Continental Can Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 30, 1944

58 N.L.R.B. 1543 (N.L.R.B. 1944)

In the Matter Of CONTINENTAL CA N COMPANY, INC., REYNOLDS
MOULDED PLASTICS DIVISION and UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA
(CIO)
Case No. 8-R-1645.-Decided October 30, 1944
Mr. S. C. Carnes, of Cambridge , Ohio, for the Company.
Mr. Philip M. Curran, of Pittsburgh , Pa., and Mr. William W.
Kesler, of Wheeling, W. Va., for the USA.
Messrs. H. J. Paar and Charles A. Coakwell, of Cleveland, Ohio, for
the A . F. of L.
Miss Melvern R . Krelow, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a petition duly filed by United Steelworkers of America
(CIO), herein called the USA, alleging that a question affecting com-
merce had arisen concerning the representation of employees of Con-
tinental Can Company, Inc., Reynolds Moulded Plastics Division,
Cambridge, Ohio, herein called the Company, the National Labor
Relations Board provided for an appropriate hearing upon due notice
before Frank L. Danello, Trial Examiner. Said hearing was held at
Cambridge, Ohio, on October 4, 1944. The Company, the USA, and
Federal Labor Union No. 22738, American Federation of Labor, herein
called the A. F. of L., 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. At the com-
mencement of the hearing the A. F. of L. filed a motion to dismiss the
petition. The Trial Examiner reserved ruling. For reasons herein-
after set forth the motion is hereby denied. The Trial Examiner's
rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are
hereby affirmed. All parties were afforded an opportunity to file briefs
with the Board.
58 N. L. R. B., No 277.
1543
1544 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Continental Can Company, Inc., is a New York corporation with
offices in New York City. The Company owns several divisions in
several States. This proceeding involves only the Reynolds Moulded
Plastics Division in Cambridge, Ohio, purchased by the Company on
May 14, 1944.1 The principal products of this Division are plastic
parts, fabricated to the customer's specification, mainly on a subcon-
tract basis for prime contractors to the Army, Navy, and Air Corps.
During 1944, the sales of this Division will be in excess of $4,000,000,
at least 80 percent of which will be shipped to points outside the State
of Ohio. Materials purchased, primarily raw synthetic compounded
resins and maintenance supplies, will constitute at least 40 percent of
the value of the sales, at least 90 percent of which will be shipped to
the Division from outside the State of Ohio.
The Company admits that it is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
United Steelworkers of America, affiliated with the Congress of
Industrial Organizations, is a labor organization admitting to mem-
bership employees of the Company.
Federal Labor Union No. 22738, affiliated with the American Federa-
tion of Labor, is a labor organization admitting to membership em-
ployees of the Company.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
On July 26, 1944, the USA informed the Company that it repre-
sented a majority of the Company's employees and requested a confer-
ence for the purpose of negotiating a collective bargaining agreement.
On August 11, 1944, the Company replied that since the A. F. of L.
had a collective bargaining contract with the Company, the Company
would prefer that the USA resort to the Board.2
1 Prior to that time it was the Reynolds Moulded Plastics Division of Reynolds Spring
Company, Jackson, Michigan
2 On September 9, 1944 , the Company and the A. F of L. executed an agreement whereby
the contract entered into on September 10, 1943, between Reynolds Spring Company and the
A. F. of L. was extended until the execution of a new agreement or the finding by the Board
of a new collective bargaining unit. No issue was made of the contract as a bar , and the
parties stipulated that a question concerning representation had arisen.
CONTINENTAL CAN COMPANY, INC. 1545
A statement of a Board agent, introduced into evidence at the hear-
ing, indicates that the USA represents a substantial number of em-
ployees in the unit hereinafter found appropriate.3
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 accord with a stipulation of the parties, that
all production and maintenance employees, including watchmen, but
excluding powerhouse firemen, engineers and their apprentices, plant
guards, office clericals, office maintenance, salaried employees, foremen,
assistant foremen, supervisors in charge of any class of labor, and all
other supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, dis-
charge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in 'the status of em-
ployees, or effectively recommend such action, constitute a unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (b) of the Act.4
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 Election
herein, subject to the limitations and additions set forth in the
Direction.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in 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, as amended, it is hereby
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representa-
tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Continental Can
8 The Field Examiner reported that the USA submitted 481 authorization cards ; that the
names of 430 persons appearing on the cards were listed on the Company 's pay roll of
September 13, 1944, which contained the names of 502 employees in the appropriate unit;
and that the cards were dated as follows : 125 in July 1944 ; 32 in August 1944 ; 9 in Septem-
ber 1944 ; and 264 were undated. The A F of L based its motion to dismiss, which we have
heretofore denied, on the alleged ground that the cards submitted by the USA were obtained
by officers of Local #22738 through coercion and duress. The record does not support this
contention , nor is there any evidence of any fraud . We find this contention to be without
merit. The A. F. of L presented no evidence in support of representation among the em-
ployees, relying upon the contract as evidence of its interest . We shall, however , accord the
A. F. of L. a place on the ballot.
4 This unit is the same as that covered by the contract of September 10, 1943.
• 1546 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Company, Inc., Reynolds Moulded Plastics Division , Cambridge ,-Ohio,
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 Eighth
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 employees 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 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 repre-
sented by United Steelworkers of America (CIO), or by Federal Labor
Union No. 22738, American Federation of Labor, for the purposes of
collective bargaining, or by neither.
i