Warner-Lambert Pharmaceutical Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 30, 1961

131 N.L.R.B. 1441 (N.L.R.B. 1961)

WARNER-LAMBERT PHARMACEUTICAL CO., INC., ETC. 1441
Warner-Lambert Pharmaceutical Company , Inc. (Warner-Chilcott
Laboratories Division ) i and Oil , Chemical and Atomic Work-
ers International Union , AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 22-
RC-1073. June 30, 1961
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before James F. Morton,
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are
free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed 2
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 [Members Leedom, Fanning, and Brown].
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 organization involved claims 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 to represent a unit of maintenance em-
ployees. It contends that a unit comprising all painters, outside
maintenance employees, fabricators, refrigeration and air-condition-
ing mechanics, carpenters, machinists, pipefitters, electricians,
utility servicemen, powerplant operators and powerplant operator-
1 The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing
' The Employer contends that the hearing officer erred in revoking certain subpenas.
The Employer sought to adduce evidence from the Petitioner 's representatives to show
that the Petitioner customarily represented units of production and maintenance em-
ployees and did not traditionally represent units of multicraft maintenance employees.
The hearing officer on motion of the Petitioner revoked the subpenas on the ground that
the evidence sought was irrelevant in the instant case. The hearing officer thereafter
denied the Employer's motion for a continuance to permit it to appeal his ruling to the
Board . The Employer's request of the Board for permission to appeal was denied with
the right to renew its motion in its brief to the Board. We find that the hearing officer
properly revoked the subpenas . Contrary to the Employer 's contention , it is well estab-
lished that the traditional representative requirement established by the American Potash
case ( 107 NLRB 1418 ) is not applicable to a situation such as this where the petitioner is
not seeking to sever a craft or traditional departmental group from an existing unit. See
Campbell Soup Company, 109 NLRB 518 , and Industrial Rayon Corporation, 128 NLRB
514. None of the cases cited by the Employer supports its contrary contention.
8 The Employer moves for a dismissal of the petition on the grounds that, contrary to
the statement in the petition , no demand for recognition was received by the Employer
prior to the filing of the petition and that the demand, when received , did not clearly
designate the unit sought . As the Employer failed to recognize the Union after receiving
the demand for recognition and a clarification of the unit sought by the Petitioner at the
opening of the hearing , we hereby deny the Employer 's motion to dismiss the petition. See
Advance Pattern Company, 80 NLRB 29, and Plains Cooperative Oil Mill, 123 NLRB 1709,
footnote 1
131 NLRB No. 171.
599198-62-vol. 131-92
1442 -DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
mechanic, machinist apprentices, tool crib attendants, assistant
tool crib attendants, masons, fork truck mechanics, and maintenance
helper is appropriate, but is willing to accept any maintenance unit
which the Board finds appropriate. The Employer contends that the
only appropriate unit is one consisting of all production and mainte-
nance employees. However, the Employer takes the alternative posi-
tion that if a unit of maintenance employees is found appropriate it
should include, in addition to the employees sought by the Petitioner,
the two matrons, a plant cleaner, a maintenance dispatcher, a plant
clerical employee, three chauffeurs, and an employee classified as
chauffeur-electrician.
The Employer is engaged in the manufacture and sale of pharma-
ceutical products. All of the employees sought by the Petitioner are
engaged primarily in the repair, minor alteration, and maintenance
of the equipment and physical facilities involved in the Employer's
operations, except for the powerplant employees who operate high
pressure boilers. All of these employees are considered by the Em-
ployer to be part of its maintenance force. All maintenance work is
under the supervision of the manager of engineering with most of
the craft maintenance employees under the immediate supervision
of the maintenance engineer and his subordinates. There is no his-
tory of collective bargaining for any of the employees in the plant,
nor is there any labor organization seeking to represent a unit of
production and maintenance employees. Of the additional em-
ployees whom the Employer seeks to include in the maintenance unit,
all except the chauffeurs and chauffeur-electrician are under the
supervision of the maintenance engineer and generally work in, or
report to, the same immediate area as the other maintenance
employees.
As the record in this case establishes that the maintenance em-
ployees are readily identifiable as a group whose similarity of func-
tion and skills create a community of interest, even though the
Employer's operations are to some extent integrated, we find, con-
trary to the Employer's contention, that a unit of maintenance em-
ployees is appropriate.4
However, there remains for consideration whether the unit should
include the matrons, and other employees whose inclusion is urged
by the Employer. The record shows that, except for the chauffeurs
and chauffeur-electrician, these employees are all under the super-
vision of the maintenance engineer and that their work is clearly and
principally devoted to plant maintenance. Thus, the matrons issue
uniforms, maintains the ladies' rooms, and issue paper towels and
supplies from a stockroom in the maintenance department. The
' See American Cyanamid Company , 131 NLRB 909.
WARNER-LAMBERT PHARMACEUTICAL CO., INC., ETC. 1443
plant cleaner cleans the maintenance shops, mechanical equipment
rooms, men's rooms, and production areas which have been littered
by maintenance workers. The maintenance dispatcher processes and
relays to the appropriate supervisor all requests for maintenance in
the plant. He has continual contact with maintenance employees.
The plant clerical for the maintenance department maintains the
technical files for several thousand pieces of equipment used in the
plant, has an office in the maintenance area, works exclusively for the
maintenance division, and has frequent contact with the maintenance
employees.
In view of the foregoing, we shall include the matrons, plant
cleaner, maintenance dispatcher, and plant clerical in the unit herein
found appropriate.'
The chauffeurs, on the other hand, are engaged principally in work
other than maintenance work. They spend most of their time in
picking up and delivering mail, passengers, drugs, and equipment.
In so doing, they serve mainly the production, mail, and personnel
departments. The chauffeurs wait for calls at the the shipping dock
and are directly supervised by the supervisor of traffic who reports
to the manager of planning, warehousing, and shipping. As the
chauffeurs do not spend a substantial amount of their time perform-
ing maintenance duties and as they are separately supervised, we
shall exclude them from the maintenance unit.
Although the chauffeur-electrician spends a substantial amount of
his time performing electrical maintenance work, it appears that his
primary function is to serve as chauffeur for one of the Employer's
officers. During 1960 he spent less than 50 percent of his time work-
ing as an electrician. In view thereof we shall, in accordance with
established Board policy, exclude the chauffeur-electrician from the
unit of maintenance employees.6
We find that the following employees of the Employer constitute
a unit appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act :
All maintenance employees of the Employer at its Morris Plains,
New Jersey, plant, including painters, outside maintenance em-
ployees, fabricators, refrigeration and air-conditioning mechanics,
carpenters, machinists, pipefitters, electricians, utility servicemen,
powerplant operators and powerplant operator-mechanic, machinist
apprentices, tool crib attendants, assistant tool crib attendants,
masons, the fork truck mechanic, maintenance helpers, matrons, the
° See Heublean, Inc., 119 NLRB 1337, 1339
° See Denver-Colorado Spring8-Pueblo Motor Way, 129 NLRB 1184 Member Fanning
would include the chauffeur-electrician in the unit with respect to his electrician work
The record shows that he spends a substantial part of his time in such work Member
Fanning, for the reasons expressed in his dissent in Denver-Colorado Spring8, finds that
the chauffeur-electrician has sufficient interest in the question concerning representation
here raised to warrant his inclusion in the unit and his voting in the election.
1444 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
plant cleaner , the maintenance dispatcher , and the plant clerical em-
ployee in the maintenance department , but excluding office clerical
employees , chauffeurs , the chauffeur-electrician , professional em-
ployees, all other employees , guards, and supervisors as defined in
the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
Jack G. Buncher, d/b,/a The Buncher Company and United
Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO , Petitioner. Case No..
6-CA-1917. June 30, 1961
DECISION AND ORDER
On September 20, 1960, Trial Examiner George J. Bott issued his,
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that he cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action as set forth in the copy of the Inter-
mediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed
exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a brief in support thereof.,
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board
had delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel [Members Rodgers, Leedom, and Fanning].
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the
case, and hereby adopts the Trial Examiner's findings, conclusions,
and recommendations,) with certain modifications in the remedy as
hereafter set forth.
TI3E REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging
in certain unfair labor practices, we shall order that he cease and
desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effec-
tuate the policies of the Act.
It appears that following the layoffs occurring on January 15, 1960, ,
through March 4, 1960, which have been found herein to have been
discriminatory, the Respondent's business operations were more effi-
cient and the workload could be accomplished with a reduced work
1 The Respondent 's motion requesting that the Board receive into evidence, as Respond-
ent's Exhibit No. 50, the toll call records of The Bell Telephone Company of Pennsylvania
charged to The Buncher Company at its North Side office, is denied as these records were
available at the time of the hearing and were not then offered into evidence.
131 NLRB No. 172.