Cross Paper Products Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 19, 1948

77 N.L.R.B. 149 (N.L.R.B. 1948)

In the Matter of CROSS PAPER PRODUCTS CORPORATION , EMPLOYER and
JEAN T. PEDRO, PETITIONER and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
PULP, SULPHITE R PAPER MILL WORKERS , LOCAL UNION No. 318,
A. F. L., UNION
Case No. °?-RD-23.Decided April 19, 1948
Mr. Robert L. Hoffman, of New York City, for the Employer.-
Miss Jean T. Pedro, of New York City, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Bernard Ri f icin, of New York City, for the Union.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition for decertification duly filed, hearing in this case
was held at New York City, on January 16, 1948, before Robert Silagi,
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 the case, the National Labor Relations
Board 1 makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT I i
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Cross Paper Products Corporation, a New York corporation hav-
ing its principal office and place of business in New York City, is
engaged in the manufacture of paper tubes and containers. During
the year 1947, the Employer purchased raw materials valued in excess
of $100,000, more than half of which originated from points outside
the State of New York. During the same period, the Employer's
sales of manufactured products exceeded $500,000 in value, more than
40 percent of which represented shipments to customers located outside
the State.
The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
' 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 [Houston, Reynolds, and Gray)
77 N : L. R. B., No. 20. 149
788886-49-vol 77-11
150 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
II. THE PARTIES INVOLVED
The Petitioner, an employee of the Employer, asserts that the Union
is no longer the representative of the Employer's employees as defined
in Section 9 (a) of the amended Act.
The Union, a labor organization affiliated with the American Federa-
tion of Labor, is currently recognized by the Employer as the bargain-
ing representative of employees at the Employer's plant.
III: THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
On December 26, 1946, following a consent election,2 the Employer
recognized the Union as the bargaining representative of the Em-
ployer's production and maintenance employees. Thereafter, the
Union and the Employer entered into a collective bargaining con-
tract to terminate on January 20, 19483 The instant petition was filed
on November 25, 1947.4
We find that a question affecting commerce 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.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The parties agree that production and maintenance employees at
the Employer's New York City plant, excluding office and clerical em-
ployees, chauffeurs, professional employees, guards, and supervisors,
constitute an appropriate unit. They disagree, however, concerning
the unit placement of machinists.
The Union seeks to exclude machinists on the theory that machinists
have separate problems and cannot be adequately serviced by the
Union's representatives. The Petitioner would include machinists in
the unit on the basis of their inclusion in the past bargaining contract-
The Employer takes no position with respect to the placement of ma-
chinists.
The Employer lists six machinists on its pay roll. Although all
machinists are employed in the machine shop, only three of them are
skilled employees, and they receive 10 to 15 percent more in pay than
production employees. Machinists are hourly paid, as are other em-
Case No 2-R-7375
' None of the parties contends that the contra act is a bar to this proceeding
4 At the hearing, the Union moved to dismiss the decertification petition on the ground
that the Petitioner has not submitted a substantial showing of defection from the Union
among the employees in the appropriate unit
in proceedings for decertification , as in proceedings for investigation and certification
of representatives , a prima facie showing of interest by the Petitioner is an administrative
expedient and is not subject to direct or collateral attack . Matter of 0 D. Jennings & Co
68 N L R B 516 ; Matter of Walt Disney Productions, 76 N. L R B 121.
CROSS PAPER PRODUCTS CORPORATION 151
ployees. Their principal work consists of the construction, repair,
and maintenance of plant machinery.
The record discloses that the Employer's contract with the Union
treats machinists as an included category, and that this contract fol-
lowed the agreed unit in the consent election, wherein machinists were
permitted to vote.
In the absence of any cogent reason for their exclusion, we shall
include the machinists in the unit.'
We find that all production and maintenance employees at the Em-
ployer's New York City plant, including machinists, but excluding
office and clerical employees, chauffeurs, professional employees,
guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit ap-
propriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
The Employer's plant was originally located on 3rd Avenue, Bronx,
New York, Due to the construction of a housing project in this area,
the Employer was eventually forced to move from this location. The
Employer secured comparable accommodations in another section of
the city, prior to the time that it was required to move. As the new
accommodations were prepared, it transferred machinery, supplies,
and furnishings to them.
Concurrent with the transfer of its operations from the old to the
new location, the Employer experienced a sharp reduction in the num-
ber of orders received. This, in turn, necessitated a reduction in the
working force. As orders increased, however, employees were re-
called in the order of their seniority, although no assurance of reem-
ployment had been given to them at the time of their dismissal. During
the year 1947, the number of employees on the Employer's pay roll
varied from 150 in January to 173 in March, and then to a low of 51
in October.
The Union requests that voting eligibility be based on the Em-
ployer's pay roll of May 6, 1947, so as to permit employees who were
released during the summer of 1947 to participate in the election.
It bases this request upon the theory that the' transfer of the Em-
ployer's operations occasioned the reduction in the working force, and
urges that the new plant can accommodate the full complement of
employees. The Employer and the Petitioner, however, insist that
those employees released during the summer of 1947 have no reasonable
expectancy of reemployment and therefore should be considered dis-
Matter of Peterson d Lytle, 60 N. L. R. B. 1070.
152 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
chargees who have lost their employee status. The Employer further
contends that the number of persons whom it employs is determined
solely by the number of pending orders, and that it has no way of
foretelling the number of employees it will need in the future.
The record does not indicate a likelihood that the employees re-
leased in 1947 have any prospect of immediate reinstatement. Al-
though the Employer may possibly rehire many of these employees at
soma future date, at the present time the Employer considers them
permanently severed from its force. Accordingly, we find that the
employees released in 1947 were discharged, and not temporarily laid
,off, and they are not eligible to vote in the election 6
We shall direct that the question concerning representation which
exists be resolved by an election by secret ballot, subject to the limita-
tions and additions set forth in the Direction.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining with Cross Paper Products Corporation,
New York City, 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 Second Region, and subject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62, of
National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 5,
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, but excluding those employees who have since
quit or been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or rein-
stated prior to the date of the election, and also excluding employees
on strike who are not entitled to reinstatement, to determine whether
or not they desire to be represented by International Brotherhood of
Pulp, Sulphite & Paper Mill Workers, Local Union No. 318, A. F. L.,
for the purposes of collective bargaining.
Matter of Wells Furniture Company , 71 N. L. R. B 1469.