Pathfinder Chemical Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 23, 1947

74 N.L.R.B. 347 (N.L.R.B. 1947)

In the Matter Of PATIIFINDER CHEMICAL CORPORATION, EMPLOYER
and
UNITED GAS, COKE, AND CHEMICAL WORKERS Or AMERICA, CIO,-
PETITIONER
Case No. 3-R-1484.-Decided June 0, 1947
Mr. Walter E. de Bruin, of Akron, Ohio, and Mr. Frank H. Man-
chester, of Niagara Falls, N. Y., for the Employer.
Mr. Raymond R. Bloom, of Niagara Falls, N. Y., for the Petitioner,
Mr. Frank J. O'Brien, of Niagara Falls, N. Y., for the Intervenor.
Mr. Gerald P. Leicht, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
Upon a petitioli duly filed, the National Labor Relations Board, on
February 28, 1947, conducted a prehearing election among employees
of the Employer in the alleged appropriate unit, to determine whether
they desired to be represented by the Petitioner,2 or by the Intervenor,
for the purposes of collective bargaining, or by neither.
At the close of the election, a Tally of Ballots was furnished the
parties. The Tally shows that of the approximately 54 eligible voters,
47 cast valid ballots, of which 14 were for the Petitioner, 11 were for
the Intervenor, and 22 were against both participating labor organi-
zations ; in addition, 4 ballots were challenged.
Thereafter, an appropriate hearing in the case was held at Niagara
Falls, New York, on April 9,1947, before Francis X. Helgesen, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.3
The name of the Petitioner appears in the caption as amended at the hearing.
2 The Petitioner appeared on the ballot as Local 277 , United Chemical Workers, CIO.
3 Among other rulings, the hearing officer properly denied the Motion to Strike made by
counsel for the Employer . This Motion was directed to data appearing on the challenged
ballot envelopes of the four employees whose ballots were challenged and also to the read-
ing of such data into the record at the hearing by the hearing officer. The only employees
whose ballots were challenged at the prehearing election were the four guards: Clarence
Dixon , Joe Bender , Norman MacKeage , and D. L. Roach.
The agent of the Board acted in accordance with established procedures at the prehear-
ing election . The purpose of his questioning these four employees with respect to their
duties and in briefly recording this information on the challenged ballot envelopes was to
ascertain the eligibility of the four guards and to record the basis for the challenges to
74 N. L . R. B., No. 58. 347
348 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon.the entire record in the case,4 the National Labor Relations
Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Pathfinder Chemical Corporation is a `Vest Virginia corporation,
having its principal office and place of business in the city of Niagara
Falls, New York, where it is engaged in the manufacture of plastic
resin, used principally for flooring, waterproofing and sheathing. The
Employer is licensed to do business in the State of New York and is It
subsidiary of the Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, of Akron, Ohio.
The Employer commenced operations at its Niagara Falls plant in
November 1946, and although not as yet in full production, it antici-
pates normal annual purchases of raw materials, valued in excess of
$25,000, of which approximately 25 percent will be shipped to the
Niagara Falls plant from points outside the State of New York. The
Employer anticipates annual sales of finished products at its Niagara
Falls plant, valued in excess of $25,000, all of which will be shipped
to points outside the State of New York.
The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress of
Industrial Organizations, claiming to represent employees of the
Employer.
District 50, United Mine `Yorkers of America, herein called the
Intervenor, is a labor organization affiliated with the American Federa-
tion of Labor, claiming to represent employees of the Employer.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Employer refuses to recognize the Petitioner as the exclusive
bargaining representative of employees of the Employer until the
Petitioner has been certified by the Board in an appropriate unit.
their ballots . The action of the hearing officer in reading such data into the record was
for the purpose of showing on the record the grounds for the challenges to the four ballots.
Independent evidence with respect to the duties of the guards whose ballots were challenged,
including the testimony of two of the guards , was taken at the hearing ; and all parties
were afforded full opportunity to examine and cross -examine witnesses and to introduce
evidence bearing on all issues , including those raised by the challenges . Our findings
herein are based entirely upon such independent evidence
4 On May 7, 1947, the parties entered into a stipulation correcting the record in certain
minor respects. The stipulation is hereby approved and the record is corrected in accord-
ance with the provisions of the stipulation
PATHFINDER CHEMICAL CORPORATION 349
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Employer, within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. TIIE APPROPRIATE UNIT
All parties agree that a unit composed of all production and main-
tenance employees of the Employer's Niagara Falls plant, excluding
laboratory technicians, office employees and supervisory employees, is
appropriate. There is disagreement among them, however, as to the
inclusion of guards, whom the Employer and the Petitioner would
exclude, and the Intervenor would include.
The Employer employs four guards who are under the direct super-
vision of the plant superintendent. They are hourly paid, like the
production workers, but do no production work. The guards are uni-
formed, deputized and bonded, but do not carry arms .5 The Niagara
Falls plant operates on three shifts and the guards work on rotating
shifts. Their duties, which are generally the same, are as follows :
to patrol the factory and make certain everything is in order; to oper-
ate the gate house and the entrance to the office and factory; to check
cars and trucks entering and leaving the gate; to check proper identi-
fication of employees and visitors; to keep gate house records; to com-
municate with foremen on late or absent employees; to answer the gate
house telephone and keep in order clock card records concerning
factory employees; to enforce safety and working rules and maintain
order and discipline. During the day, the guard on duty spends most
of his time at the gate house, while at night, the guard on duty patrols
the plant every 2 hours, in addition to his other duties.
Because it appears that the guards possess substantial monitorial
duties with relation to other employees, in that they are clothed with
authority to prevent violations of the Employer's rules by employees
and to employ reasonable force to enforce such rules, we shall, in
accordance with our usual practice, exclude them from the Unit .6
We find that all production and maintenance employees of the Em-
ployer's Niagara Falls plant, excluding guards, laboratory technicians,
office employees, and all supervisory employees with authority to hire,
promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status
of employees, or effectively recommend such action, constitute a unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
The guards were recently deputized by the city of Niagara Falls
',hatter of Electro Metallurgical Company , 69 N L. R . B 772 Matter of Monsanto
Chemical Company, 71 N L. R B 11; Matter of Electric Aatto-Late Company, 71
N. L R B 747, Mattel of The Okonate Company, 73 N. L R B 1187
350 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
As heretofore noted, the ballots of the four guards, Clarence Dixon,
Joe Bender, Norman. MacKeage, and D. L. Roach, were challenged at
the prehearing election. Inasmuch 'as we have determined to exclude
the four guards from the appropriate unit, the challenges to their bal-
lots are hereby sustained. Thus, the results of the prehearing elec-
tion show that no choice has received a majority of the valid votes cast
and that a run-off election maybe in order. In these circumstances, we
shall remand the case to the Regional Director for the Third Region
to conduct a run-off election pursuant to Section 203.56 of the Board's
Rules and Regulations-Series 4, if request therefor is made by a
proper party within 10 days after the date of the annexed Order.
ORDER
IT Is HEREBY ORDERED that this case be, and the same hereby is, re-
manded to the Regional Director for the Third Region to conduct a
run-off election pursuant to Section 203.56 of National Labor Relations
Board's Rules and Regulations-Series 4, if request therefor is made
by a proper party within 10 days after the date of this Order.
CHAIRMAN HERZOG took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Order.