American Writing Paper Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 29, 1951

94 N.L.R.B. 1773 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

AMERICAN WRITING PAPER CORPORATION, ET AL. 1773
some point beyond the scene of the assault, and the time of the assault were
not clearly enough fixed to enable the undersigned to judge whether, consistently
with both Hergenhahn's and Popiolek's testimony, Fronckowski and Kolb might
not have returned in another car after leaving Popiolek. The undersigned
therefore credits both Popiolek's denial that he witnessed or participated in
the assault, and Hergenhahn's testimony that he was assaulted by Fronckowski,
Kolb, and MacMillan. The undersigned, however, rejects any implication that
Jluth was the driver of the "get: away" car merely because it was a blue Ford
which Hergenhahn believed was Ruth's car.
Upon this evidence as to their assault upon Hergenhahn the undersigned will
recommend that the Board amend its order to withhold from Fronckowski, Kolb,
and MacMillan any right to reinstatement and back pay.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record,
the undersigned makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By their assault upon James Hergenhahn on November 5, 1946, Claimants
Raymond A. Fronckowski, Marion A. Kolb, and William B. MacMillan forfeited
their rights to reinstatement and back pay under the Board's Order.
2. The evidence does not warrant the conclusion that either of the Claimants
Milton A. Popiolek or Harold W. Ruth engaged in any misconduct which jus-
tifies a forfeiture of their rights to reinstatement or back pay under the Board's
Order.
Recommendations
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the
undersigned recommends that the Board amend its Order issued in the present
proceeding on September 20, 1948, by deleting from paragraphs 2 (a) and 2 (b),
the names of Raymond A. Fronckowski, Marion A. Kolb, and William B. Mac-
Millan, and-thus excluding these three men from the benefits of these provisions.
AMERICAN WRITING PAPER CORPORATION, ET AL. and UNITED PAPER
WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER
CROCKER-MCELWAIN COMPANY and UNITED PAPER WORKERS OF AMER-
ICA, CIO, PETITIONER. Cases Nos. 1-RC-177 and 1-RC-2176.
June 29, 1951
Decision and Order
Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing 'was held before
Robert S. Fuchs, 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 Murdock and Styles].
94 NLRB No. 248.
1774 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
1. The Employers 1 are engaged in commerce within the meaning
of the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent employees of:
the Employers.
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employers within the meaning of Section
9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, for the following
reasons:
The Petitioner seeks to represent two units of employees. In Case
No. 1-RC-2176 it would include all employees of Crocker-McElwain
at its Holyoke, Massachusetts, plant, excluding executives, office and
clerical employees, firemen and engineers, professional employees,
guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. In Case No. 1-RC-2177
it would include all employees of American, Valley, Parsons, and
Franklin employed at their Holyoke, Massachusetts, plants, with the
same exclusions as set out above.
The Employers and Eagle Lodge No. 1 and Local 226, International
Brotherhood of Paper Makers, AFL, and International Brotherhood
of Paper Makers, AFL, the Intervenors, contend that a multiple-
employer unit covering the employees of all six of the Employers is
the only unit appropriate'for the purposes of collective bargaining.
All of the Employers are located in Holyoke, Massachusetts, where
they are engaged in the manufacture of the same types of paper and
paper products. Since 1937 2 the six Employers have bargained as a.
group through a negotiating committee with the Intervenors. concern-
ing the wages, hours, and other conditions of employment of substan-
tially all of the employees here involved.3 Although the Employers
have not organized a formal association, the record reveals that they
have appointed a bargaining committee of three persons to bargain on
behalf of all six of the Employers, and that the six Employers jointly
bear the expenses and fees necessary to retain one Harold D. Martin,
who has served as labor advisor to all of them since 1939. During
negotiations the Employers are represented by the Committee and by
Martin. When negotiations are completed the proposed agreement is.
submitted to, each of the Employers for its approval and to the Inter-
'
The following Employers , in addition to the Employers specifically mentioned in the-
above captions , are involved in this proceeding : Valley Paper Company , Parsons Paper
Company, and Franklin Paper Company ( Case No. 1-RC-2176 ) ; and Chemical Paper-
Manufacturing Company which appeared at the hearing and was permitted to intervene..
The Employers are hereinafter referred to respectively as American , Crocker-McElwainr
Valley, Parsons, Franklin , and Chemical.
2 Although the record is not clear , it appears that for many years prior to 1937 the-
Employers have engaged in joint collective bargaining and have entered into oral contracts.
with the Intervenors concerning the terms and conditions of employment of their employees-
3 Prior to 1948 the Intervenors did not represent a majority of the employees at Crocker-
McElwain and the contracts executed by that Employer applied to members of the,
Intervenors only. However , since 1948 there has been no such distinction..
NATIONAL DISTILLERS PRODUCTS CORPORATION 1775
venors to be ratified by their memberships. When all concerned have
reached agreement the representatives of all the parties meet and at
the same time and place sign a written contract. Representatives of
American, Valley, Parsons, and Franklin and the Intervenors attach
their signatures to the same document. Although separate documents
are signed by the representatives of Chemical and Crocker-McElwain,
the general contract terms which uniformly result from the joint nego-
tiations are identical in all three documents. Special riders, however,
pertaining to employees employed by only one of the Employers, as in
the case of truck drivers employed by Chemical only, are added to the
general agreement. As indicated above, since 1937 all bargaining
concerning the employees here involved has been on a joint basis.
There have been no separate negotiations by any of the Employers.
The record also discloses that job classifications are uniform through-
out the plants of all the Employers and that similar working condi-
tions prevail among the employees of the six Employers.
In view of the substantial bargaining history on a joint basis, as
set forth above, we find that the units sought by the Petitioner are
inappropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining.' Inasmuch
as the Petitioner has not evinced a desire to represent a multiple-
employer unit embracing the employees of all of the Employers and
has not made an adequate showing of interest among such employees,-"
we shall dismiss the petitions filed herein.
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petitions filed in this case be, and they
hereby are, dismissed.
4Arena-Norton, Inc., et al., 93 NLRB 3375; Johnson Optical Company, et al., 85
NLRB 895; Associated Shoe Industries of Southeastern Massachusetts, Inc., et at.,
81 NLRB 224. The Petitioner asserts that the Employers involved and the Intervenors
have previously consented to the appropriateness of the units it seeks to establish because
they agreed to separate union-security authorization elections in 1948. However, neither
the parties' previous agreement nor the Board's consent election procedures necessarily
control the appropriateness of such units where the issue is controverted in the repre-
sentation proceedings and is before the Board for determination. United States Lime
Products Corporation, 91 NLRB 1415.
The Madison Company, 91 NLRB 135 ; American District Telegraph Company,
89 NLRB 1228.
NATIONAL DISTILLERS PRODUCTS CORPORATION and LODGE No. 1646,
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS , PETITIONER . Case No.
9-RC-1117. June 29, 1951
Decision and Order
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Seymour Goldstein, hearing
94 NLRB No. 249.