Field Paper Box Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 6, 1961

130 N.L.R.B. 22 (N.L.R.B. 1961)

22 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
remains a part of the existing unit presently represented by Inter-
national Molders and Foundry Workers Union of North America,
Local 316, AFL-CIO, at Michigan City, Indiana, plant of Weil-
McLain Company.]
Field Paper Box Co. and Printing Specialties & Paper Products
Union No. 415, affiliated with International Printing Pressmen
& Assistants Union of North America , AFL-CIO, Petitioner
Box Finishers , Inc. and Printing Specialties & Paper Products
Union No. 415 , affiliated with International Printing Pressmen
& Assistants Union of North America, AFL-CIO,' Petitioner.
Cases Nos. 13-RC-7379 and 13-RC-7398. Febiuary 6, 1961
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION*
Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before Rush F. Hall,
hearing 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 these cases to a three-
member panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Fanning and
Kimball].
Upon the entire record in these cases, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain
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. Field Paper Box Co., an Illinois corporation, is engaged in the
manufacture of paper boxes at its plant at 1740 North Pulaski Road,
Chicago, Illinois. Box Finishers, Inc., an Illinois corporation, has
a plant at 4455 West Fullerton Avenue, Chicago, Illinois, for the
finishing of paper boxes. The Petitioner appears to have taken the
position at the hearing that it now seeks a single production and
maintenance unit comprising both plants, but it would continue to
' The name of the Petitioner appears as amended at the hearing.
*On February 23, 1961, the Board approved a stipulation of the parties in which they
asserted that it was , and is, the intention of all parties to this proceeding to exclude, not
include , plant clericals from the voting unit at both plants of the Employer herein in-
volved . In view of the above action, it becomes unnecessary for the Regional Director,
before proceeding with the election , to determine that the Petitioner has an adequate
showing of interest in the larger unit originally found appropriate.
130 NLRB No. 7.
FIELD PAPER BOX CO. 23
include plant clericals at Field and exclude them at Finishers z The
Employer contends that separate single-plant units are solely appro-
priate and refused to agree to the Petitioner's exclusion of plant
clericals.
Eli Field and his wife own both corporations and the former is
president and treasurer of both. The Field family constitutes a
majority of the board of directors of both and they have a common
labor relations policy. As they have common ownership and control
and a common labor relations policy, we find that they constitute a
single employer. V.I.P. Radio, Inc., 128 NLRB 113.
There is no history of collective bargaining at either plant and no
union seeks to represent employees at each plant separately. The
plants are separated by a distance of approximately 2 miles, each has
separate supervision, there has been no employee interchange, and
90 percent of Finishers' business is with companies other than Field.
However, when Field established Finishers it did so by permanent
transfer of 15 employees, apparently constituting all of Finishers'
employees, and these employees retained their seniority, vacation,
and insurance benefits which they had acquired at Field, the wage
rates of the two plants are similar, and all of the finishing work
required by Field is performed by Finishers. We find, therefore,
in all the circumstances, particularly as no union seeks to represent
either plant separately, and as both plants have common conditions
of employment, ownership, and control, that a single unit comprising
both plants is appropriate. George H. Braun, d/b/a Alamo-Brawn
Beef Company, et al., 128 NLRB 32. See Virginia-Carolina Chem-
ical Corporation, 128 NLRB 446.
As the parties have not agreed basically to exclude all plant cleri-
cals as a class, we shall follow our customary practice of including
them in the production and maintenance unit. Raybestos Manhat-
tan, Inc., 115 NLRB 1036.
Accordingly, we find that the following employees constitute a
unit appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act :
All production and maintenance employees, including plant clerical
'employees, at the Chicago plants of the Employer, excluding office
clerical employees, professional employees, guards, and supervisors
as defined in the Act.
The unit found appropriate is larger than that sought by the Peti-
tioner because of our inclusion of plant clerical employees in both
plants and it is not clear whether the Petitioner has an adequate
2 Originally the Petitioner filed a petition In Case No . 13-RC-7379 for all production
and maintenance employees, including plant clericals, of Field at 1740 North Pulaski Road,
Chicago , Illinois , and thereafter filed a similar petition In Case No . 13-RC-7398 covering
employees of Finishers at 4455 West Fullerton Avenue, Chicago , Illinois , but excluding
plant clericals
24 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
showing of interest. Accordingly, we instruct the Regional Director
not to proceed with the election herein directed until he shall have
first determined that the Petitioner has made an adequate showing of
interest among the employees in the appropriate unit who are eligible
to vote in the election 3
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
8 Foremost Dairies, Inc., 118 NLRB 1424 , 1428, footnote 7.
Squirt-Nesbitt Bottling Corp . and Bakery Sales Drivers Union,
Local No. 344. Case No. 13-CA-33993. February 7, 1961
DECISION AND ORDER
On June 14, 1960, Trial Examiner John P. von Rohr issued his In-
termediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Inter-
mediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the General Counsel and
Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and briefs in
support thereof, and Respondent filed a reply brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its power in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Leedom and Members
Rodgers and Jenkins].
The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions
and briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the
findings,' conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner,
with the exceptions and modifications noted below.
We agree with the Trial Examiner that the individual distributor-
ship contracts entered into by the Respondent with its driver-salesmen
did not alter the employee status of these drivers or convert them into
independent contractors. We also find that Respondent violated Sec-
tion 8 (a) (5) and (1) of the Act, as concluded by the Trial Examiner,
by refusing to bargain with the Union, the certified bargaining repre-
sentative of its driver-salesmen, as to those driver-salesmen who signed
distributorship contracts and by entering into individual contracts
with such employees.'
' Elmer Johnson, secretary-treasurer of the Union, was not present at the meeting be-
tween Respondent and union representatives held on August 12, 1959, as the Intermediate
Report finds
.1 In view of
our disposition herein, we find it unnecessary to pass upon whether, as
found by the Trial Examiner , Respondent also violated the Act by cooperating with and
encouraging the employees to accept the distributorship plan or would even have violated
the Act had the individual contract effectively changed the status of the driver-salesmen
to that of independent contractor.
130 NLRB No. 9.