Continental Can Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 19, 1960

127 N.L.R.B. 286 (N.L.R.B. 1960)

286 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Continental Can Company , Inc. and United Steelworkers of
America, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Cases Nos. 6-RC-2488 and
6-RC-673. April 19, 1960
DECISION, ORDER, AND AMENDMENT OF
CERTIFICATION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before H. G. Borchardt, 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 this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The Petitioner and the Intervenor, International Brotherhood
of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America,
Warehousemen's Local 636, are labor organizations within the mean-
ing of the Act, claiming to represent certain employees of the
Employer.
3. No question concerning representation exists concerning the
representation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of
Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, for the follow-
ing reasons:
The Petitioner, which is currently certified for a unit of production
and maintenance employees at the Employer's plants 45 and 72, occu-
pying a single building (hereinafter referred to as the main plant), at
West Mifflin, Pennsylvania,' filed the instant petition for an election
among the employees at the Employer's building No. 2, in or near
West Mifflin, located 11/4 miles from the main plant. At the hearing,
the Petitioner contended in effect that the employees at building No.
2 are accretions to its certified unit and requested the Board to amend
its certification to include such employees. In the alternative, it
requested a self-determination election among all employees at build-
ing No. 2. The Intervenor contends that a separate unit of warehouse
employees at building No. 2 is appropriate, on the basis of its prior
bargaining history. The Employer contends that all employees at
building No. 2 are temporarily assigned there from its other opera-
tions, but takes no position as to the requests of the two unions.
The Employer is engaged in the manufacture and sale of metal con-
tainers and crown closures. These operations, together with most of
the related warehousing activities, are housed in the main plant. The
Employer uses additional warehousing facilities. In 1956, it had two
warehouses at separate locations for whose employees the Intervenor
was certified and executed a contract, effective January 4, 1957, to
193 NLRB 184.
127 NLRB No. 38.
CONTINENTAL CAN COMPANY, INC. 287
November 30, 1959. During the term of this contract, the Employer
closed these two warehouses and opened another, known as the Rock-
well warehouse. The Intervenor's contract was applied to employees
at the Rockwell warehouse. In early 1959, the Employer acquired
building, No. 2, to which it transferred some of its tinplate sorting
and storage operations from the main plant, and some of its ware-
housing and shipping operations from both the main plant and the
Rockwell warehouse. At the hearing the Employer indicated that it
planned to close down its Rockwell warehouse by February 1960.
The Employer has manned the tinplate sorting and storage operations
at building No. 2 with employees from the main plant, and the ware-
housing and shipping operations with about an equal number of em-
ployees from the main plant and the Rockwell warehouse. Building
No. 2 has operated on a seasonal basis, and when work slackens its
unneeded employees are laid off or returned to their original plants
according to seniority. Building No. 2 operations are under the same
general supervisor who controls similar main plant operations.
Apparently, employees assigned to building No. 2 have remained
covered by the contract in effect at their plants of origin.
. The, Intervenor's contract expired November 30, 1959, and no new
contract has been negotiated as to Rockwell employees. The Peti-
tioner and the Employer executed a new contract in December 1959
covering, the approximately 700 production and maintenance employ-
ees, including about 75 warehousing employees, in the unit for which
it is certified. The contract unit does not specifically include ware-
housemen, or building No. 2 employees, as such, for the reason, appar-
ently, that in negotiations the employer maintained that employees at
building No. 2 were only temporarily assigned to such location.
On the basis of the foregoing and the record as a whole, we find that
building No. 2 is merely an extension of the main plant and that
employees permanently employed at building No. 2 are accretions to
the production and maintenance unit, which includes the warehousing
operation, represented by the Petitioner.' We find no merit in the
Intervenor's request for a separate unit of warehouse employees,
based on the prior separate bargaining history at the Rockwell plant,
as the Rockwell warehouse operations transferred to building No. 2
have lost their identity as such and become merged with other ware-
housing operations at building No. 2, which constitute an integral
part of the total operations at that plant. Therefore, as no question
exists concerning the representation of building No. 2 employees, we
shall dismiss the petition filed herein. However, in accordance with
the Petitioner's request made at the hearing, we shall amend the
description of its certified unit to specifically include therein the em-
2 See Richfield Oil Corporation, 119 NLRB 1425 ; Simmons Company, 126 NLRB 656.
288 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ployees of the Employer employed at its building No. 2 in or near
West Mifflin, Pennsylvania.
[The Board dismissed the petition and amended the CertificatioL,
of Representatives issued in Case No. 6-RC-673 on March 31, 1951,
to United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, to include employees
of the Employer at its building No. 2 in or near West Mifflin,
Pennsylvania.]
R. L. Downing , Inc. and Laurent A. Gauthier , Vinal E. Boothby,
Jr. and Vincent P . Barry, Petitioners and Carbonated Bever-
age, Beer Distributors , Wine & Liquor Drivers & Helpers,
Production Workers, Bottlers, Warehousemen & Office Em-
ployees, Local Union No . 939, affiliated with International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America. Case No. 1-RD-311. April 20, 1960
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Thomas E. McDonald, hear-
ing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.'
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Rodgers and Jenkins].
Upon the entire record, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organization named above claims to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
3. Petitioners assert that the Union, which is currently being recog-
nized by the Employer as the bargaining representative of the em-
ployees in the appropriate unit, is no longer a representative as defined
in Section 9 (a) of the Act.
.The Union has moved to dismiss the petition upon the grounds that
(a) Laurent A. Gauthier, one of the Petitioners herein, is a supervisor
within the meaning of the Act and therefore is not qualified to file
the present petition, and (b) contract bar.
As stated in Modern Hard Chrome Service Company,2 the first
question to be decided herein is the status of the alleged supervisor,
Gauthier. The record shows that Gauthier has been employed by the
1 The hearing officer properly excluded evidence of alleged employer assistance in filing
of the petition. Union Manufacturing Company, 123 NLRB 1633.
2124 NLRB 1235.
127 NLRB No. 30.