Resinous Products and Chemical Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 30, 1943

50 N.L.R.B. 991 (N.L.R.B. 1943)

In' 'the Matter Of RESINOUS PRODUCTS AND CHEMICAL COMPANY,
CHARLES LENNIG AND COMPANY, INC. and INDEPENDENT CHEMICAL
WORKERS ORGANIZATION.
Case No. R-54118.-Decided June' 30, 1943
Sourer & Taylor, of Philadelphia, Pa., by Mr. Kenneth K. Sourer,
for the Company.
Mr: Williams Vincent Mullin, of Philadelphia, Pa., for the Union.
Miss Muriel J. Levor, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon amended petition duly filed by Independent Chemical Work-
ers Organization, herein called the Union, alleging that a question
affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation of em-
ployees of Resinous Products and Chemical Company, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, herein called Resinous Products, and Charles Lennig
and Company, Inc., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, herein called the
Lennig Company, (the corporations will be referred to herein col-
lectively as the Company), the National Labor Relations Board pro-
vided for an appropriate hearing upon due notice before Geoffrey
J. Cuniff, Trial Examiner. Said hearing was held at Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, on May 25, 1943. The Company and the Union ap-
peared, participated, and were afforded full opportunity to be heard,
to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence
bearing on the issues. The Trial Examiner's rulings made at the
hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
All parties were afforded opportunity to file briefs with the Board.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Resinous Products and Chemical Company is a Delaware corpora-
tion with its principal place of business at Philadelphia, Pennsyl-
50 N. L. R B., No. 142.,
I
991
992 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
vania, where it is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution
of synthetic resins. Charles Lennig and, Company, Inc., is a Penn-
sylvania corporation with its principal place of business at Phila-
delphia, Pennsylvania, where it is engaged in the manufacture, sale,
and distribution of heavy chemical specialties. Both Resinous Prod-
ucts and the Lennig Company are subsidiaries of Rohm & Hass
Company of Bristol, Pennsylvania, and carry on their operations in
one plant with one plant manager. During the year 1942, Resinous
Products used various raw materials including phenol, formaldehyde,
castor oil, rosin, glycerin, butyl alcohol, and phthalic anhydride, of
a value in excess of $500,000, of "which 70 percent was shipped from
points outside the State of Pennsylvania. During the same period
the Lennig Company purchased raw materials including ammonia
bauxite, sulphur, methanol, sodium chloride, and copper, of a value
in excess of $500,000, of which approximately &0 percent was shipped
,from points outside the State of Pennsylvania. During this period
the Company manufactured products valued in excess of $1,000,000,
of which more than 75 percent was shipped to points outside the
State of Pennsylvania.
The Company concedes that it is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Inclependent Chemical Workers Organization is an unaffiliated
labor organization, admitting to membership employees of the
'Company.
III. THE ALLEGED APPROPRIATE UNIT
In its petition the Union claims as appropriate for collective bar-
gaining a unit composed of the Company's "operators and helpers,"
although at the•hearing it somewhat modified its request. The Com-
pany contends that a unit so constituted iQ inappropriate. To support
this contention it urges that its operations are highly integrated, and
that the operators do not constitute a skilled craft.
The term "operator," as used by the Uniop, appears to designate,
those employees of the Company who are directly engaged in its
regular production processes. It appears that lower grade operators
act as "helpers" for the higher grades as does also one category of
laborer (production laborers or first-class laborers). Although noth=
ing appears concerning what it meant by "helper" when filing the
petition (the Company has no such classification); the Union evinced
its willingness at the hearing to include these production laborers in
the unit, as it desires to represent "helpers."
The Company classifies its laborers as common, yard, raw material,
and production laborers, although there is no material difference in
i
RESINOUS PRODUCTS AND CHEMICAL COMPANY 993
the skill required of these various categories. It is the Company's
custom to recruit those employees it trains as operators from among
the yard or production laborers, and its policy is to demote operators
rather than.lay them off when business is slack. The Union has some
representation ammong the yard laborers, although it desires them
,excluded from the unit.
The operators are subdivided by the Company into different grades,
takes from 6-months to 1 year to acquire the skill and experi-and it
ence required for the highest grade, which many operators never
attain. There is some evidence to support the Company's contention
that the skill acquired in the Company's operations would be of little
material use to an operator were he to change to the employ of
another company. 0
In addition to the operators referred to above, the Company em-
ploys a considerable number of persons whose duties appear to be the
same, although they do not work at regular production but in the
Company's "semi-works" or pilot department. The principal opera-
tions of "semi-works" are experimental, but on a much larger scale
than exists in a laboratory. Processes worked out in the laboratory
are placed in small scale production, before they go into regular pro-
duction. About 3,000,000 pounds, 3 to 4 percent of the Company's
sales, are products of "semi-works." It is the Company's policy to
maintain small quantity production at "semi-works" pending the
development of a larger market, and some products remain in "semi-
works"'if the larger market is not attained. Although nothing ap
pears concerning the frequency of transfers between "semi-works" .
and production, such transfers appear to be part of the Company's
regular policy in regard to training operators for particular process.
The Company testing laboratories employ numerous "laboratory
assistants" whose qualifications are substantially the same as those of
the higher grade operators. The work of these- testing laboratories
is closely integrated with the Company's other departments. The
Union has 'representation among and is willing to represent the
laboratory assistants employed by Resinous Products in its Labora-
tory 21, although it desires that the Board exclude those employed by
the Lennig Company in Laboratory 12, since it has no membership
among them.- •
The Company employs a type of factory clerk whom it designates
as "checkers." They work throughout the plant with invoices and
their duties are closely allied with production. Many of the operators
who work on, swing shifts seek to be transferred to employment as
checkers since the latter only work the day shift. Their pay is some-
where between that of the highest and lowest operators.
Although we have frequently held that units which were neither
994 DECISIONS OF NAfrILONAL LABOR RE'LAT'IONS BOARD
craft nor industrial are appropriate, in those cases, the'units requested
consisted of clearly defined and identifiable employee groups that
'could, on functional or other bases, logically and reasonably be seg-
regated from other employees for the purposes of collective bargain-
' ing. Here the proposed unit is clearly arbitrary, since it includes
some operators, laborers, and laboratory assistants, while other em-
ployees in the same or similar categories are excluded. Nor are the
considerations which impel us to direct elections in units coinciding
with the extent of organization present in the instant case, since a
necessary requirement in such cases is that the requested unit conform
to other criteria of appropriateness. We shall, accordingly, dismiss
the petition in the instant proceeding.
IV. THE ALLEGED QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
Since, as found in Section III, above, the bargaining unit sought
to be established by the petition is inappropriate for the purposes of
,collective bargaining, we find that no question has arisen concerning
the representation of employees in an appropriate bargaining unit.,
, ORDER
Upon The basis of the above findings of fact, and the entire record
in the case, the Board hereby orders that the petition for investigation
and certification of representatives of employees of Resinous Products
and Chemical Company and of Charles Lennig and Company, Inc.,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, filed by Independent Chemical Workers
Organization, be, and it hereby is, dismissed.