Butler Paper Company

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 28, 1979

245 N.L.R.B. 1398 (N.L.R.B. 1979)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Butler Paper Company, Division of Great Northern
Nekoosa Corporation and Teamsters Local No. 955,
affiliated with International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of
America. Case 17-CA-8447
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the entire stipulated rec-
ord herein and the briefs submitted by the parties,
and hereby makes the following findings and conclu-
sions:
September 28, 1979
I. 'TlFE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS JENKINS
AND PENELLO
Upon charges duly filed by Teamsters Local No.
955, affiliated with International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers
of America, hereinafter referred to as the Union, the
General Counsel of the National Labor Relations
Board, by the Regional Director for Region 17, on
October 12, 1978, issued a complaint and notice of
hearing alleging that Butler Paper Company, Divi-
sion of Great Northern Nekoosa Corporation, herein-
after referred to as Respondent, violated Section
8(a)(5) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act,
as amended, by its untimely withdrawal from the
multiemployer bargaining unit on August 14, 1978,
and by its subsequent refusal to honor and abide by
the collective-bargaining agreement reached on Au-
gust 25, 1978, covering all of the multiemployer unit
employees.
Respondent filed an answer to the complaint deny-
ing the commission of any unfair labor practices. On
January 23, 1979, Respondent, the Union, and coun-
sel for the General Counsel entered into a stipulation
of facts and motion to transfer the proceedings to the
Board, wherein they agreed that the charge, the com-
plaint, the answer to the complaint, and the stipula-
tion of facts, including the exhibits attached thereto,
shall constitute the entire record herein, and that no
oral testimony is necessary or desired by any of the
parties. The parties further stipulated that they waive
a hearing before an administrative law judge, the
making of findings of fact and conclusions of law by
an administrative law judge, and the issuance of an
administrative law judge's decision, and desire to sub-
mit this case for findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and Order directly by the Board. The parties, how-
ever, expressly reserved the right to object to the ma-
teriality or relevance of any of the stipulated facts.
On April 16, 1979, the Board issued an order ap-
proving the stipulation and transferring the proceed-
ings to the Board, and set a date for the filing of
briefs. Thereafter, the Union and the General Coun-
sel filed briefs in support of their respective positions.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
Respondent is a State of Delaware corporation en-
gaged in the distribution of paper products at 518
Santa Fe Street, Kansas City, Missouri, and at var-
ious other facilities. In the course and conduct of its
business operations, Respondent annually purchases
goods and services valued in excess of $50,000 di-
rectly from suppliers located outside the State of Mis-
souri.
Respondent admits, and we find, that it is an em-
ployer engaged in commerce and in operations affect-
ing commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and
(7) of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Respondent admits, and we find, that Teamsters
Local No. 955, affiliated with International Brother-
hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America, is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The stipulated facts show that the Union and the
Paper Industry of Kansas City, hereinafter called the
Association, have bargained on a multiemployer ba-
sis for in excess of 20 years.' Prior to the June 1,
1978,2 expiration date of the most recent collective-
bargaining agreement, the Union opened contract ne-
gotiations by letter dated March 20 to the then cur-
rently constituted Association, which was comprised
of 14 employer-members3 and their approximately
130 employees in the multiemployer unit. Four bar-
gaining sessions were held between April 27 and May
17, at which time there were eight unresolved eco-
nomic items, including wages. During the May 17
meeting, Ellison, the Association's attorney and chief
I Despite the absence herein of formal, written constitutional bylaws, pow-
ers of attorney, or other evidence associated with membership in multiem-
ployer associations, we find that Respondent was a member of the multiem-
ployer bargaining unit for approximately 20 years and at the inception of the
Association's contract negotiations involved in this case.
2 All dates in 1978 unless otherwise noted.
The 14 employer-members of the Association included: Berlau Paper
Company, Bermingham & Prosser Paper Company, Butler company, H. J.
Cole Paper Company. Evans Paper Company, Graham Paper Company,
Midwestern Paper Company, Nationwide Papers, Paper Supply Company,
Standard Paper Company. Tobey Fine Papers, Warwick Paper Company,
Wayne Paper Company, and Weber Paper Company.
245 NLRB No. 182
1398
BUTLER PAPER COMPANY
negotiator, proposed a final economic offer consisting
of a $1.19-per-hour wage increase over a 3-year pe-
riod. Ellison further agreed to recommend a $1.20-
per-hour increase, 60 cents immediately and 60 cents
after 18 months, in return for the Union's recom-
mended acceptance of the package to its membership,
which the Union agreed to do.
Thereafter, at an Association meeting on May 19,
Attorney Ellison secured approval of the $1.20 wage
increase proposal, and obtained the signatures of the
employer representatives on a prepared contract. On
the following day, the Union met to consider the As-
sociation's contract proposal which was rejected by a
vote of 81 to 9, and a strike was authorized by a vote
of 80 to 10 unless a better offer was received. No
further bargaining meetings were held, and, on June
6, the employees commenced an economic strike
against all the Association members. Respondent
hired six employees to replace its striking warehouse
employees.4
On June 8, Association member Bermingham &
Prosser Paper Company, hereinafter referred to as B
& P, sent a letter to the Association's attorney, Elli-
son, with copies to all employer-members, advising of
its withdrawal from group negotiations and schedul-
ing of individual bargaining meetings with the Union.
On the same day, the Union consented to B & P's
withdrawal; thereafter, separate contract negotiations
were held, resulting in an agreement on June 26 cov-
ering B & P's 12 to 14 employees.
The Association and the Union met on July 18 to
resume negotiations. The Union proposed a $3-per-
hour wage increase over 3 years, plus cost-of-living
adjustments. When Ellison rejected the Union's pro-
posal, a Federal mediator in attendance inquired as
to the Association's position on a $2-per-hour in-
crease over 3 years. Ellison responded that the em-
ployers would not even consider such a proposal.
Thereupon, the meeting ended without agreement,
and no future meetings were scheduled.
Thereafter, on July 25, Nationwide Papers, herein-
after referred to as Nationwide, gave notice to Ellison
that it was withdrawing from Association bargaining.
The Union again gave its consent, and, following con-
tract negotiations, the Union and Nationwide, on or
about July 31, entered into an agreement covering
Nationwide's approximately 39 to 41 employees.
Respondent, on August 9, filed a representation pe-
tition with the Board, in Case 17-RM-623, in reli-
ance upon a letter from its employees dated July 31,
4 The contractual multiemployer bargaining unit description is as follows:
Cutters and slitters, drivers and order fillers, checkers, receivers and
ahippersn, warehousemen and packers employed by the employer-mem-
ben of the Association, but excluding professional employees, office
clerical employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
1978, and indicating that all of the unit employees
wished to no longer be represented by the Union. 5
Also on August 9, Respondent notified the Associ-
ation by letter that it was withdrawing from the mul-
tiemployer bargaining group. The letter reads as fol-
lows:
Because of changed circumstances and a man-
agement decision made at our headquarters,
[Butler] is now withdrawing from the association
. . effective immediately.
Thereafter, by telegram on August 14, Respondent
gave notice to the Union that it had withdrawn from
the Association. The Union responded by letter on
the same day, refusing to consent to Respondent's
withdrawal.
At approximately the same time as Respondent's
communication of its decision to withdraw, two other
members, Graham Paper Company and Tobey Fine
Papers, hereinafter referred to as Graham and Tobey,
also notified the Association and the Union of their
decisions to withdraw from multiemployer bargain-
ing.6
Thereafter, on August 14, a final bargaining meet-
ing was held between the Union and the Association.
The Association's negotiator, Engle, who was substi-
tuting for Ellison, announced that the Association no
longer represented Respondent, Tobey, and Graham,
but that its prior wage proposal of May 17 was still
on the bargaining table. The Union's business agent
attempted to discuss the status of the three compa-
nies, but Engle declined. Finally, at the suggestion of
the Federal mediator, the Union agreed to send a
letter to the approximately 75 remaining unit employ-
ees of the 12 employer-members, including Respon-
dent, Tobey, and Graham, requesting them to vote by
mail ballot regarding acceptance or rejection of the
Association's May 17 wage proposal. On August 25,
the returned ballots were tallied and showed em-
ployee acceptance of the wage offer by a vote of 19 to
12. Thereupon, the Union and the Association en-
tered into a collective-bargaining agreement, effective
from September 1, 1978, to June 1, 1981. The terms of
the aforesaid multiemployer agreement differ from
I An exhibit containing a wntten statement to this effect and all eight
employees signatures is included in the parties' stipulation herein.
6 Charges were filed in Cases 17 CA-8465 and 17-CA-8466 against Gra-
ham Paper Company and Tobey Fine Papers, respectively, based on their
similar withdrawals from the Association on August II. As in the instant
case, each filed a representation petition (Cases 17-RM-625 and 17-RM-
624) in reliance upon letters received from their respective employees on
August I , in which they expressed their desire not to be represented by the
Union. Stipulations were entered into by the respective parties, and these
cases were considered concurrently by the Board, and the Decisions are
being issued this date in Graham Paper Company, Division of Jim Walter
Paper, Inc., 245 NLRB No. 180 (1979); and Tbey Fine Papers of Kansas
Ctty, Division of Distribix, Inc., 245 NLRB No. 181 (1979).
1399
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
those in the individual contracts executed by B & P
and Nationwide with the Union.
It is admitted that Respondent, since August 14,
1978, has refused to recognize or bargain with the
Union as the bargaining representative of its employ-
ees, and, since August 25. 1978, has also refused to
execute or abide by the Association's collective-bar-
gaining agreement.
Discussion and Conclusion
The General Counsel contends that Respondent's
resignation from multiemployer bargaining was un-
timely and ineffective, and that its proffered reason
for withdrawing, i.e., the Union's lack of majority
support among its own employees, was therefore ir-
relevant. He further asserts that the impasse in con-
tract negotiations, strike action, and defection by two
former Association members neither corresponded
closely in time to Respondent's August 9 withdrawal
notice nor did they constitute "unusual circum-
stances" which could justify an otherwise untimely
withdrawal.
The Union contends that its consent to withdraw-
als by B & P and Nationwide did not excuse Respon-
dent's action since the multiemployer unit was not
left fragmented or weakened thereby, as evidenced by
the fact that the Association succeeded in thereafter
winning approval of its same wage proposal which
was earlier rejected by the Union and which in turn
created the original impasse in bargaining. The
Union also points to its own subsequent role in meet-
ing with the Association and in agreeing to resubmit
the wage offer to the unit employees as evidence that
it was not seeking to destroy the viability of the mul-
tiemployer bargaining unit.
We find, for the reasons set forth in our decision in
a companion case issued this date, Tobey Fine Papers
of Kansas City, supra, that Respondent's withdrawal
from multiemployer bargaining was untimely and in-
effective. Accordingly, we find that Respondent, by
withdrawing from the Association and by its refusal
to execute or abide by the Association-wide collec-
tive-bargaining agreement, has violated Section
8(aX5) and (1) of the Act.7
THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondent has engaged in cer-
tain unfair labor practices, we shall order that it cease
7
Chairman Fanning would not find that Respondent violated Sec. 8(aXS)
and (I) as of the time of its withdrawal, adhering to his position in Ringside
Liquors, Inc. db/la Dino's Lounge and Cassell d Friedman, Inc. d/b/a King of
Clubs, 237 NLRB 30, fn. 2 (1978); Independent Association of Steel Fabrica-
tors, Inc., et al.. 231 NLRB 264, fn. 2 (1977); and Preston H. Haskell Com-
pany. 238 NLRB 943, n. 1 (1978).
and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative ac-
tion designed to effectuate the purposes of the Act. In
this connection, we shall order that Respondent im-
mediately sign and implement the agreement reached
between the Union and the Paper Industry of Kansas
City, and give retroactive effect thereto as of Septem-
ber , 1978 (The Carvel Company and C and D Plumb-
ing and Heating Company, 226 NLRB 111 (1976)),
and make its employees whole for any loss of earn-
ings suffered since then as a result of its failure to
apply the said agreement. Backpay is to be computed
in accordance with Ogle Protection Service, Inc., 183
NLRB 682 (1970), with interest thereon as prescribed
in Florida Steel Corporation, 231 NLRB 651 (1977).8
Nothing herein is to be construed as requiring Re-
spondent to recoup wages or benefits already received
by its employees. Respondent will also be directed to
make payments into the various funds on behalf of
those employees in the unit for whom such contribu-
tions would have been made had Respondent not un-
lawfully repudiated the collective-bargaining agree-
ment. Vin James Plastering Company, 226 NLRB 125
(1976).
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Butler Paper Company, Division of Great
Northern Nekoosa Corporation, is an employer en-
gaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. Teamsters Local No. 955, affiliated with Inter-
national Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America, is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act.
3. Teamsters Local No. 955, affiliated with Inter-
national Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America, is, and has
been at all material times herein, the exclusive bar-
gaining representative of the employees of Respon-
dent in the following appropriate unit:
Cutters and slitters, drivers and order fillers,
checkers, receivers and shippers, warehousemen
and packers employed by the employer-members
of the Association, but excluding professional
employees, office clerical employees, guards and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
4. By its untimely unilateral withdrawal from the
multiemployer unit, and by its subsequent refusal to
sign and implement the collective-bargaining agree-
ment reached between the Union and the Paper In-
dustry of Kansas City on August 25, 1978, effective
September 1, 1978, Respondent has engaged in, and
I See, generally, Isis Plumbing & Heaing Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962).
1400
BUTLER PAPER COMPANY
is engaging in, unfair labor practices within the mean-
ing of Section 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of
the Act.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board hereby orders that the Respondent, But-
ler Paper Company, Division of Great Northern
Nekoosa Corporation, Kansas City, Missouri, its offi-
cers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with Teamsters
Local No. 955, affiliated with International Brother-
hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America, as the exclusive bargaining rep-
resentative of its employees in the appropriate mul-
tiemployer bargaining unit.
(b) Refusing to sign and implement in 1978-81 col-
lective-bargaining agreement reached between the
above-named Union and the Paper Industry of Kan-
sas City with respect to the employees in the appro-
priate unit.
(c) In any like or related manner interfering with,
restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, as amended.
2. Take the following affirmative action which will
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Forthwith sign and implement the above-de-
scribed agreement and give retroactive effect thereto
from September 1, 1978.
(b) Make whole its employees in the appropriate
bargaining unit for any loss of pay or other employ-
ment benefits which they may have suffered by rea-
son of its refusal to sign and implement the aforesaid
agreement in the manner set forth in "The Remedy"
section of this Decision.
(c) Preserve and, upon request, make available to
the Board or its agents, for examination and copying,
all payroll records, social security payment records,
timecards, personnel records and reports, and all
other records necessary to analyze the amount of
backpay due under the terms of this Order.
(d) Post at its Kansas City, Missouri, facility copies
of the attached notice marked "Appendix."9 Copies
9 In the event that this Order is enforced by a Judgment of a United States
Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the
of said notice, on forms provided by the Regional
Director for Region 17, after being duly signed by
Respondent's authorized representative, shall he
posted by Respondent immediately upon receipt
thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive
days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all
places where notices to employees are customarily
posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by Respon-
dent to insure that said notices are not altered, de-
faced, or covered by an)y other material.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 17. in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order.
what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment
of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National
Labor Relations Board."
APPENDIX
NOTIcE To EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER F TIHE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively
with Teamsters Local No. 955, affiliated with In-
ternational Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America.
as the exclusive bargaining representative of em-
ployees in the appropriate multiemployer bar-
gaining unit, by refusing to sign and implement
the 1978-81 contract between the Union and the
member-employers of the Paper Industry of
Kansas City.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed them by
Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act,
as amended.
WE WILL forthwith sign and implement the
above-mentioned contract and give retroactive
effect thereto from September 1, 1978.
WE WILL make whole our employees in the
appropriate bargaining unit for any loss of pay
or other employment benefits they may have suf-
fered by reason of our refusal to sign and to im-
plement the aforesaid collective-bargaining
agreement, with interest.
BUTLER PAPER COMPANY, DIVISION OF
GREAT NORTHERN NEKOOSA CORPORArION
1401