United States Rubber Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 15, 1950

91 N.L.R.B. 293 (N.L.R.B. 1950)

In the Matter Of UNITED STATES RIBBER COMPANY, EMPLOYER and
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR, PETITIONER
Case No. 1-RC-1562.-Decided September 15,1950
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act,l a hearing was held before Robert E. Greene, 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 Houston 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 em-
ployees of the Employer.
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 Petitioner seeks a unit of production and maintenance em-
ployees at the Employer's rubber products plant at Providence, Rhode
Island. United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers of
America, CIO, hereinafter called the Rubber Workers, and its Local
66, the Intervenors herein, urge that, on the basis of past bargaining
history, the unit appropriate for employees at the Employer's Provi-
dence plant should also include production and maintenance employ-
ees at other rubber. products plants of the Employer at which the
' On April 28 , 1950, the Regional Director dismissed an earlier petition filed by the instant
Petitioner in Case No , 1-RC-1490 on the ground that the Petitioner had failed to make an
adequate showing of interest among employees in the alleged appropriate unit. Five days
later the Petitioner filed the petition in the instant case, covering the same unit. The
Intervenors urge that the instant case is merely repetitious of the earlier case and should
be dismissed for reasons of policy. We find no merit in this contention . The failure of the
Petitioner to make an adequate showing to sustain the earlier proceeding does not indicate
an abuse of the Board 's administrative process. The Petitioner has made an adequate
showing of interest in the instant case. It therefore appears that the processing of the
instant petition will effectuate the policies of the Act.
91 NLRB No. 44.
293
294 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Rubber Workers and its locals are recognized bargaining agents. The
Employer agrees with the Petitioner as to the unit.
In and after 1939, the Employer and the Rubber Workers and cer-
tain locals of the Rubber Workers met and negotiated terms appli-
cable to employees at all the Employer's rubber products plants at
which the Rubber Workers or its locals were the recognized bargain-
ing representatives. Since 1947 these general terms have been reduced.
to writing and referred to as "master" contracts. They have dealt
with general terms and conditions of employment, but have been sa
drawn as to become effective at individual plants of the Employer only
upon the execution of supplemental agreements between the Employer
and the respective locals of the Rubber Workers. The supplemental
agreements have dealt with such matters as seniority, the recall of
laidoff employees, and the method and amount of wage payments
under specified conditions. Even a wage agreement providing for a
general wage increase for the Employer's hourly paid employees,
entered into in 1948 between the Employer and the Rubber Workers,
provided that adjustments in hiring rates might be negotiated on a
local basis..
In an early representation proceeding, the Board found that pro=
duction and maintenance employees at, the Employer's Providence
plant constituted an appropriate bargaining unit and, on March 27,
1940, certified Rubber Workers Federal Labor Union, Local #22014,
chartered by the instant Petitioner, as their exclusive bargaining
representative.2 Later, on February 13, 1948, after a consent election
conducted in Case No. 1-R 3886, the Regional Director certified the
Rubber Workers, one of the Intervenors herein, as the bargaining
representative of these employees. In 1948, following this consent
election, the Employer and Local 66 of the Rubber Workers entered
into a supplemental agreement covering these employees. .
At the present time, the Employer operates approximately 22 rubber
products plants. At 19 of these plants, which include approximately
29,000 of the Employer's approximately 31,000 rubber products plant
employees, the Rubber Workers and its locals are the recognized bar-
gaining representatives of production and maintenance employees.
For approximately 8 years before the Rubber Workers became the
bargaining representative of employees at the Employer's Providence
plant, employees at this plant were represented on a plant plant-basis
by a local chartered by the Petitioner. The Petitioner seeks herein
representation of these employees in this early unit. The unit urged
by the Intervenors in this proceeding is not an employer-wide unit, but
2 20 NLRB 473; 21 NLRB 1140.
UNITED STATES' RUBBER COMPANY 295
a unit coextensive with the Rubber Workers' successful organization
among employees at the Employer's rubber products plants. For
employees, even at these plants, however, no master contracts nego-
tiated by the Rubber Workers are effective until supplemental agree-
ments at plant level have been executed by the Employer and the
respective plant locals of the Rubber Workers. On these facts, we
are of the opinion that the past bargaining history between the
Employer and the Rubber Workers on the multi-plant basis urged by
the Intervenors does not militate against our affirmation of the Board's
,earlier finding that employees at the Employer's Providence plant
constitute an appropriate unit apart from employees at other rubber
products plants of the Employer.3 For this reason, we conclude that
production and maintenance employees at the Employer's Providence
plant constitute an appropriate bargaining unit.
The Petitioner seeks to include shipping department employees in
the unit of production and maintenance employees found appropriate
by the Board and to exclude therefrom office and clerical employees,
laboratory employees, product control employees, professional em-
ployees, chauffeurs, instructors, guards, and executives and working
and other supervisors. The Employer and the Intervenors raise no
objections.
We find that all production and maintenance employees at the
Employer's rubber products plant at Providence, Rhode Island, in-
cluding shipping department employees, but excluding office and
clerical employees, laboratory employees, product control employees,
professional employees, chauffeurs, instructors, guards, and executives
and working and other supervisors, constitute a unit appropriate for
the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9
(b) of the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
3 Cf. Jacksonville Linen Service, Branch of the National Linen Service Corporation,
89 NLRB 1354 , and Aluminum Company of America, et al., 85 NLRB 915.