Fort Howard Paper Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 12, 1948

77 N.L.R.B. 46 (N.L.R.B. 1948)

In the Matter of FORT HOWARD PAPER COMPANY, EMPLOYER and UNITED
PAPER WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER
Case No.13M-R-32.-Decided,April,12,.1948
Mr. O. S. Hoebreckx, of Milwaukee, Wis., for the Employer.
Mr. John Gray, of West De Pere, Wis., and Mr. Burt J. Mason, of
Chicago, Ill., for the Petitioner.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Green
Bay, Wisconsin, on December 22, 1947, before Gustaf B. Erickson,
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are
free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. All parties were
afforded opportunity to file briefs with the Board.
Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations
Board 1 makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
The Fort Howard Paper Company, a Wisconsin corporation, is
engaged in the manufacture of toilet paper, paper towels, and paper
napkins at its plant in Green Bay, Wisconsin, which is solely involved
in this proceeding. The principal raw material used by the Employer
is cellulose. During the year 1946, the Employer used at this plant
raw materials valued in excess of $3,000,000, of which over 80 percent
was shipped to its Green Bay, Wisconsin, plant from points outside
the State of Wisconsin. During the same period, the Employer manu-
factured products valued in excess of $6,000,000, of which 90 percent
was shipped from this plant to points outside the State of Wisconsin.
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 Act, the Board has delegated Its
powers in connection with this case to a three-man panel consisting of the undersigned
Board Members [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Reynolds].
77 N. L. It. B., No. 4.
46
FORT HOWARD PAPER COMPANY
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
47
The Petitioner is a labor organization , affiliated with the Congress
of Industrial Organizations, claiming to represent certain employees
of the Employer.
III. TIIE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Employer refuses to recognize the Petitioner as the exclusive
bargaining representative of employees of the Employer until the
Petitioner has been certified by the Board in an appropriate unit.
The Employer moves to dismiss the petition upon the ground that
the record does not indicate that there is any question concerning rep-
resentation. The Employer contends that the Petitioner should have
been required to introduce evidence into the record at the hearing to
show its representation interest. Inasmuch as the Board has repeat-
edly held both before and after the enactment of the Labor Manage-
ment Relations Act of 1947, that the Petitioner's prima facie showing
of representation interest is solely a matter of administrative pro-
cedure to be determined by the Board itself and not subject to inquiry
at the hearing, we find no merit in this contention.2
The Employer further contends that the petition should be dis-
missed because it was filed prior to the enactment of the Labor Man-
agement Relations Act of 1947 and does not now conform to the Board's
present requirement that the petition shall contain the number of em-
ployees in the alleged appropriate unit who have designated the Peti-
tioner to act. The Board has held that procedural changes resulting
from the amendments to the Act are not to be applied retroactively.
Accordingly, we find that the Employer's contention is without merit.
IV. TIIE APPROPRIATE UNIT
We find, in substantial accord with the agreement of the parties, that
all the production and maintenance employees at the Employer's
Green Bay, Wisconsin, plant, excluding executives, assistants to ex-
ecutives, professional employees, draftsmen, office and clerical em-
ployees, laboratory employees, cafeteria employees, watchmen, plant
guards, and supervisors, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes
of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the
Act.
2 See Matter of 0. D. Jennings & Company, 68 N L R B. 516; Matter of Mascot Stove
Company, 75 N L. R B 427.
48- DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining with Fort Howard Paper Company,
Green Bay, Wisconsin, 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 supervision and direction of the Regional
Director for the Thirteenth Region, and subject to Sections 203.61
and 203.62, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regula-
tions-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 reinstated prior to the date of the election, and also excluding em-
ployees on strike who are not entitled to reinstatement, to determine
whether or not they desire to be represented by United Paper Workers
of America, CIO, for the purpose of collective bargaining.