United States Rubber Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 9, 1944

56 N.L.R.B. 1328 (N.L.R.B. 1944)

In the Matter Of UNITED STATES RUBBER COMPANY, SYNTHETIC RUB-
BER DIVISION and FEDERATION OF ARCHITECTS, ENGINEERS, CHEMISTS,
AND TECHNICIANS, CIO
Case No . 21-R-2280.-Decided June 9, 1944
-Messrs . W. H. Young and A. E. Jury, of Los Angeles , Calif., for
the Company.
Messrs. Will Carroll and Paul G. Pinsky, of Los Angeles, Calif.,
for the C. I. O. '
Mr. Cecil 0. Johnson, of San Pedro, Calif., for the A. ,F. L.1
Mr. Robert E. Tillman, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION. OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
' Upon petition duly filed by Federation 'of Architects, Engineers,
Chemists, and Technicians, CIO, herein called the C. I. 0., alleging
that a question affecting commerce had -arisen concerning the repre-
sentation of employees of United States Rubber Company, Synthetic
Rubber Division, Los Angeles, California, herein called the Com-
pany; the National Labor Relations Board provided for an appro-
priate hearing upon due notice before William B. Esterman, Trial
Examiner. Said hearing was held at Los Angeles, California, on
April 28,1944. The Company, the C. I. 0., and San Pedro-Wilming-
ton Central Labor Council, herein called the A. F. L., appeared,
participated, and were afforded full opportunity to be heard,, to
examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evid',ence
bearing on the issues. The rulings of the Trial Examiner made at
the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby afClrmed.
All parties were afforded opportunity to file briefs with the Board.
I The following persons entered appearances on behalf of other bodies affiliated with the
American Federation of Labor • Irvan Cary, for the American Federation of Labor, E D
Boyd, for the Los Angeles Building Construction Trades Council; and Brice Worley, for
the International Brotheihood of Electrical Workers.
56 N. L. R. B., No. 235.
1328
UNITED STATES RUBBER COMPANY 1329
Upon the entire.record in the case, the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY /
United States Rubber Company, a New Jersey corporation, oper-
ates numerous plants throughout the, United States, where it is en-
gaged in the manufacture and sale of rubber products. The only
plant involved in this proceeding is the Torrance plant located in
Los Angeles, California, owned by the Defense Plant Corporation
and leased to the Company, which operates it as agent for the Rubber
Reserve Company. At this plant, the Company is engaged in the
manufacture of synthetic rubber.' Between 60 and 75 percent of
the plant's monthly output of 2;500 tons of rubber is delivered to
another of the Company's plants located in Los Angeles. The re-
maining output is sold principally to other tire manufacturers in
Los Angeles. All the rubber is used for military purposes.
The Company admits that it is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
II.- THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Federation of Architects, Engineers, Chemists, and Technicians is
a labor organization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organ-
izations, admitting to membership employees of the Company.
San Pedro-Wilmington Central Labor Council comprises several
craft labor organizations affiliated with the American Federation of
Labor, which admit to membership employees of the Company.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Company contends that the unit sought by the C. I. O. is in-
appropriate and, for that reason, refuses to recognize the C. I. O. as
the collective bargaining representative of employees in such unit in
the absence of certification by the Board.
A statement of a Field Examiner of the Board, introduced into
evidence at the hearing, indicates that the C. I. O. represents a sub-
stantial number of employees in the unit, alleged to be appropriate '2,
We find that a 'question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Company, within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
2 The Field Examiner stated that the C. I O submitted to him 23 authorization cards, of
whi ell 21 bore names of persons whose names appeared on the Company ' s pay roll for
January 31 , 1944 , which listed 40 employees in the unit alleged to be appropriate. He
stated further that the A F. L. submitted 7 authorization cards , 3 of which bore names of
persons whose names appeared on the above -mentioned pay roll.
1330' DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The C. I. O. and the A. F. L. agree that the following constitutes an
appropriate unit : all employees in the Company's Technical Depart-
ment , including , in the laboratory section, all chemists supervisors,
chemists assistants , material analysts, laboratory technicians, and the
laboratory utensil washer, and , in the Process Control section, all
chemical engineers supervisors , chemical engineers assistants, field
laboratory technicians, and samplers , but excluding the technical super-
intendent, the chief plant chemist, the chief chemical engineer, secre-
taries , and the statistician.
The Company contends that such a unit is inappropriate because it
includes supervisory employees and confidential employees, and, in
general, comprises employees who, from a management standpoint,
should not be subject to union restraints. In the event that the Board
finds an appropriate unit, the Company contends that the chemists
supervisors , the chemists assistants , the chemical engineers supervisors,
and the chemical engineers assistants should be excluded as'supervisory
employees , and the laboratory utensil washer and the samplers should
be excluded as hourly paid employees, having different interests. The
plant, being of recent origin , has no' history of collective bargaining.
The employees in the unit sought by the C. I. O. comprise the Com-
pany's Technical Department , which consists of two sections, the heads
of, which report to the Technical Superintendent . One section is
Process Control, headed by the Chief Chemical Engineer ; the other
is the Laboratory, headed by the Chief Plant Chemist . The Process
Control employees are located in a room in the Reactor Building, a
production building; the Laboratory employees have a separate build-
ing to themselves.
The primary function of the Technical Department is to test and
approve or reject raw materials and finished products , and to test ma-
terials in process at various stages to determine whether operating units
are functioning properly. The skills of the various classifications of
employees in the department range' from that of graduate chemists or
chemical engineers to that of the unskilled samplers who for the most
part gather up samples to be tested by trained employees . In spite of
this divergence in skills, we find that the Technical Department em-
ployees are engaged in functions which set them off from the rest of the
plant employees . This factor has been recognized by the Company,
which is at present negotiating with certain craft unions of the Ameri-
can Federation of Labor which won consent elections conducted on-
January 4, 1944, for a master contract to cover all its production and
maintenance employees , but excluding the employees involved in the
instant proceeding . The Board has previously , found that units of
laboratory employees are appropriate for purposes of collective,bar-
i
UNITED STATES RUBBER COMPANY 1331
gaining.' The fact that such employees may be engaged in work of a
confidential nature from the standpoint of production is not sufficient
reason to deprive them of the rights of employees under the Act. We
find no merit, therefore, to the objection of the Company that the pro-
posed unit is inappropriate because it embraces confidential employees.
There remains for determination the composition of the unit.
Supervisory employees
As indicated above, the Company maintains that four classifications
of employees sought to be included in the unit have supervisory status.
Chemists supervisors and chemical engineers supervisors occupy sim-
ilar positions in their respective locations in the Laboratory and the,
Process Control sections. Under the Chief Plant Chemist or the Chief
Chemical Engineer, as the case may be, each employee in the two classi-
fications is the, head of a shift. There are three chemists supervisors
and four chemical engineers supervisors. The former, as part of their
functions, assign tests and generally supervise the work in the Lab-
oratory by seeing that samples are properly tested and test results are
reported. They have a desk where they spend some time making out
reports, reading test methods, approving test cards, and scrutinizing
results. On occasion they perform tests and assist other employees.
They keep no personnel records other than noting absences, and have
no authority to hire or discharge employees.' Although as yet, 'there
has been no occasion to discharge a Laboratory employee,,the Company
insists that the chemists- supervisors' recommendation in such regard
might be influential. At times, one of them may be,requested by the
Personnel Department to interview an applicant for a position as to
his technical qualifications.
The chemical engineers supervisors supervise solids testing and plant
solutions testing; direct the operations of the plant insofar as loading
and unloading reactors is involved ; supervise the technical aspects of
plant operation; and advise the production department of changes that
should be made to insure proper operation. They keep no personnel
records and have no power to hire or to discharge employees. On the
other hand, they have desks, and their recommendations respecting the
status of employees appear to be effective. Thus, there is evidence that
their recommendations have been instrumental in two or three cases
where employees were discharged for excessive absenteeism-and poor
work. _
Although the supervisory power of the chemists supervisors and the
chemical engineers supervisors may not be extensive, since they are the
immediate superiors of the other employees in their sections on their
3 See Matter of The Permanente Metals Corporation, 45 N L R. B. 931 ; cf. National
Aniline Dtitiision, Allied Chemical & Dye Corporation, 41 N. L. R. B. 1191.
1332 DECISIONS' OF 'NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
shifts, we are of the opinion that their duties and responsibilities are
such as to require their exclusion from the appropriate unit.4
Chemists assistants and chemical engineers assistants likewise oc-
cupy similar positions in their respective sections, holding a rank im-
mediately below that of the employees we have just excluded. There
are four chemists assistants and six chemical engineers assistants.
These employees are divided among three shifts. The chemists as-
sistants are preferably graduate chemists or chemical engineers, or
persons having 2 or 3 years of college chemistry and experience. They
perform the ,more detailed and difficult technical work requiring a
high degree of skill and knowledge of laboratory equipment, instru-
ments, and chemical processes and reactions.
. The chemical engineers assistants preferably have a degree in chemi-
cal engineering or the equivalent. They assist the chemical engineers'
supervisors, make tests in the plant in the finishing area, and,supervise
,the taking of samples in that area.
The record is clear that neither of these classifications of employees
possesses authority to hire or to discharge or effectively to make recom-
mendations affecting the status of other employees. Nor do they have
the duties and responsibilities of their superiors. We find, therefore,
that they are not supervisory employees, and we shall include them in
the unit. '
Hourly paid employees
The. Company seeks the exclusion of samplers and the laboratory
utensil washer because they are hourly paid employees and unskilled.
In spite of the unskilled nature of their work, it appears that the
interests of the samplers and the utensil washer are so much more
closely related to those of the skilled employees in the Technical De-
partment than to those of any other group of employees that they may
be represented in the same unit for collective bargaining purposes.
Under the circumstances, the fact that they are hourly paid, whereas
the other employees included in'the unit are salaried, is of little con-
sequence. We shall include samplers and the laboratory utensil washer
in the unit. '
'We find that all employees of the Company in the Technical De-
partment of its Torrance Plant, including, in the Laboratory section,
chemists assistants, material analysts, laboratory technicians, and the
laboratory utensil washer, and, in the Process Control section, chemical
engineers' assistants, field laboratory technicians, and samplers, but
excluding secretaries, the statistician, the technical superintendent, the
chief plant chemist, the chief chemical engineer, chemists supervisors,
chemical engineers supervisors, and- all other supervisory employees
4 Cf. Matter of Shell Petroleum Corporation ( Now Shell Oil Company, Incorporated),
56 N. L . R. B. 318; and Matter of Blackwell Zinc Company, Inc ., 56 N. L. R B. 924.
UNITED STATES RUBBER COMPANY 1333
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 meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
We shall direct that the question concerning representation which
has arisen be resolved by an election by secret ballot among the em-
ployees in the appropriate unit who were employed during the pay-
roll period immediately preceding the date of our Direction of Elec-
tion herein, subject to the limitations and additions set forth therein.
The C. I. O. contends that the name of the A: F. L. should not ap-
pear on the ballot because it did not make a showing of sufficient
interest. Although the showing of the A. F. L. is not substantial, as
indicated in footnote 2, supra, we consider it sufficient to entitle the
A. F. L. to a place on the ballot.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National
Labor Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, and pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3, it is, hereby
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representa-
tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with United States
Rubber Company, Synthetic Rubber Division, Los Angeles Califor-
nia, an election by secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible,
but not later than thirty (30) days from the date of this Direction,
under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the
Twenty-first Region, acting in this matter as agent for the National
Labor Relations Board, and subject to Article III, Sections 10 and
11, of said Rules and. Regulations, among the employees in the unit
found appropriate in Section IV, above, who were employed during
the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of this Direction,
including employees who did not work during said pay-roll period
because they were ill or on vacation or temporarily laid off, and in-
cluding employees in the armed forces of the United States who pre-
sent themselves in person at the polls, but excluding any who have
since quit or been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or
reinstated prior to the date of the election, to determine wliether they
desire to be represented by Federation of Architects, Engineers,
Chemists,, and Technicians, CIO, or by the American Federation of
Labor,5 for the purposes of collective bargaining, or by neither.
The A. F. L. expressed a preference at the hearing that its name appear on the ballot as
it is set forth in the Direction of Election.