Crocker, Burbank and Co., Asscn

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 23, 1948

80 N.L.R.B. 774 (N.L.R.B. 1948)

In the Matter of CROCKER, BURBANK AND Co., ASSCN, EMPLOYER and
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, LOCAL 468, AFL,
PETITIONER
Case No. 1-RC--385.--Decided November 23, 194.8
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before a hearing
officer of the National Labor Relations Board.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-man panel consisting of the undersigned Board
Members.*
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
National Labor Relations Act.
2. The Petitioner and International Brotherhood of Paper Makers,
Local 372, AFL, Intervenor herein, are labor organizations claiming to
represent employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer, within the meaning of Section 9 (c)
(1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.'
4. The appropriate unit :
The Petitioner seeks a unit of all powerhouse employees employed
at the Employer's Central Steam Plant and at the boiler room of Mill
No. 5. The Petitioner would include operating engineers, head fire-
men, firemen assistants, firemen helpers, relief firemen, millwrights,
coal handlers, and janitors, but would exclude executives, office and
clerical employees, professional employees, guards, and supervisory
employees as defined in the Act.
* Houston, Reynolds , and Gray.
1 The Employer and the Intervenor contend that no question concerning representation
exists because no claim for recognition was made by the Petitioner prior to the filing of
the petition . The Employer declined to recognize the Petitioner prior to the hearing in
this case . We find no merit in their contention for the reasons set forth in Matter of
Advance Pattern Company , 80 N. L . R. B. 29.
80 N. L. R. B., No. 121.
774
CROCKER , BURBANK AND CO., ASSCN. 775
The Employer and Intervenor contend that, since the Employer's
operations are highly integrated, an over-all unit of production and
maintenance employees is the only appropriate unit. Since 1937,
the Employer and the Intervenor have had collective bargaining
agreements covering all production and maintenance employees, in-
cluding those now sought by the Petitioner.
At its Fitchburg, Massachusetts, plant, the Employer is engaged
in the manufacture of book paper, bristol board, and related products.
Its facilities include nine mills situated along the Nashua River over
a distance of approximately 2 miles, and the Central Steam Plant, a
separate building, situated near the center of operations. The pri-
mary function of the Central Steam Plant is the production of large
quantities of steam used in the paper manufacturing process. In
addition, the steam is utilized in the production of electric energy and
in heating. The Employer obtains approximately 45 percent of its
electric energy requirements from this source, and from four hydro-
electric power stations, and purchases the balance from the New
England Power Company. The Central Steam Plant is the sole source
of steam except in Mill No. 5 which produces its own steam.
The facilities of the Central Steam Plant include five boilers, four
turbines, and several electric generators. Adjacent to the steam plant
is a coal shed where coal is unloaded and conveyed by belt to the steam
plant. At Mill No. 5, the Employer maintains a boiler room which is
separated from the rest of the building by a brick fire wall.
On each of the three shifts at the Central Steam Plant, there is an
operating engineer who is in charge of the operation of the turbines
and generators. In connection with the operation of the boilers there
is a head fireman, a fireman assistant, and a helper. All these em-
ployees are licensed in conformity with the safety laws of the Com-
monwealth of Massachusetts. At Mill No. 5 there is an operating en-
gineer and a fireman at each shift.
During the day shift at the Central Steam Plant, there are employed
a janitor, two coal handlers, two millwrights, and three millwright
helpers. One of the coal handlers spends most of his time in and about
the coal shed to see that the coal is properly conveyed to the hopper.
The other coal handler is stationed in the steam plant to see that the
coal is distributed to the pulverizers.
The millwrights and their helpers work exclusively on the repair and
maintenance of machinery in the Central Steam Plant. On occasion
it is necessary to bring into the steam plant millwrights and other
craftsmen from other buildings to assist with major repairs.
The employees in question are under the general supervision of the
Employer's plant engineer. During the day, these employees are di-
776 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
rectly supervised by chief engineers at the Central Steam Plant and
Mill No. 5. At night the operating engineer for the particular shift
has general charge of the operations.
The Employer and Intervenor urge that as the employees in ques-
tion are primarily engaged in the production of steam essential in
the manufacturing process, they should not be severed from the plant-
wide unit.
It appears that the functions of the employees in the Employer's
Central Steam Plant and in the boiler room of Mill No. 5 are quite
similar to those of employees engaged in the production of steam
in other industrial plants. Although the Employer requires large
quantities of steam in its manufacturing process, this product of the
powerhouse is not a component of the end-products of the Employer's
operation. This fact, in our opinion, distinguishes the present case
from the Lynn Gas and Boston Consolidated Gas cases,2 relied upon
by the Employer and the Intervenor. Moreover, those cases are
further distinguishable because they involved public utilities as to
which the Board favors the establishment of an industrial and ulti-
mately a system-wide unit.3 Despite some evidence of integration of
their operations with the Employer's production process, we do not
consider the Central Steam Plant and Mill No. 5 boiler room em-
ployees an inseparable part of the over-all production unit .4
The Employer and the Intervenor contend further that the proposed
severance should be denied, because employee representation in the
paper making industry consistently follows a plant-wide pattern.
While it appears that the plant-wide unit is common in the industry,
we do not consider this alone sufficient reason to preclude a determi-
nation of representatives among the industry's powerhouse em-
ployees.5 Despite a past history of collective bargaining on a more
comprehensive basis, such as exists in the instant case, it is already
well established that powerhouse employees may appropriately be
represented in a separate bargaining unit, should they so desire.°
It is further contended that the proposed unit is inappropriate be-
cause (1) the Petitioner seeks to join both skilled and unskilled
employees, (2) the maintenance employees assigned to the Central
2 Matter o f Boston Consolidated Gas Company, 79 N. L. R B 337 ; Matter of Lynn Gas
and Electric Company, 78 N. L. R. B. 3; but see Matter of Worthy Paper Corporation,
80 N. L R. B. 19.
a Ibid.
Matter of Worthy Paper Corporation, 80 N L. R. B 19; ef. Matter of Ford Motor
Company (Maywood Plant ), 78 N. L. It. B. 887, see also Matter of The Hunter Packing
Company, 79 N. L. R B. 197.
5 Matter of Kimberly Clark Corporation , 78 N. L . R. B. 102 ; Matter of Worthy Paper
Corporation, 80 N. L. It. B. 19 ; Matter of Smith Paper, Incorporated , 76 N. L. It. B. 1222;
Matter of Kalamazoo Vegetable Parchment Company , 76 N. L. It. B. 351.
6 Ibid.
CROCKER , BURBANK AND CO., ASSCN. 777
Steam Plant are members of an entirely different craft, and (3) the
Petitioner should have included the Employer 's hydroelectric station
employees.
We find no merit in (1) and ( 2) contentions . While the employees
in question undoubtedly possess varying skills, we find that they con-
stitute a functionally coherent , homogeneous group with a community
of interest separate from the other production and maintenance em-
ployees of the Employer.
As to (3), we find merit in the contention of the Employer and
Intervenor and shall include the hydroelectric station employees in
the group which may be severed from the existing plant-wide unit.?
The Employer also contends that operating engineers and the
employee classified as "boss-millwright and brick mason" are super-
visors within the meaning of the Act and should be excluded from
the proposed unit.
The primary function of the Employer 's six operating engineers
employed on the several shifts at the Central Steam Plant and at
Mill No. 5, is the operation of the electric turbines and generators.
While a small portion of their time is spent in checking on the opera-
tion of the boilers, it appears that the firemen and their helpers are
directly under the supervision of the plant and chief engineers. The
operating engineers have no authority to hire or discharge other em-
ployees. Although on one occasion information given by an operating
engineer to the chief engineer led to the discharge of an employee, the
record does not convince us that these employees are vested with any
supervisory authority as defined in the Act. Accordingly , we shall
include them in the proposed unit.
The "boss-millwright and brick mason" spends all his time in the
Central Steam Plant on repair work. Although he has two helpers
under him, he does not have authority to hire or discharge employees.
The plant engineer was unable to recall any instance where this
employee had made any effective supervisory recommendation; he
testified that if any disciplinary action were recommended , he "would
simply respect a good workman." We find that the employee in
question is not a supervisor within the meaning of the Act and,
therefore , shall include him in the proposed unit.
Accordingly, we find that all employees at the Employer's Central
Steam Plant and the boiler room of Mill No. 5, Fitchburg , Massachu-
setts, including operating engineers , hydroelectric station employees,
head firemen , firemen assistants , firemen helpers, relief firemen, mill-
wrights and millwright helpers, coal handlers , and janitors , but ex-
cluding executives , office and clerical employees , professional em-
7 Matter of Kimberly-Clark Corporation , 78 N. L. R. B. 102.
778 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ployees, guards, and all supervisors, may constitute a unit appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9 (b) of the Act.
However, we shall make no final unit determination at this time, but
shall first ascertain the desires of these employees as expressed in the
election hereinafter directed. If a majority vote for the Petitioner,
they will be taken to have indicated their desire to constitute a
separate unit.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
purpose of collective bargaining with the Employer, an election by
secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later
than 30 days from the date of this Direction, under the direction
and supervision of the Regional Director for the Region in which
this case was heard, and subject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62 of
National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 5,
as amended, among the employees described in paragraph numbered
4, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately
preceding the date of this Direction of Election, including employees
who did not work during said pay-roll period because they were ill
or on vacation or temporarily laid off, 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, and also ex-
cluding employees on strike who are not entitled to reinstatement, to
determine whether they desire to be represented, for purposes of col-
lective bargaining, by International Union of Operating Engineers,
Local 468, AFL, by International Brotherhood of Paper Makers,
Local 372, AFL, or by neither.