Anchor Hocking Glass Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 11, 1946

66 N.L.R.B. 553 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

In the Matter of ANCHOR HOCKING GLASS CORPORATION and DISTRICT
50, UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA
Case No. 6-Pi,-1262 .-Decided March 11, 1946
Messrs. Thorp, Bostwich, Reed & Armstrong, by Mr. Donald W.
Ebbert, of Pittsburgh, Pa., for the Company.
Messrs. Stanley Denlinger, of Akron, Ohio; Joseph C. Gallagher,
of Pittsburgh, Pa., for District 50.
Mr. Albert K. Plone, of Camden, N. J., for the GBBA.
Mr. David V. Easton, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a first amended petition duly filed by District 5 ), United
Mine Workers of America, herein called District 50, alleging that a
question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation
of employees of Anchor Hocking Glass Corporation, South Connells-
ville, Pennsylvania, herein called the Company, the National Labor
Relations Board provided for an appropriate hearing upon due notice
before W. G. Stuart Sherman, Trial Examiner. The hearing was held
at Uniontown, Pennsylvania, on November 30, 1945. The Company,
District 50, and Glass Bottle Blowers Association of the United States
and Canada, AFL, herein called the GBBA, appeared and partici-
pated.' All parties were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to
examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bear-
ing on the issues. The GBBA moved at the hearing for dismissal of
the petition. The Trial Examiner reserved ruling upon the motion
for the Board. For reasons stated in Section IV, infra, the motion is
denied. The Trial Examiner's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. All parties were af-
forded opportunity to file briefs with the Board.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
1 Amalgamated Lithographers of America , A. F. of L., filed a written motion to
intervene in the proceedings , but did not appear or participate therein . The employees
represented by that organization are not claimed by either District 50 or the GBBA
66 N. L. R. B., No. 73.
553
554 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Anchor Hocking Glass Corporation, a Delaware corporation with
its home office located at Lancaster, Ohio, operates plants in various
States of the United States. The Connellsville, Pennsylvania, plant
of the Company, with which we are concerned herein, consists of a
Closure Division wherein the Company is engaged exclusively in the
manufacture of metal and plastic caps and closures for glass con-
tainers, and a Glass Division which contains glass making facilities.
The Company uses annually at its Closure Division raw materials
valued at more than $700,000, approximately 85 percent of which is
received from points outside the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
The annual sales of the Closure Division amount to more than $800,-
000 in value, of which approximately 85 percent is sold and shipped
to customers outside the Commonwealth.
The Company admits that it is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
District 50, United Mine Workers of America, and Glass Bottle
Blowers Association of the United States and Canada, are labor
organizations affiliated with the American Federation of Labor,
admitting to membership employees of the Company.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Company has refused to grant recognition to District 50 as the
exclusive representative of certain of its employees, asserting that
these employees are represented by the GBBA. Although an existing
1-year contract between the Company and the GBBA, dated Septem-
ber 1, 1945, governs the relationship between these parties, neither
asserts it as a bar to a current determination of representatives?
A statement of a Board agent, introduced into evidence at the hear-
ing, indicates that District 50 represents a substantial number of em-
ployees in the unit alleged by it to be appropriate.'
2 The record indicates that District 50 notified the Company of its representation
claim on July 24, 1945, prior to the execution of the above-mentioned contract be-
tween the Company and the GBBA. In view of the timeliness of this notice, the
contract does not , in any event , act as a bar to this proceeding
3 The Field Examiner reported that District 50 submitted 412 designations. The
record indicates that there are approximately 1,120 employees in the unit asserted
by it as appropriate. He further indicated that the GBBA relies upon its contracts
with the Company for the establishment of its interest
For reasons stated in platter of Buffalo Arms Corporattion, 57 N L. R B 1560, we
find no merit in the Company's objection to the Field Examiner's report.
ANCHOR HOCKING GLASS CORPORATION 555
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.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT; TIIE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES.
A. Contentions of the parties
District 50 seeks a unit comprised of all production and maintenance
employees of the Company engaged at its Closure Division, excluding
lithographers, automatic feeding and flowing process operators, mold
makers, office clerical employees, plant-protection employees, foremen,
assistant foremen, and all other supervisory employees. The GBBA
and the Company, although in accord with District 50 with respect
to the specific composition of the proposed unit, assert that it is in-
appropriate, contending that employees at both the Closure and the
Wass Divisions comprise the appropriate unit.
B. Functional considerations
The Company's Connellsville operations are located on a tract of
land having an area of approximately 45 acres. The Closure Division
is composed of approximately 5 buildings, and the Glass Division con-
sists of several buildings within the same area. There is one railroad
siding from the main line of the railroad which runs to a shipping
department shed which is used jointly by the 2 divisions.
The general offices of the Connellsville operations are located in a
building separate from those used by either division, and is main-
tained for the use of both, containing a general employment office, a
pay-roll department, a billing department, and a cost accounting de-
partment. The boiler and power facilities of the Company are also
used in common by the 2 divisions. As previously noted, both divi-
sions use the same shipping department which is located in a Glass
Division building; conversely, the Glass Division storage department
is located in a Closure Division Building. The record indicates that,
within the 6 months preceding the hearing herein, there were approxi-
mately 100 transfers of employees between the 2 divisions, and that,
approximately 8 months prior to the hearing, 100 employees laid off
by the Closure Division were absorbed by the Glass Division.
However, each division is under the supervision of a plant manager
who is directly responsible to the home office of the Company.. More-
over, a separate seniority list is maintained for the employees of each
division, although seniority at both divisions is accumulated under
certain circumstances. There are at present separate entrance and exit
gates for the employees of each division. In addition, although the
556 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
bulk of the Company's production of containers at the Connellsville
operations is also complemented by an equivalent order for caps or
closures from the same customers, the Closure Division also produces
and sells caps and closures independent of orders for containers.
Finally, although general labor policies of the Company are formu-
lated at the home offices, specific implementation of these policies, as
well as of personnel and production policies, is made by the plant (or
division) managers who are functionally independent of each other.
It appears from the foregoing that there exists a substantial degree
of functional integration between the t' o divisions. On the other
hand, in comparison with the total number of employees engaged at
each division,4 the number of transfers between the two is relatively
slight. Furthermore, the administration of each division is inde-
pendent of the other. Finally, it is apparent from the nature of the
products manufactured at the two divisions that the skills of the
employees engaged by each are different. These circumstances, coupled
with the fact that a separate seniority list is maintained by each divi-
sion, tend to support the contention of District 50 that each division
could properly constitute a separate unit. We conclude, therefore,
that, from a functional viewpoint, the employees of each division may
properly comprise either a separate unit, or be combined within a
single over-all unit.
C. Collective bargaining history
The GBBA and the Company, however, insist that, despite these
circumstances, the history of collective bargaining points inescapably
to the conclusion that only a single over-all unit is appropriate, citing
Matter of Clarksburg Paper Company.5
The record indicates that, in 1936, the GBBA was recognized as the
collective bargaining representative of the production employees of
the Capstan Glass Company. Sometime thereafter, the Company
assimilated this employer's facilities, which ultimately became the
Glass Division.
Until the early part of 1941, the Company operated a closure plant
in Long Island, New York. At that time it disposed of this plant, and
moved much of its machinery and some of its personnel6 to Connells-
ville, where it erected the Closure Division adjacent to the Glass
Division.
4 There are approximately 1,150 employees engaged at the Glass Division
5 64 N. L. It. B. 1319. See also Matter of Bethlehem -Fairfield Shipyard, Incorpo-
rated, 58 N. L. R B 579, and cases cited therein. See also Matter of P. Lorillard
Company, 58 N. L. It. B. 1112.
a Several supervisory employees and approximately 25 non-supervisory employees were
transferred.
ANCHOR HOCKING GLASS CORPORATION SS7
On April 7, 1941, the Company commenced bottle making opera-
tions at its Glass Division, which then employed approximately 250
workers. Two weeks later, the GBBA claimed the right to represent
the production and maintenance employees at both divisions. Evi-
dence was adduced to the effect that, on April 21, 1941, the Company
and the GBBA executed a closed-shop agreement for a term ending
Septemebr 1, 1941, whereby the Company recognized the GBBA as
the representative of these employees, after the latter produced evi-
dence indicating that it represented approximately 225 of the 300
employees then comprising the unit.
On July 11, 1941, pursuant to the request of the GBBA, the Com-
pany and the GBBA executed a separate but substantially identical
collective bargaining agreement covering only the employees of the
Closure Division. This agreement also contained a closed-shop pro-
vision, and provided for a term ending September 1, 1941.
Upon the expiration of these contracts, new 1-year closed-shop
agreements, dated September 1, 1941, were executed between the
parties separately covering the employees at the Closure and the Glass
Divisions. This procedure was followed in 1942 and in the succeeding
years up to and including 1945. Although in 1941 and 1942 the parties
negotiated separately for employees of each division, the resulting
agreements were substantially identical. In 1943 and in subsequent
years, moreover, the parties jointly negotiated substantially identical
closed-shop agreements covering the employees of the two divisions.
D. Conclusion
The GBBA and the Company assert, with justification, that this
bargaining history evidences the fact that the parties considered and
treated the employees of the two divisions as a single unit.? However,
we note that the original agreement was made when the Company
employed only 300 workers at its Connellsville operations, whereas it
now engages more than 2000 employees. Moreover, the record con-
tains no evidence that, except prior to the April 1941 agreement, the
GBBA was ever called upon to demonstrate its majority status. In
addition, the employees of both divisions were required throughout the
years to become members of the GBBA under the terms of the closed-
shop provisions in each of the contracts. Thus, we are not satisfied
that the mass of the Company's employees have ever been accorded
an opportunity to indicate the type of representation they desire. We
are of the opinion that, under these circumstances, although there was
a 5-year history of collective bargaining upon a two-division basis,
7 See Matter of Clarksburg Paper Company, supra.
558 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
such collective bargaining history cannot be considered controlling.,"
Consequently, we are persuaded that the employees of each division
may properly constitute separate collective bargaining units, or be
consolidated into a single grouping.
We shall, therefore, make no determination at this time with respect
to whether or not the Closure Division employees comprise a separate
appropriate unit, but shall rest our determination, in part, upon the
results of the election hereinafter directed.
We shall direct that the question affecting commerce which has
arisen be resolved by an election by secret ballot among all production
and maintenance employees of the Company engaged at the Closure
Division, of its Connellsville, Pennsylvania, plant, excluding litho-
graphers, automatic feeding and flowing process operators, mold
makers, office clerical employees, plant-protection employees, foremen,
assistant foremen, and all other supervisory employees with authority
to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in
the status of employees, or effectively recommend such action, who
were employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the
date of the Direction of Election, subject to the limitations and addi-
tions set forth in the Direction, to determine whether they desire to
be represented by District 50, the GBBA, or by neither of these labor
organizations.
In the event the employees select District 50, they will be taken to
have indicated a desire to be bargained for as a separate unit. If they
select the GBBA, they will be taken to have indicated a desire to con-
tinue to be bargained for as part of the existing unit represented by
that labor organization.
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 Relations Act,
and pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of National Labor Relations
Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3, as amended, it is hereby
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representa-
tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Anchor Hocking
Glass Corporation, South Connellsville, Pennsylvania, 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 Sixth Region, acting
S See Matter of St. Johns River Shipbuilding Company, 59 N. L. R. B. 415. Cf
Matter of Sinclair Refining Company, 64 N. L. It. B. 611. In the latter case the
Board refused to permit certain groups to split off from a more inclusive unit where,
in addition to other circumstances, the contracting union was able to demonstrate its
majority status at all material times during the expansion of the unit and its con-
tracts merely contained maintenance-of-membership provisions.
ANCHOR HOCKING GLASS CORPORATION SS9
in this matter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and
subject to Article III, Sections 10 and 11, of said Rules and Regula-
tions, among all production and maintenance employees of the Com-
pany engaged at its Closure Division, excluding lithographers, auto-
matic feeding and flowing process operators, mold makers, office
clerical employees, plant-protection employees, foremen, assistant
foremen, and all other supervisory employees with authority to hire,
promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the
status of employees, or effectively recommend such action, 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 including employees in the armed forces of the United
States who present themselves in person at the polls, but excluding
those employees 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 whether they desire to be represented by District 50,
United Mine Workers of America, or by Glass Bottle Blowers Asso-
ciation of the United States and Canada, AFL, for the purposes of
collective bargaining, or by neither.
MR. GERARD D. REILLY took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision apd Direction of Election.