Heyden Chemical Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 6, 1952

100 N.L.R.B. 520 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

520 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Company" In accordance with the Board's policy, Respondent shall make
available to the Board, upon request, such payroll and other records necessary
to facilitate the computation of the amount of back pay due.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in
the case, I make the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. United Stone and Allied Products Workers of America, CIO, and Insula-
tion Workers Federal Labor Union, No. 24716, AFL, are labor organizations
within the meaning of the Act.
2. By discriminating in regard to hire and tenure of employment of Frank
Boll, Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. s
3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, Respondent has engaged in
and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8
(a) (1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication in this volume.]
1190 NLRB 289.
HEYDEN CHEMICAL CORPORATION 1 and LOCAL 68 OF THE INTERNATIONAL
UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, AFL,2 PETITIONER. Case No.
3-RC-4816. August 6, 1952
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 Norman A. Cole, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.3
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 labor organizations involved claim to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section S
(c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
1 The name of the Employer appeara as amended at the hearing.
' The name of the Petitioner appears as amended at the hearing.
8 The Employees Welfare Association of Heyden Chemical Corporation , Garfield, New
Jersey, was permitted to intervene on the basis of its contractual interest.
100 NLRB No. 82.
HEYDEN CHEMICAL CORPORATION 521
4. The Petitioner seeks a unit of all powerhouse employees including
engineers and firemen at the Employer's Garfield, New Jersey, plant,
but excluding all other employees and supervisors as defined in the
Act. The Employer and the Intervenor contend that the unit sought
is inappropriate because of a bargaining history on a plant-wide
basis, the integrated nature of the Employer's operations, and the
alleged disruptive effect on labor relations.
The Employer is engaged in the production of chemicals and anti-
biotics at its Garfield, New Jersey, plant, which alone is involved in
this proceeding. The 8 powerhouse employees-4 firemen and 4 en-
gineers-are currently represented by the Intervenor along with more
than 300 other production, maintenance, and clerical employees.
The firemen and engineers, who are required to be licensed by the
State of New Jersey, have their headquarters in a separate building
at the Employer's plant where they perform the usual duties of their
classifications. The engineers, however, spend about one-fourth of
their time in the plant servicing equipment which for the most part is
connected with the refrigeration system and the power plant. Al-
though the powerhouse employees receive the same benefits as the plant
personnel, they work under separate immediate supervision and have
separate locker and workroom facilities. Despite the contract pro-
vision which permits employees to bid for jobs throughout the plant,
there have been during recent years few transfers and little inter-
change between the powerhouse and the other plant departments.
It is clear from the foregoing and the entire record that the power-
house employees constitute a distinct, homogeneous, and functionally
coherent group of the type which the Board has customarily held may
be accorded separate representation 4 Nor is such a unit rendered in-
appropriate by the past bargaining history on a more comprehensive
basis, the alleged disruptive effect on labor relations, or the fact that
the steam and coolants produced by the powerhouse are used through-
out the Employer's operations.5
Accordingly, we shall direct an election in the following voting
group : All powerhouse employees at the Employer's Garfield, New
Jersey, plant, including firemen and engineers, but excluding all other
employees and supervisors as defined in the Acts If a majority vote
for the Petitioner they will be taken to have indicated their desire to
constitute a separate appropriate unit, and the Regional Director con-
ducting the election directed herein is instructed to issue a certification
of representatives to the Petitioner for that unit as described in the
•American Hard Rubber Company, 95 NLRB No. 129; The Gates Rubber Company, 95
NLRB 351.
Charles A. Krause Milling Co., 97 NLRB 536; Armour & Company, 88 NLRB 309.
The parties agree, and we find, that Ambrose Lawlor, chief operating engineer, and
John Seckley , working foreman , are supervisors under the Act.
522 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
voting group, which the Board, under such circumstances , finds to be
appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining. In the event a ma=
jority vote for the Intervenor, the Board finds the existing unit to be
appropriate and the Regional Director will issue a certification of
results of election to such effect.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
BURKE MILLWORK Co., INC . and LOCAL 193, INTERNATIONAL BROTHER-
HOOD OF FIREMEN & OILERS, AFL, PETITIONER . Case No. 19-RC-
1017. August 7, 195E
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 Rachel Storer, 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 Murdock 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 1 claim to represent employees
of the Employer.
3. The Employer and the Intervenor allege their current contract
is a bar to the petition. We do not agree. By its terms, the contract
became automatically renewed on March 1, 1952, for a 2-year period
succeeding its May 1 anniversary date. As the petition herein was
filed February 29, 1952, it was clearly timely, and thus prevented the
contract from operating as a bar.
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen 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 carve out from the existing production
and maintenance unit, a unit confined to the steam licensed employees
in the Employer's boiler room. The Employer and the Intervenor
object to the severance of these workers from the existing plant-wide
I Lumber and Sawmill Workers , Local 2519 , United Brotherhood of Carpenters and
Joiners of America, AFL, Intervened in this proceeding. It is referred to hereafter as
the Intervenor.
100 NLRB No. 80.