Petersonj.
100 NLRB No. 218.
1312 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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 organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the.Employer within the meaning of Section 9
c(c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner seeks three bargaining units: (a) All office and
clerical employees, excluding confidential employees, private secre-
taries, guards, and supervisors; (b) all laboratory employees exclud-
ing professional employees, guards, and supervisors; and (c) all main-
tenance employees including porters and elevator operators, exclud-
ing part-time employees, guards, and supervisors. The Petitioner
amended its petition at the hearing to exclude all employees of the
antara division of the Employer. The Employer contends that the
only appropriate unit is one over-all unit of office and clerical employ-
ees, laboratory employees, and maintenance employees, with the usual
exclusions. Both parties agreed that all salesmen are excluded.
There is no history of collective bargaining.
The Employer, which is engaged in the business of a wholesale
dealer in dyestuffs, colors, and chemicals, has its main offices and
warehouse 1 in New York City,2 with branches in some seven States.
The present petition seeks to include only the employees in the main
office. The Employer sells two basic products, dyestuffs and chemi-
cals, each of which is handled by a separate sales division under its
own sales manager, and has its own laboratory and direct sales de-
partment. Prior to 1950, the organic chemical department was in the
dyestuff division under the jurisdiction of the technical director. In
October 1950, the Employer became the exclusive sales agency for the
chemicals sold by the General Aniline and Film Corporation, and the
organic chemical department became the antara chemical division, the
Employer having adopted the trade name of "antara" used by Gen-
eral Aniline. Thereafter, the antara division was organized along
lines parallel to the dyestuff division. As indicated above, the Peti-
tioner would exclude all employees of the antara division.
The evidence indicates that although the antara division is headed
by its own sales manager and has its own laboratory, it is not auton-
omous. Wage and personnel policies are determined by the officers
of the corporation and all employees are subject to the same working
' The employees in the warehouse are currently represented by another bargaining agent
and are not involved in this proceeding.
2 The main building in New York also houses the New York City branch office and the
export division whose employees the Petitioner would include.
GENERAL DYESTUFF CORPORATION 1313
conditions and benefits. There are frequent transfers, particularly of
clerical personnel between the divisions. In most cases the same sales-
men sell both products throughout the country and both divisions are
serviced by the same employees from various departments, such as
billing, pricing, accounts receivable, accounts payable, sample depart-
ment, and printing. There is one payroll department and one pur-
chasing department for the entire organization including the branches.
Both divisions are located in the same building. The antara
division is on the sixth and seventh floors, which also house the General
Dyestuff Corporation officers, the export division '3 the New York City
branch office, and a number of common departments such as sample,
printing, payroll, and tabulating. The dyestuff laboratory is on the
ninth floor, where the testing department, used by both divisions, and
the General Dyestuff Corporation offices are located.
Under these circumstances, particularly the integration of the two
divisions in many respects, the frequent transfers, and the common
working conditions of all the employees, no cogent reason has been
presented for the exclusion of the employees of the antara division,
and we find that a unit excluding such employees would not be appro-
priate.4 As we are administratively advised that the Petitioner has
not made an adequate showing of interest in an office and clerical unit
which would include the office and clerical employees of both divisions,
we shall not direct an election among the employees in such proposed
unit. On the other hand, as it appears that Petitioner has made an
adequate showing in units of laboratory employees and maintenance
employees, respectively, covering both divisions, we find that a question
of representation exists in regard to the employees of those proposed
units.
The Unit of Laboratory Employees
Petitioner seeks a unit of laboratory employees, excluding the em-
ployees in the laboratory of the antara division. As indicated above,
we find that any unit as proposed by the Petitioner which would
exclude the antara division employees would not be appropriate.
This is particularly so insofar as the laboratory employees are con-
cerned. Although the laboratories in the dyestuff and antara divisions
have their own directors and are physically separated, the employees
have common functions and duties and the same general training and
background. Both groups work on the same problems and exchange
technical information. Trainees are sent to both laboratories. Both
9 Although the export division and New York City branch offices have clerical employees
dealing with "antaia" products which are marketed under the jurisdiction of the sales
manager of antara division , the Petitioner would include such employees in the proposed
units.
A. J Situs Pioducts Corp of Va, 83 NLIIB 99
1314 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
have the same job classification and comparable salaries and wages.
All employees are subject to the same general working conditions and
benefits.
We find no merit in the Employer's contention that only one over-all
unit of clerical, laboratory, and maintenance employees is appropriate.
The Board has frequently held that laboratory employees are entitled
to separate representation apart from other employees.5 In so
holding, the Board pointed out that such employees are usually
separated from other employees in the plant, that they work as a
group and perform duties of a technical nature, and that they are
usually under separate supervision apart from other employees. For
these reasons, they have been found to constitute a clearly identifiable
group who, because of their common interests, are entitled to sepa-
rate representation if they so desire. In accordance with such deci-
sions, we find that the laboratory employees herein concerned are of
the type warranting their separate representation.
Helpers in Laboratories
The Employer points out in its brief that there are a number of
employees working in the laboratories, such as dishwashers, porters,
maintenance men, and handymen. The Petitioner did not clearly
indicate whether they should be included in the laboratory unit, or in
the maintenance unit for which the Petitioner is also seeking certi-
fication. The Petitioner, in describing this latter unit refers to main-
tenance men, including elevator operators and porters. Although
little evidence was introduced defining the duties of such employees or
why such employees should not be included in either the laboratory
or the maintenance units, it appears from the classifications of these
employees that they perform largely unskilled labor in connection
with the work of the laboratories, as distinguished from general main-
tenance work. We find that, despite the unskilled nature of the work
of the laboratory helpers, these employees are more closely related
to those of the laboratory employees than to the other maintenance
employees engaged in general maintenance work in the building.
We shall, therefore, include them in the laboratory unit.6
We find that the following employees of the Employer constitute a
unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act:
All employees working in the laboratories of the dyestuff and antara
divisions at its plant in New York City, including dishwashers,
porters, maintenance men, and handymen, but excluding all other
California Spray Chemical Corporation , 54 NLRB 1366
6 The Midvale Company, 57 NLRB 1359 ; United States Rubber Company, 56 NLRB
1328.
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY 1315
employees,7 professional employees , guards, and supervisors as de-
fined in the Act.
Maintenance Unit
- Petitioner seeks a unit of maintenance employees 8 including porters
and elevator operators but excluding part-time charwomen. As indi-
cated above, this unit was not too clearly defined but it appears that
Petitioner is seeking the usual unit of building maintenance employees,
which the Board has frequently found appropriate in the absence of
a broader bargaining history .9 We believe, therefore, that the pro-
posed maintenance unit is substantially appropriate under the cir-
cumstances of this case.
We find that the following employees of the Employer constitute a
unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act :
All maintenance employees including porters, elevator operators,
and part-time charwomen,1° but excluding maintenance employees in
the laboratories, all other employees, professional employees, guards,
and all supervisors as defined in the Act 11
[Text of Directions of Elections omitted from publication in this
volume.]
7 The record shows that there are a number of typists and secretaries who work in the
laboratories . As the Employer points out, it is not clear whether the Petitioner wishes
these employees to be included in the laboratory or in the clerical unit. As it is the policy
of the Board, where issue is raised , to establish separate units of clerical employees, we
shall exclude such clerical employees from the laboratory unit . The Midvale Company,
supra . Kelsey Hayes Wheel Company, 85 NLRB 666.
8 Petitioner made no contention that the maintenance employees should be segregated
on the basis of either the dyestuff or antara division.
Tyre Brothers G lass & Paint Company , 85 NLRB 910.
10 As it is clear from the record that the charwomen are regular part -time employees,
performing the customary janitorial duties , they are included in the unit . Cutter Labora-
tories, 98 NLRB 414.
n As it appears that we have enlarged the laboratory unit by including the laboratory
employees of the antara division and the maintenance unit by including the part-time
charwomen whom the Petitioner did not seek to represent , the Petitioner may not wish to
participate in an election on this basis . Under those circumstances , the Petitioner may
withdraw upon notice to that effect given to the Regional Director , in writing, within
ten (10 ) days from the date of the direction of election herein.
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF ELEC-
TRICAL, RADIO AND MACHINE WORKERS, CIO, PETITIONER. Case
No. ,°3-RC-4122. September 30, 1952
Supplemental Decision , Order, and Direction of Election
On May 16, 1952, the Board issued a Decision and Order 1 dismiss-
ing the petition in the above-entitled case upon the ground that the
national agreement of the Intervenors 2 with the Employer, applicable
1 99 NLRB 956.
1 United Electrical , Radio and Machine Workers of America (ULl), and its Local 332.
100 NLRB No. 217.
'227260-53-vol. 100--84