Jefferson Chemical Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 24, 1952

98 N.L.R.B. 805 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

JEFFERSON CHEMICAL COMPANY, INC. 805
caied his objections to the International's representative and it was
orally agreed that these provisions should be inoperative. Indeed,
no card authorizing the Employer to deduct the nonattendance charge
has ever been executed by an employee, either before or after the oral
agreement. Accordingly, as the checkoff provisions were effec-
tively removed from the collective bargaining agreement, we find,
apart from any consideration of their legality under Section 302,
and the effect thereof, that the initial inclusion of these provisions in
the contract does not preclude the contract from being a bar.6
Finally, as the current contract between the 'Employer and the
• Intervenors does not expire until June 30, 1952, more than 3 months
hence, we find that the petition was prematurely filed and that the
immediate direction of an election is therefore not warranted.
We therefore conclude that the current contract between the
Employer and the Intervenors constitutes a bar to an election at this
time. As no question affecting commerce exists concerning the repre-
centation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section
9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, we shall dismiss
the petition. I .
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed herein be, and it hereby
is, dismissed.
6 We distinguish this case from those in which the Board has held that an oral agree-
ment suspending the operation of an illegal union-security clause does not save the con-
tract for bar purposes . The mere existence of an illegal union -security clause, by imposing
an unlawful condition of employment, acts as a restraint upon employees desiring to
refrain from union activities within the meaning of Section 7 of the Act ; in such circum-
stances, an oral agreement to delete the provision from the contract does not effectively
eradicate the restraint upon employees which it imposes. Ketchum & Company, 95 NLRB
43. In this case, however , the provision before the Board does not create any condition of
employment, and is not per se illegal under any of the provisions of Section 8 of the
Act. Salant & Salant, Inc., 88 NLRB 816. As the provision itself has no coercive effect
on employees , -there is no similar inhibition here against reliance upon the oral agreement
to delete it.
JEFFERSON CHEMICAL COMPANY, INC. and PIPEFITTERS LOCAL No. 19.5,
AFL, PETITIONER
JEFFERSON CHEMICAL COMPANY, INC. and INTERNATIONAL BROTHER-
HOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORXERS, LOCAL No. 390, AFL, PETITIONER.
Cases Nos. 39-RC-390 and 39-RC-394. March 94, 1952
Decision and Direction of Elections
Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Clifford W. Potter, hearing
98 NLRB No. 125.
998666-vol. 98-53-52
806 DECISIONS OF' NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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 [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and
Murdock].
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 following labor organizations involved claim to represent
certain employees of the Employer : Pipefitters Local No. 195, AFL.
herein called the Pipefitters; International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, Local No. 390, AFL, herein called the IBEW; and Inter-
national Association of Machinists and Port Arthur Building Trades
Council, herein called the IAM-BTC.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9
(c) (1) and'Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The appropriate units :
The Pipefitters and the IBEW seek separate craft units of certain
maintenance employees who are currently represented in a single
maintenance unit by the IAM-BTC. The Employer contends that
the units sought are inappropriate; but the IAM-BTC does not object
to the requested severance of the two craft units.
In April 1949, after an election directed by the Board, the IAM-BTC
was certified as the joint bargaining representative for all "main-
tenance mechanics, their helpers, trainees f and laborers in the main-
tenance and instrument maintenance sections." 2 The classification
"maintenance mechanic" applied to employees primarily skilled in
certain types of craft work, such as that of electricians, pipefitters,
carpenters, and painters. For over 2 years, the Employer and the
IAM-BTC have been in contractual relations concerning the above
bargaining unit. In opposing the requested severance of the Pipe-
fitters and the IBEW, the Employer argues that there has been no
substantial change in its operations which warrants disturbing the
Board's previously established maintenance unit and the bargaining
history based thereon. The Employer also objects to the composition
1 The hearing officer referred to the'Board the Employer 's motion to dismiss the petitions
on the ground that the units sought were inappropriate. For reasons set forth herein, the
motion is denied.
2 The Board's unit finding is contained in a supplemental decision which was based on a
reopened hearing ( Jefferson Chemical Company, 81 NLRB 1393 ). In its original decision
(79 NLRB 584), the Board had refused to establish a unit of maintenance employees
sought by the IAM, or separate craft units sought by the Pipefitters, the IBEW, and two
other unions . All of these unions withdrew from the proceeding at the reopened hearing,
and the Board found appropriate a unit of maintenance employees as requested by the
IAM-BTC. _ I
JEFFERSON CHEMICAL COMPANY, INC. 807
of the unit sought by the Pipefitters and the scope of the unit requested
by the Electricians.
In refusing to find craft units appropriate in the 194:8 proceeding,'
the Board noted that (1) the plant had been in operation for only
3 months; (2) the Employer's volume of work was insufficient to
occupy fully the time of any one employee at his particular craft and
each maintenance employee was required to perform any work he
was capable of doing; (3) no formal apprenticeship program was
in existence; (4) the maintenance employees were supervised by area
foremen; and (5) the record did not indicate the number. or identity
of employees who would come within the scope of the proposed units.
The present record, however, made some 3 years later, shows such an
increase in production and maintenance operations as to have re-
quired the hiring of additional maintenance employees and their
placement on the second and third shifts.
More significant is the fact that, for the past 3 years, the Employer
has recognized craft qualifications in the assignment of work and in
handling grievances. Thus, the Employer's two contracts with the
IAM-BTC specifically provide that "Work assignments will normally
be made along craft lines," except "to handle unusual situations or
emergencies and to balance the work load among the employees for
efficient handling and to reduce lay-offs." Seniority and promotional
lists are also maintained separately for pipefitters, electricians, instru-
lnentmen, machinists, painters, carpenters, and boilermakers 4 With
respect to grievances as to work assignments of employees in craft
classifications, the Employer has consulted with business represent-
atives of the Pipefitters and the IBEW, who together with three other
craft unions (Painters Local Union 328, AFL; Boilermakers Local
305) AFL; and Carpenters Local 610, AFL) are signatories to the
contracts executed by the Employer and the IAM-BTC. Finally,
it appears that the Employer maintains an informal training pro-
gram for its maintenance employees who progress by examination from
helper to trainee to journeyman status in each craft classification.
Unlike the prior record, the instant one establishes that the Em=
ployer adheres to craft lines in its normal operations and we therefore
find no merit in its contention that only a single unit of maintenance
employees is appropriate.5 It is well settled that the prior establish-
3 79 NLRB 584.
These are the various job classifications as set forth in the latest contract executed
by the Employer and the IAM-BTC. Each classification is also considered as a separate
maintenance unit for purposes of seniority . The foreman of the pipefitters ' unit, which
Includes 31 employees who are classified as pipefitters , trainees , and helpers , also super-
vises 4 boilermakers ; the instrumentmen 's unit, comprised of 7 journeymen , 1 trainee, and
4 helpers, ;are under a separate foreman ; and the foreman of the electricians ' unit, which
includes 3 journeymen, 1 trainee , and 1 helper , also supervises the 3 carpenters and 2
painters.
See Sinclair Rubber, Inc., 96 NLRB 220; Bethlehem Pacific Coast Steel Corporation,
98 NLRB 588; International Paper Company, Southern Kraft Division , 94 NLRB 483.
808 DECISIONS OF 'NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ment of a broader unit does not preclude the severance of smaller units
of skilled, identifiable, and homogeneous craft groups. We shall now
consider the specific unit requests of the Pipefitters and the
Electricians.
The Pipefitters seeks a unit of all pipefitters, pipefitter-welders,
their helpers, and trainees. Five of the thirty-one employees in this
unit, all of whom are under the same - supervision, perform all the
maintenance welding work; a few other employees do all the neces-
sary blacksmith and pipe insulation work, together with their pipefit-
ting duties: The remaining employees perform skilled pipefitting
work on pipes and valve heads, and repair valve leaks on boilers 6
The fact that some employees in the proposed unit may perform duties
which may not be strictly within the limits of their recognized craft
does not destroy their identity as a separate craft group, as a major
portion of their time is spent within the recognized scope of their
craft 7 As the welders are mainly engaged in pipe work and are under
the same supervision as the pipefitters, they may properly be included
in the requested units Upon the entire record, we,find• that all pipe-
fitters, pipefitter-welders, their helpers, and trainees, comprise a well-
defined craft group and may, if 'they so desire, constitute a separate
appropriate unit.
The Electricians requests a single unit of two groups of employees-
electricians and instrumentmen, including their respective helpers and
trainees. Each group has a separate foreman and a separate work-
shop enclosure. The electricians spend all of their time performing
electrical maintenance and repair work on high voltage lines and plant
equipment; while the instrumentmen install and maintain all of the
plant's mechanical, pneumatic, and electrical instruments which con-
trol the flow, pressure, level, and temperature of gases and liquids.
Only a small percentage of the instruments are electrically controlled.
There is no interchange in duties between the electricians and the in-
strumentmen and neither group of employees is required to have the
skill of both classifications.
In view of the basic differences as described above, we agree with
the Employer's contention that the electricians and the instrumentmen
do not have a sufficient community of interest to be grouped together
for bargaining purposes .9 On the other hand, the record shows, and
9 The pipefitters and the machinists formerly performed all boiler repairs , but the
Employer now has four boilermakers for such work.
7 The Plumbing Contractors Association of Baltimore, Maryland, Inc., et al., 93 NLRB
1081.
8 McCarthy Chemical Company, 86 NLRB 14 . No other welders are employed in the
plant.
9B. P. Goodrich Chemical Company , 84 NLRB 429 ; Goodyear Synthetic Rubber Cor-
poration, 78 NLRB 96 . Cf. Carthage Hydrocol, Inc., 91 NLRB 67.
BUSCH & SONS, INC. 809
we find, that each group comprises a well-defined craft group, whose
respective employees may, if they so desire, constitute separate appro-
priate units."'
In view of the foregoing, we shall make no final unit determination
at this time, but shall direct separate elections by secret ballot among
the employees of the Employer's Port Neches, Texas, plant, in the
voting groups set forth below, excluding all other employees and su-
pervisors, as defined in the Act :
(a) All pipefitters, pipefitter-welders, their helpers, and trainees.
(b) All electricians, their helpers, and trainees.
(c) All instrumentmen, their helpers, and trainees.
If a majority of the employees in any of the voting groups vote for
the Pipefitters or the IBEW where these labor organizations appear on
the ballot, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to consti-
tute a separate appropriate unit, and the Regional Director conducting
the elections directed herein is instructed to issue a certificate of rep-
resentatives to the Pipefitters or the IBEW for the applicable unit
described in paragraph numbered 4, which the Board, under such cir-
cumstances, finds to be appropriate for purposes of collective bargain-
ing. In the event a majority of the employees in any of the voting
groups vote against the Pipefitters or the IBEW, they shall continue
to be represented by the IAM-BTC 11 as part of the existing mainte-
nance unit and the Regional Director will issue a certificate of results
of election to such effect.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication in this
volume.]
10 Instrument men : Phillips Oil Company, 94 NLRB 1438 ; B. F. Goodrich Chemical
Company, supra . Electricians : Sinclair Rubber, Inc ., 96 NLRB 220 ; Shell Chemical Cor-
poration , 94 NLRB 121 . We have administratively determined that the Electricians has
made an adequate showing of interest among the separate groups of instrumentmen and
electricians . See Tin Processing Corporation, 96 NLRB 300.
"The IAM-BTC did not desire to be placed on the ballot of any of the above voting
groups.
BUSCH & SONS7 INC., PETITIONER and LOCAL 108, RETAIL UNION OF NEW
JERSEY, AFFILIATED WITH RETAIL, WHOLESALE & DEPARTMENT STORE
UNION, CIO. Case No. 2-RM-319. March, 25, 1952
Decision and Order
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before Bernard
Marcus, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the
hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.-
1 At the hearing the Union moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that the petition
did not state that the Employer -Petitioner had refused to recognize the.Union as the exclu-
98 NLRB No. 133.