Central Fibre Products Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 16, 1944

56 N.L.R.B. 552 (N.L.R.B. 1944)

In the Matter of CENTRAL FIBRE PRODUCTS COMPANY and CONGRESS OF
INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS
Case No. 17-R-840.-Decided May 16, 19144
Mr. Lee Hornbaker and Mr. Edwin B. Brabets, of Hutchinson, Kans.,
'for the Company.
Mr. Michael Livoda and Mr. T. A. Long, of Denver, Colo., for the
CIO.
Mr. Archie Hook, of Albany, N. Y., for the International.
Mr. William Strong, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE -
Upon a petition duly filed by Congress of Industrial Organizations,
herein called the CIO, alleging that a question affecting commerce
had arisen concerning the representation of employees _ of Central
Fibre Products' Company, Denver, Colorado, herein called the Com-
pany, the National Labor Relations Board provided for an appropriate
hearing upon due notice before John A. Weiss, Trial Examiner. Said
hearing was held, at Denver, Colorado, on April 14, 1944. The
Company, the CIO, and International Brotherhood of ' Paper
Makers, AFL (herein called the International), Denver'Local #446,,•
herein called Local #446, appeared and participated. All parties
were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-
examine witnesses- and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues.
The Trial Examiner's rulings made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error and ,are hereby affirmed. The Company filed a mo-
tion for dismissal of this proceeding. The Trial Examiner referred
the motion to the" Board. The motion is denied. All parties were
afforded an opportunity to file briefs with the Board.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board" makes the following :
56 N. L . R. B., No. 105.
552 '
CENTRAL FIBRE PRODUCTS COMPANY
FINDINGS OF, FACT
'I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
553,
The Company, a Delaware corporation, is engaged at Denver,
Colorado, in the manufacture and sale of paper, ands-paper, products 1
During 1943, approximately 15 to 20 percent of the raw materials used
by the Company at Denver, totally valued in excess of $250,000, came
into Colorado from sources outside that State, while approximately
45 to 50 percent of the Company's finished products was sent to points
outside the State of Colorado.
The Company admits that it is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Congress of Industrial Organizations and International Brother-
hood of Paper Makers, affiliated with the American Federation of
Labor, are labor organizations admitting to membership employees of
the Company. -
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Company has refused to grant recognition to the C. I. O. as
the exclusive bargaining representative of certain of the Company's
employees on the ground that there exists a collective agreement be-
tween the Company and Local #446 covering the employees involved.
At the hearing the Company and the International asserted that this
agreement constitutes a bar to this proceeding.
The Company and Local 350 of the International have been oper-
ating under a series of written collective agreements covering em-
ployees at the Company's Hutchinson, Kansas, plant, since 1935. The
Denver plant, the sole plant involved in this proceeding, began its
present operations in June 1941; with a personnel nucleus from the
Hutchinson plant. In about November 1941, Local #446 was formed
at the Denver plant and in April 1942 it requested from the Company
a collective agreement and submitted a proposed written contract
covering the Denver employees.2 -The contract was never executed.
While the matter is not free,from doubt, we shall assume for • the
purposes of this proceeding that the Company thereafter orally ex-
i The Company also operates several other plants in other States.
Local #446 had been formed upon recommendation of the International in reply to an
inquiry by Local #446 as to possible operation of Local #446 as a sub-local of Local
#350 in order to preserve the Hutchinson seniority rights of these employees who had
been transferred from Hutchinson to, Denver.
According to,Local ,##446, since the, organizational advent of the C. I. O. at the Denver
plant in June 1943, Local ##446's membership has declined and it "started to deteriorate."
554 DECISIONS OF'NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tended the benefits under the Hutchinson contract to the Denver
employees, and that Local #446 accepted the extension. Since April
1942 Local #446 has riot sought to negotiate with the Company for a
separate agreement for the, Deliver,. plant. In October 1942 and in
December 1943 the Company and Local #350 negotiated written
contracts covering the Hutchinson plant. Neither of these agreements
included by its terms the Denver plant, specifically providing that the
agreements were with the Company "Hutchinson, Kansas, mill,". and
that recognition was extended by the "Hutchinson Mill" to Local #350,
as sole representative of the employees at the Hutchinson plant. Other
provisions of these agreements limit ,their operation to the Hutchinson
mill. Local #446 is not a signatory to either agreement.
The Company and the International, assert that the Hutchinson
agreements were applied by oral arrangement to the Denver plant,
and that the present Hutchinson contract is a bar to this proceeding
involving the' Denver.plant employees. ' We disagree. The Hutchin-
son and Denver plants are about 450 miles apart. Except for the
fact that top supervisory officials of the Company control certain
general policies at both plants, there is no such interrelation between
the plants as to make them in fact one operative unit, and the Com-
pany conceded at the hearing that the two plants were separate and
distinct. In fact, the parties have agreed, as stated below, that the
Denver plant, can properly constitute a separate unit for purposes
of collective bargaining. We have repeatedly held that an oral col
lective agreement does not constitute a bar to. an investigation of
representatives since it lacks the stabilizing features and effect of a
written contract.' We reiterate our position in that respect and find
that the contract relied on by the Company and the International
does not -constitute a bar to this proceeding.
A statement of a Board agent, introduced into evidence at the hear-
ing, indicates that the C. I. O. represents a substantial number of
employees in the unit hereinafter found appropriate.4
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 .
We find, in substantial agreement with a stipulation of the parties,
that all production and maintenance employees of the Company at its
s See e g. , Matter ' of Eicor, Inc ., 46 N. L. R. B. 1035. • '
The Field Examiner reported that the C. I. O. submitted 68 authorization cards, 63 of
which bore/the names of persons listed on the Company' s pay roll of February 13, 1944,
which contained the names of 67 employees in the appropriate, unit.
The International submitted its dues records and certain membership application cards,
and points to those and its contracts as evidencing its interest in the employees involved.
CENTRAL FIBRE PRODUCTS COMPANY 555
Denver plant, excluding office clerks, watchmen, and 'all supervisory
employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or
otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively rec-
ommend such action, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
We shall direct that the question concerning representation which`
has arisen be 'resolved by-an election by secret ballot among the em-
ployees in:the appropriate unit who were employed during the pay-
roll period immediately preceding the date of the Direction of Elec-
tion herein, subject to,the limitations and- additions set forth in the
Direction.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested iii 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, it is hereby
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representa-
tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Central Fibre
Products Company, 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 Seventeenth Region, acting in this matter as agent
for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject to Article III,
Sections 10 and 11, of said Rules and Regulations, among' the em-
ployees in the unit found appropriate in Section IV, above, who were
employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date
of this Direction, including employees' who did not,work during the
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 the Congress of
Industrial Organizations, or by International Brotherhood of Paper
Makers, A. F. of L.,5 for the purposes of collective bargaining, or by
neither.
6 The unions here involved request that they be named on the, ballot as shown in the
text. The request is granted. •