Binder Cooperage Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 15, 1947

74 N.L.R.B. 1094 (N.L.R.B. 1947)

In the Matter Of MAURICE R. BINDER, JACOB BINDER, SAMUEL BINDER
AND ALVIN T. BINDER, CO-PARTNERS D/B/A BINDER COOPERAGE COM-
PANY, EMPLOYER and LABORERS DISTRICT COUNCIL, LOCAL 57, A. F.
OF L., PETITIONER
Case No. 4-R--2542.-Decided August 15, 1947
Mr. Benjamin Abramson, of Philadelphia, Pa., for the Employer.
Messrs. Luther Fouche and Benjamin R. Simons, of Philadelphia,
Pa., for the Petitioner.
Messrs. J. J. O'Neil and Russell C. Wismer, of Philadelphia, Pa.,
and Mr. Joseph Kunz, of Baltimore, Md., for the Intervenor.
Mr. Roy O. Goldin, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
Upon a petition duly filed, the National Labor Relations Board on
April 9, 1947, conducted a prehearing election among employees of the
Employer in the alleged appropriate unit, to determine whether they
desired to be represented by the Petitioner or by the Intervenor for the
purposes of collective bargaining, or by neither.
At the close of the election, a Tally of Ballots was furnished the
parties. The Tally showed that there were approximately 45 eligible
voters, and that 42 cast ballots, of which 22 were for the Petitioner, 11
were for the Intervenor, 5• were for neither union, and 4 were
challenged.
Thereafter, a hearing was held at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on
May 28, 1947, before 'John IT. Garver, hearing officer. The hearing
officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error
and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations
Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Maurice R. Binder, Jacob Binder, Samuel Binder and Alvin T.
Binder, co-partners, doing business as Binder Cooperage Company,
74 N. L. It B., No. 189.
1094
BINDER COOPERAGE COMPANY 1095
are engaged at their plant in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, in the recon-
ditioning and sale of drums and barrels. The Employer annually pur-
chases raw materials valued in excess of $500,000, of which approxi-
mately 50 percent represents shipments to it from sources outside the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The Employer annually ships from
this plant finished products valued in excess of $1,000,000, of which
over 50 percent represents shipments to points outside the Common-
wealth.
The Employer admits and we fund that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with the American
Federation of Labor, claiming to represent employees of the Employer.
Coopers' International Union, Local Union No. 9, herein called the
Intervenor, is a labor organization affiliated with the American Fed-
eration of Labor, claiming to represent employees of the Employer.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
Some time before January 15, 1947, the Petitioner notified the Em-
ployer that it represented a majority of the Employer's employees and
requested that the Employer bargain collectively with it concerning
these employees. The Employer refused on the ground of its existing
contract with the Intervenor. On January 15, 1947, the Petitioner
filed its petition herein.
The most recent contract between the Employer and the Intervenor
covering the employees sought by the Petitioner herein provided for
an initial period commencing October 5, 1946, and ending May 1, 1947,
and for its automatic renewal annually thereafter in the absence of
notice of desired changes by either party 30 days before the terminal
date. Although the contract was not urged as a bar at the hearing,
it is clear that the petition herein was timely filed and operated to re-
move the contract as a bar to a current determination of representatives.
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Employer, within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Petitioner petitioned for a unit of all production and mainte-
nance employees of the Employer, excluding office and clerical workers,
truck drivers and helpers, and supervisory employees. The Inter-
1096 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
venor urges that approximately 11 employees, classified as hand coop-
ers and machine operators and referred to generally as coopers, be
excluded from the unit on the ground that they are members of a
highly skilled and specialized craft, whose members require con-
siderably more training and experience than the other production
and maintenance employees in this plant. The Employer is neutral
on the unit question.
All the approximately 45 employees in the proposed unit are en-
gaged in repairing, "building up," painting, washing, and scrubbing
of barrels and drums. Although there is general testimony that hand
coopers represent the most highly skilled classification of coopers and
that they qualify as hand coopers after serving a period of apprentice-
ship, normally for 3 years, and then working as machine operators for
an indefinite period, no specific testimony was adduced as to the opera-
tions at this plant. The record shows merely in this connection that
the hand coopers examine the barrels initially, determine the nature of
the work required and do some of the repair work themselves, particu-
larly on wooden barrels. The barrels are thereafter passed along to
other employees in the unit, including machine operators, for comple-
tion of the work. It would thus appear that the hand coopers and
machine operators at the plant involved perform different steps in a
well integrated operation.
The collective bargaining history affecting these operations shows
that for the past 20 years the Intervenor has represented all produc-
tion and maintenance employees of the Employer in collective bargain-
ing agreements with the Employer. Indeed, as noted above, the con-
tract between the Employer and the Intervenor in existence at the time
of the filing of the instant petition embraced all the production and
maintenance employees, including the coopers. Furthermore, the rec-
ord discloses that all the employees in the proposed unit are eligible
for membership in the Intervenor and that it is the prevailing prac-
tice in the locality for the Intervenor to represent all production and
maintenance employees, including coopers, in collective bargaining
agreements with similar employers. Moreover, so far as appears,
coopers participated without challenge in the instant election, which
was conducted on the basis of the over-all unit,,
Accordingly, in view of the foregoing, including the bargaining
history in the locality, and more particularly at the plant involved,
and in the absence of convincing proof that the coopers at this plant
are truly distinguishable from the other employees on a craft basis,
I We note also , in this connection that , at a preelection conference in this proceeding,
all the parties. agreed to the appropriateness of the unit petitioned for herein,
BINDER COOPERAGE COMPANY 1097
we see no reason for setting the coopers apart from the remaining pro-
duction and maintenance employees of the Employer. We shall, there-
fore, include theln in the unit of production and maintenance em-
ployees.
We find that all production and maintenance employees, including
coopers, but excluding office and clerical workers, truck drivers and
helpers, and all supervisory employees, constitute a unit appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Sec-
tion 9 (b) of the Act.
V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
The results of the election held before the hearing show that the
Petitioner secured a majority of the valid votes cast, irrespective of
the counting of the four challenged ballots.2 Under these circum-
stances, we shall certify the Petitioner as the collective bargaining
representative of the employees in the appropriate unit.
• CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that Laborers District Council, Local 57,
A. F. of L., has been designated and selected by a majority of all pro-
duction and maintenance employees at the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,
plant of Maurice R. Binder, Jacob Binder, Samuel Binder and Alvin
T. Binder, co-partners, d/b/a Binder Cooperage Company, including
coopers, but excluding office and clerical workers, truck drivers and
helpers, and all supervisory employees, as their representative. for the
purposes of collective bargaining, and that, pursuant to Section 9 (a)
of the Act, the said organization is the exclusive representative of all
such employees for the purposes of collective bargaining with respect
to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of
employment.
CHAIRIIAN HERZOG took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Certification of Representatives.
9 No testimony was adduced at the hearing with respect to the challenged ballots. In
any event, a determination as to whether the ballots should be opened and counted is un-
necessary because they are insufficient to affect the election results.