Crown Simpson Pulp Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 31, 1967

163 N.L.R.B. 796 (N.L.R.B. 1967)

796 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
notice, on forms furnished by the Regional Director for
Region 14, after being duly signed by an authorized
representative of the Respondent, shall be posted by the
Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be
maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in
conspicuous places, including all places where notices to
employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall
be taken by the Respondent to insure that said notices are
not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for Region 14, in
writing, within 20 days from receipt of this Decision, what
steps it has taken to comply herewith.4
° In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the
Board, this provision shall be modified to read. "Notify said
Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this
Order, what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith."
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial
Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board, and in
order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our
employees that:
WE WILL NOT refuse to bargain collectively with
Chauffeurs and Helpers Local No. 50, affiliated with
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America, as the
exclusive bargaining representative of all the
following employees:
All production and maintenance employees at
our candy factory and cafeteria, excluding office
clerical and professional employees, guards, and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner
interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the
exercise of their rights under the Act.
WE WILL bargain collectively with the Union as the
exclusive representative of the employees and, if an
understanding is reached, we will sign a contract with
the Union.
HOLLYWOOD BRANDS,
INC.
(Employer)
Dated By
(Representative ) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days
from the date of posting, and must not be altered, defaced,
or covered by any other material.
If employees have any question concerning this notice
or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate
directly with the Board's Regional Office, 1040 Boatmen's
Bank Building, 314 North Broadway, St. Louis, Missouri
63102, Telephone MA 2-4154.
Crown Simpson Pulp Company and
Association of Western Pulp and
Paperworkers , Petitioner , and Local
No. 482 , International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Petitioner.
Cases 20-RC-7182 and 7186.
March 31, 1967
DECISION ON REVIEW
BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND ZAGORIA
On October 28, 1966, the Regional Director for
Region 20 issued a Decision and Direction of
Elections in the above-entitled proceedings' in
which he found a production and maintenance unit
presumptively appropriate at the Employer's
Fairhaven, California, pulp plant. He also found that
The Employer's maintenance electricians were a
homogeneous group of skilled craftsmen appropriate
for representation in a separate unit if they so desire,
and set up a separate voting group for them. Partly
because of the integrated nature of the Employer's
operations, he concluded that a separate
maintenance department unit, as sought by
Petitioner at the close of the hearing, was not a
homogeneous grouping for bargaining.
Thereafter, in accordance with Section 102.67 of
the National Labor Relations Board Rules and
Regulations, Series 8, as amended, the IBEW filed a
timely request for review of such Decision and
Direction of Elections, contending that the Regional
Director erred in failing to find appropriate a unit of
all maintenance department employees, including
electricians, millwrights, instrument men, pipefitter-
welders, and machinist-millwrights. By telegraphic
order dated November 23, 1966, the National Labor
Relations Board granted the request for review and
stayed the election. Thereafter, the Employer, and
the Petitioner in Case 20-RC-7182, herein called
Association, filed briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel.
The Board has considered the entire record in this
case with respect to the Regional Director's
determination under review, including the Regional
Director's Decision, the request for review, and the
briefs of the Employer and the Association, and
hereby finds as follows:
The Employer is engaged in the operation of a
newly constructed pulpmill. There is no history of
collective bargaining at this mill. Basically the mill's
personnel structure consists of production
' International Brotherhood of Pulp , Sulphite and Paper Mill
Workers, AFL-CIO (herein called International ), was permitted
to intervene on the basis of a showing of interest.
163 NLRB No. 109
CROWN SIMPSON
employees who are directly involved in the
continuous process of producing pulp, and
maintenance employees who do the repair work
necessary to keep the plant functioning.
The Employer and the Association contend that
the highly integrated and automated nature of the
pulpmill operation, including the necessity of the
production employees working closely with the
maintenance employees to facilitate continuous
operations, make a unit consisting of the production
and maintenance employees the only appropriate
unit. At the hearing the Association contended that
the evidence does not support a "conglomerate,
heterogeneous" - maintenance department as
appropriate "whatever individual crafts within it
may be appropriate." The IBEW contends that the
integrated character of a pulpmill is no more reason
for denying departmental units than for denying the
craft unit of electric maintenance employees that
was allowed. It does not of course suggest that the
craft unit is inappropriate, but avers that all
maintenance employees have been instructed by
their supervisors to disregard craft lines and utilize
whatever skills they possess, including those of
other crafts.
From the record it appears that despite the
integrated nature of the Employer's operation the
maintenance function is separately identifiable. The
maintenance department is located in its own large
building where electricians, instrument men, and
other craft-type employees each have a work area.
The maintenance building also houses the toolshed
which is primarily for the use of the maintenance
personnel. The maintenance department is
responsible for maintaining plant equipment. Their
work may be performed in groups and sometimes in
conjunction with production employees in the area
involved. At those times, when the maintenance
employees work in conjunction with production
employees, the function performed by production
workers is incidental to the preparation of the
equipment for the repairs made by the maintenance
employees. Further, the maintenance department is
administered separately from the production, has a
separate wage scale, and has a single maintenance
superintendent who reports to the plant engineer.
Hiring of maintenance department employees is
done separately through this maintenance
superintendent. Moreover, there is no interchange
between production and maintenance employees,
and employees who transfer from the production to
the maintenance department start at the lowest rate
in the maintenance wage scale.
In accord with longstanding Board policy
concerning initial organization, and based on the
record here made concerning the separate function
2 See American Cyanamid Company, 131 NLRB 909
3 Pooled votes shall be tallied as follows- Votes for IBEW shall
be counted as valid votes , but neither for nor against the
PULP COMPANY 797
of these maintenance department employees, we
find that they may constitute a separate unit if they
so desire.2 This will include the maintenance
electricians found appropriate on a craft basis by the
Regional Director, whom the IBEW prefers to
represent as part of a maintenance department unit.
In view of this preference and of our finding with
respect to the appropriateness of the broader
maintenance department unit at this plant, we shall
modify the voting groups set up by the Regional
Director and instead direct that separate elections
by secret ballot be held in the following voting
groups at the Employer's Fairhaven, California, pulp
plant:
Voting Group (A): All maintenance department
employees, excluding all other employees, guards,
and supervisors as defined in the Act.
Voting Group (B): All production employees
including the tower recovery and shipping and
receiving employees, excluding office clerical
employees, professional employees, maintenance
department employees, guards, and supervisors as
defined in the Act.
If a majority of the employees in voting group (A)
select the IBEW, they will be deemed to have
indicated their desire to constitute a separate
bargaining unit, and the Regional Director will issue
a certification of representative to such organization
for such group which, under these circumstances, is
found to be an appropriate unit for purposes of
collective bargaining. If, in those circumstances, a
majority of the employees in voting group (B) elect to
be represented by either the Association or the
International, then a certification of representatives
will issue for a separate unit of production
employees, which, in the circumstances, is found to
be appropriate. However, if a majority of the
employees in voting group (A) do not vote for the
IBEW, such group will appropriately be included in
the unit with the employees in voting group (B) and
their votes will be pooled with those of voting group
(B).3 A certification of representative will issue to
either the Association or the International if selected
by a majority of the employees in the pooled group
which, in the circumstances, is found to be a unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining. In all other events, the Regional Director
will issue a certification of results of the election as
appropriate in the circumstances.
Accordingly, the case is hereby remanded to the
Regional Director for Region 20 for the purpose of
holding an election pursuant to his Decision and
Direction of Elections, as modified by this Decision,
except that the payroll period for determining
Association or the International All other votes are to be
accorded their face value, whether for representation by the
Association , the International , or for no union.
798 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
eligibility shall be that immediately preceding the
date of this Decision.4
4 An amended eligibility list, containing the names and
addresses of all the eligible employees in voting group A, and an
amended eligibility list, containing the names and addresses of all
the eligible employees in voting group B , must be filed with the
Regional Director for Region 20 within 7 days after the date of this
Decision and Direction of Elections The Regional Director shall
make the lists available to all parties to the election No extension
of time to file each list shall be granted by the Regional Director
except in extraordinary circumstances Failure to comply with
this requirement shall be grounds for setting aside the elections
whenever proper objections are filed Excelsior Underwear Inc ,
156 NLRB 1236
William A. Magellan, Joseph S. Martinac,
Frederick T. Borovich , G. E. Skewis,
Eugene Dahout , and J . M. Martinac
Shipbuilding Corporation, d/b/a
M. V. Eastern Pacific and Cannery Workers
& Fishermen 's Union of San Diego,
AFL-CIO.
Fishermen 's Union Local 33 , International
Longshoremen 's and Warehousemen's
Union (William A. Magellan , et al ., d/b/a
M. V. Eastern Pacific ) and Cannery Work-
ers & Fishermen 's Union of San Diego,
AFL-CIO. Cases 21-CA-6896 and 21-CB-2620.
March 31, 1967
DECISION AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS FANNING, JENKINS, AND ZAGORIA
On December 20, 1966, Trial Examiner Allen
Sinsheimer, Jr., issued his Decision in the above-
entitled proceeding, finding that Respondents had
engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that they cease and
desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action,
as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's
Decision. Thereafter, the Respondent Union filed
exceptions to the Decision and a supporting brief
and the General Counsel filed an answering brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner and finds that no prejudicial error was
committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The
Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision,
the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the
' The complaint issued on February 28, 1966, and was amended
on April 4, 1966 It is based on separate charges filed on
August 23, 1965, in Cases 21-CA-6896 and 21-CB-2620 Copies
of the complaint and the amendments thereto and the charges
were duly served on Respondents
163 NLRB No. 110
case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions,
and recommendations of the Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the
Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner as
modified below, and hereby orders that the
Respondents, William A. Magellan, Joseph S. Mar-
tinac, Frederick T. Borovich, G. E. Skewis, Eugene
Dahout; and J. M. Martinac Shipbuilding Corpora-
tion, d/b/a M. V. Eastern Pacific, and its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, and Fishermen's
Union Local 33, International Longshoremen's
and Warehousemen's Union, its officers, agents,
and representatives, shall take the action set forth
in the Trial Examiner's Recommended Order, as
herein modified.
Add the following at the end of subparagraph
1(b) of paragraph A of the Trial Examiner's Recom-
mended Order, and at the end of the second
paragraph of Appendix C:
"... , provided, however, that nothing herein shall
require Respondent to vary or abandon any wage or
other substantive feature of their relations with their
employees, which they have established in the
performance of said agreement, or prejudice the
assertion by the employees of any rights they may
have thereunder."
TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
ALLEN SINSHEIMER, JR., Trial Examiner: This
proceeding, with all parties represented, was heard before
me in Los Angeles, California, on May 31 and June 1,1966,
upon a consolidated complaint of the General Counsel, as
amended, and answers by William A. Magellan, et at.,
d/b/a M. V. Eastern Pacific, called Respondent Employer,
and Fishermen's Union, Local 33, International
Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union, herein
called Respondent Union.' The issues litigated were
whether Respondent Employer violated Section 8(a)(1), (2),
and (3), and whether Respondent Union violated Section
8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended, herein called the Act.
Upon the entire record, including consideration of
excellent briefs filed by the General Counsel and
Respondent Union,2 and upon my observation of the
witnesses , I hereby make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
The individuals named as employer are coowners and
t Respondent Employer signified that it joined in the positions
taken by Respondent Union