Consolidated Paper Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 5, 1940

21 N.L.R.B. 116 (N.L.R.B. 1940)

In the Matter of CONSOLIDATED PAPER COMPANY and LOCAL INDUSTRIAL
UNION, LOCALS 1001 AND 1006, (C. I. 0.)
Case No. R-1686-Decided March 5,1940
Paper Manufacturing Industry-Investigation of Representatives: contro-
versy concerning representation of employees: company doubting union's ma-
jority required certification of Board-Units Appropiate for Collective Bar-
gaining: all production, maintenance, and powerhouse employees, excluding
watchmen, timekeepers, office, clerical, and supervisory employees in each of
two plants ; company's contention for a five-plant unit not sustained ; (Smith,
dissenting ) holding that a two-plant unit appropriate-Elections Or dcred:
separate elections in two plants.
Mr. Arthur O'Connor, for the Board.
Mr. H. L. Rauch and Mr. John H. Meloan, of Monroe, Mich., for
the Company.
Mr. August Scholle, Mr. Tom Curtin, of Detroit, Mich., and
Mr. Severino Pollo, for the Union.
Mrs. Augusta Spaulding, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On December 5, 1939, Local Industrial Union, Locals 1001 and
1006, (C. I. 0.), herein called the Union, filed a petition, and on
January 5, 1940, an amended petition, with the Regional Director
for "the Seventh Region (Detroit, Michigan) alleging that a question
affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation of em-
ployees of Consolidated Paper Company, Monroe, Michigan; herein
called the Company, and requesting an investigation and certification
of representatives pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. On December 27,
1939, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board,
acting pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the Act and Article III, Section
3, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series
.`?. ordered an investigation and,author'ized - the Regional Director to
conduct Wand to provide for an appropriate hearing upon due notice.
21 N. L. R. B., No. 19.
116
CONSOLIDATED PAPER COMPANY 117
On January 9, 1940, the Regional Director issued a notice of hear-
ing, copies of which were duly served upon the Company and the
Union. Pursuant to the notice, a hearing was held on January 18,
1940, at Detroit, Michigan, before Berdon M. Bell, the Trial Exam-
iner duly designated by the Board. The Board was represented by
counsel, the Union by three of its officials, and the Company by two
of its officials. All parties participated in the hearing. At the
hearing counsel for the Board moved to amend, the formal papers
filed in this proceeding by substituting "Consolidated Paper Com-
pany" for "Consolidated Paper Co." wherever the latter appears.
The Trial Examiner did not rule on this motion. The motion is
hereby granted. Full opportunity to be heard, to- examine and cross-
examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues
was afforded all, parties. During the course of the hearing the Trial
Examiner, made several rulings in regard to the admission of evidence.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial; Examiner and finds
that no prejudicial', errors were committed. The rulings are Hereby
afrirlned•.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
The Company, Consolidated Paper Company, is a Michigan cor-
poration engaged in the manufacture of paper. It manufactures,
sells, and distributes corrugated and' solid fiber shipping containers,
folding boxboard, binder board', and' paper boxes. Its principal
office and place of business is in Monroe, Michigan. It maintains
and operates five plants, located as follows : three plants at Monroe,
Michigan;. known as'North Division, South Division', and' Plant No. 1,
respectively ; one plant at River Rouge, Michigan, known as Plant
No. 10; and one plant at Aurora, Illinois, known as Plant No. 2.
The North Division plant at Monroe employs 750 workers and pro-
duces corrugated boxes, paperboard, and strawboard; the South Di-
vision plant at Monroe' employs 723• workers and produces boxboard,
paperboard car-tons,. and. antomotive board;; Plant No. 1 at Monroe
employs 122 workers, and produces. automotive, board; Plant No: 10
at River Rouge employs 171 workers and produces' automotive board;
and Plant No. 2 at Aurora 1 employs 149, workers and produces
binder board. In its petition, the Union claims to represent em-
ployees at Plant No. 1 in Monroe and Plant No* 10 in River Rouge.
1 See Matter of Consolidated Paper Company and Consolidated Paper Workers' Local
Industrial Union, . #902, Affiliated kith , the Congress ' of Industrial Organizations , decided
this day ; 21 N. L R B. 125
283032-41-vol. 21-9
118 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Company maintains branch sales offices and forces in New
York City; Rochester, New York; Chicago, Illinois; Cleveland,
Ohio ; Kansas City, Missouri ; Boston, Massachusetts ; and Detroit,
Michigan. The territories covered by these offices include all the
States of the United States east of the Rocky Mountains.
The gross value of the shipments of raw materials to Plant No. 1
at Monroe from points outside Michigan during the period from
July 1, 1939, to December 31, 1939, amounted to about $18,870.89,
which constituted more than 51 per cent of the gross value of all
purchases and shipments of raw materials for that plant during
that period. During the same period the. gross value of the Com-
pany's sales and shipments of finished products from Plant No. 1
to destinations outside Michigan amounted to $16,012.86, which con-
stituted approximately 9 per cent of the gross value of all the sales
of finished products of that plant during that period. During the
same period the gross value of the shipments of raw materials to
Plant No. 10 at River Rouge from points outside Michigan amounted
to about $27,990.64, which constituted approximately 60 per cent of
the gross value of all the Company's purchases and shipments of
raw materials for that plant during that period. During the same
period the gross value of the sales and shipments of finished prod-
ucts manufactured in Plant No. 10 and shipped to points outside
Michigan amounted to $29,925.30, which constituted about 13 per cent
of the gross volume of all the sales of products of that plant for
that period. The products manufactured in Plant No. 1 and Plant
No. 10 which were shipped within Michigan were sold and delivered
to companies in the automotive industry in Michigan and were made
part of automobiles, of which a large percentage were subsequently
shipped to points outside Michigan.
The Company concedes that it is engaged in interstate commerce
in each of its five plants and in a business affecting commerce within
the meaning of the Act.
H. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Local Industrial Union, Locals 1001 and 1006, (C. I. 0.), is a labor
organization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations.
It admits to membership all hourly production, maintenance, and
powerhouse employees of the Company, excluding watchmen, time-
keepers, and office, clerical, and salaried supervisory employees.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
In September 1939 the Union began organizing the hourly produc-
tion, maintenance, and powerhouse employees of Plant No. 1 at Mon-
CONSOLIDATED. PAPER COMPANY 119,
roe and Plant No. 10 at River Rouge. On October 31, 1939, the
Union informed the Company that a majority of employees at these
two plants had designated the Union as their representative for the
purposes of collective bargaining. On November 21, 1939, represent-
atives of the Union discussed the matter with the Company. The
Company doubted the Union's majority and refused to enter into a
contract. The Union and the Company then agreed to submit the
question of representation to the Board.
We find that a question has arisen concerning the representation
of employees of the Company.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE QUESTION CONCERNING
REPRESENTATION UPON COMMERCE
We find that the question concerning representation which has
arisen, occurring in connection with the operations of Consolidated
Paper Company described in Section I above, has a close, intimate,,
and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the
several States and tends to lead to labor disputes burdening and_
obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Union contends that all production, maintenance, and power-
house employees at Plant No. 1 in Monroe and Plant No. 10 in River
Rouge, excluding watchmen, timekeepers, office, clerical, and salaried
supervisory employees constitute a single appropriate bargaining
unit, or alternatively, in the event the Board finds that such a unit is
not appropriate, that the employees described above employed at each
of the two plants constitute a separate bargaining unit. The Com-
pany contends that all production, maintenance, and powerhouse
employees at all its five plants, excluding watchmen, timekeepers,
office, clerical, and salaried supervisory employees constitute a single
appropriate bargaining unit.
In support of its contention that Plant No. 1 at Monroe and Plant
No. 10 at River Rouge constitute a single unit the Union urges the
following considerations : the two plants are similar in size and are
both engaged exclusively in the production of automotive board for
the automobile industry. Wages and hours of employment and
classification of employees are similar at the two plants. Also, most
-f the employees at the River Rouge plant originally came from
Monroe.
In support of the Company's contention the record discloses the
following considerations : the Company conducts its business as a
single enterprise, all five plants operating under one labor policy and
one management under the control of the president and general man-
120 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ager and personnel director. All five plants have the same employ-
ment set-up. Although the products vary in the several plants, the
machines are alike and require the same skill in operation. No train-
ing is required to shift men from one plant to another. Wages are
generally lower in the smaller plants, but wages for similar work in
all plants are comparable. Production of automotive board is not
restricted to Plants No. 1 and No. 10. From 15 to 20 per cent of the
products of North Division Plant and South Division Plant go into
the automobile industry-some 9500 tons yearly from South Division
alone. During slack automobile seasons it is the custom of the Com-
pany to transfer men from Plants No. 1 and No. 10, the two small
Michigan plants, to North and South Divisions, the two large plants
at Monroe, to cut down unemployment. The men are returned to their
respective plants as production there increases. At the time of the
hearing, 22 employees of Plant No. 1 were working temporarily at the
larger plants. The Company expressed doubt as to the expediency
of such a plan of transfer, which is of advantage to the Company and
to the men, if the smaller plants are unionized and the larger plants
are not. The Union agrees that the transfer system is of great
advantage to the men.
The record also discloses the following : each plant completes its
own product and could function independently. Each plant has
its separate pay roll. Plant No. 10, South Division, and Plant
No. 2 at Aurora, have separate employment offices. Plant No. 1 and
North Division, share the same employment office. Plant No. 2 at
Aurora, Illinois, is 300 miles from the nearest Michigan plant and
produces binder board, a commodity produced at none of the other
plants.
We have given consideration to the contention of the Company
for a single unit composed of the employees at its five plants. While
such a unit might reasonably be considered appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining, we are of the opinion that it is
not appropriate at the present time, under the circumstances of this
case. The two large Monroe plants, North and South Divisions,
comprise the bulk of the respondent's employees and are unorganized.
Thus far organization has extended to only the three smaller plants.2
No reason appears why the employees at the smaller plants should
be denied the benefits of the Act until the employees at the two
large plants are organized.
We are also of the opinion that, under the circumstances of this
case, the employees at Plant No. 1 in Monroe and Plant No. 10
in River Rouge should not at this time be grouped together in one
2 Another affiliate of the C I 0 and an unaffiliated union claim to represent the
employees at the Aurora plant See footnote 1, supra.
CONSOLIDATED PAPER COMPANY 121
bargaining unit. Although the two plants have been organized by
the Union and are similar in many respects, not only are they geo-
graphically separated, but Plant No. 1 in Monroe is one of a cluster
of three plants in Monroe. Under these circumstances, and in the
absence of any history of collective bargaining at the Company's
plants, we think that at the present- time the employees at each of
the two small plants in Michigan constitute a separate bargaining
unit.
We find that all production, maintenance, and powerhouse em-
ployees of the Company at its Plant No. 1 in Monroe, Michigan,
excluding watchmen, timekeepers, and office, clerical, and salaried
supervisory employees constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes
of collective bargaining and that said unit will insure to employees
of the Company the full benefit of their right to self-organization
and to collective bargaining and otherwise effectuate the policies
of the Act.
We find that all production, maintenance, and powerhouse em-
ployees of the Company at its Plant No. 10 in River Rouge, Mich-
igan, excluding watchmen, timekeepers, and office, clerical, and
salaried supervisory employees, constitute a unit appropriate for
the'purposes of collective bargaining and that said unit will insure
to the employees of the Company the full benefit of their right
to self-organization and to collective bargaining and otherwise
effectuate the policies of the Act.
VI. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
The Company and the Union agreed that the question concerning
representation should be determined by an election by secret ballot
conducted under the supervision of the Board. We shall direct the
holding of separate elections among the employees in each of the two
appropriate units. The parties stipulated, and we shall direct, that
the Union shall appear on the ballot in each election as "Local In-
dustrial Union, Locals 1001 and 1006, Affiliated with the Congress of
Industrial Organizations."
Because the Company regards as employees of Plant No. 1 those
persons who have been laid off or transferred to other plants because
of lack of work at Plant No. 1, the Company and the Union stipu-
lated that those eligible to vote in the election at Plant No. 1 should
be the employees in the appropriate unit whose names appear in
Board Exhibit 5, Company's pay roll of December 31, 1939, for Plant
No. 1, including those laid off and not recalled whose names are
marked by the symbol ® on said Exhibit and those laid off and
transferred temporarily to other plants whose names are marked by
122 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the symbol ® on said Exhibit, but excluding those through whose
names a line is drawn on said Exhibit because they have quit the
service of the Company. The Company and the Union further
stipulated that those eligible to vote in the election at Plant No. 10
should be the employees in the appropriate unit whose names appear
on Board Exhibit 6, the Company's pay roll of December 31, 1939,
for Plant No. 10, excluding those through whose names a line has
been drawn on said Exhibit because they quit the service of the
Company. We will direct that those eligible to vote in the elections
shall be the employees described in the above stipulations, including,
in the case of each election, employees who have been hired on a
permanent basis between January 18, 1940, the date of the hearing,
and the date of this Direction, and excluding employees who since
January 18, 1940, have quit or been discharged for cause.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire
record in the case, the Board makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. A question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the rep-
resentation of employees of Consolidated Paper Company, Monroe,
Michigan, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6)
and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act.
2. All production, maintenance, and powerhouse employees of the
Company at its Plant No. 1 in Monroe, Michigan, excluding watch-
men, timekeepers, and office, clerical, and salaried supervisory em-
ployees, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the National
Labor Relations Act.
3. All production, maintenance, and powerhouse employees of
the Company at its Plant No. 10 in River Rouge, Michigan, ex-
cluding watchmen, timekeepers, and office, clerical, and salaried su-
pervisory employees, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes
of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of
the National Labor Relations Act.
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National
Labor Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Re-
lations Act, and pursuant to Article III, Section 8, of National
Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2, as amended,
it is hereby
Dnu cTED that, as part of the investigation authorized by the Board
to ascertain representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining
CONSOLIDATED PAPER COMPANY 123
with Consolidated Paper Company, Monroe, Michigan, elections by
secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later
than thirty (30) days from the date of this Direction of Election,
under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for
the Seventh Region, acting in the matter as agent for the National
Labor Relations Board, and pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of
said Rules and Regulations: (1) among all production, maintenance,
and powerhouse employees of the Company at its Plant No. 1 in
Monroe, Michigan, whose names appear on Board Exhibit 5, the
Company's pay roll of December 31, 1939, including those whose
names are marked on said Exhibit with the symbol ® or n and
including employees who have been hired on a permanent basis be-
tween January 18, 1940, the date of the hearing, and the date of this
Direction, but excluding watchmen, timekeepers, and office, clerical,
and salaried supervisory employees and employees through whose
names a line is drawn on said Exhibit and excluding employees
who since January 18, 1940, have quit or been discharged for cause,
to determine whether or not they desire to be represented by Local
Industrial Union, Locals 1001 and 1006, Affiliated with the Congress
of Industrial Organizations, for the purposes of collective bargain-
ing; (2) among all production, maintenance, and powerhouse em-
ployees of the Company at its Plant No. 10 in River Rouge, Michigan,
whose names appear on Board Exhibit 6, the Company's pay roll of
December 31, 1939, including employees who have been hired on a
permanent basis between January 18, 1940, the date of the hearing,
and the date of this Direction, but excluding watchmen, timekeepers,
and office, clerical, and salaried supervisory employees and em-
ployees through whose names a line is drawn on said Exhibit and
excluding employees who since January 18, 1940, have quit or been
discharged for, cause, to determine whether or not they desire to be
represented by Local Industrial Union, Locals 1001 and 1006, Affi-
liated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining.
MR. EDWIN S. SMITH, dissenting :
I dissent from the decision that a single bargaining unit composed
of the employees at the two small Michigan plants, Plant No. 1 in
Monroe and Plant No. 10 in River Rouge, is not appropriate in this
case.
The Union is the only labor organization which has organized em-
ployees of the Company at its Michigan plants.3 At the present time
organization by the Union extends only to the employees at the two
S At the Aurora , Illinois, plant , which is 300 miles from the nearest Michigan plant,
another C 1 0 affiliate and an unaffiliated union have organized among the employees.
124 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
small Michigan plants and its desire for a single bargaining unit
consisting of employees at those two plants is coterminous with the
present extent of its organization. The work at both plants is identi-
cal, both being engaged exclusively in the manufacture of automotive
board for the automobile industry. Wages, hours, and working
conditions are similar at both plants, which are also similar in size.
Both plants operate under one labor policy and one management
under the control of the same officials of the Company whose main
office is in Monroe.' Under these circumstances it is plain that com-
bination of the two plants, which are only 31 miles apart, into a
single bargaining unit is practicable, corresponds to the wishes of
the employees, and does not appear inappropriate because of any-
thing to be found in the managerial structure of the Company or in
past bargaining history.
In view of the foregoing, I would find that the employees at both
plants constitute a single appropriate bargaining unit.
This is true for all five plants of the Company.