Marinette Paper Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 22, 1955

114 N.L.R.B. 1452 (N.L.R.B. 1955)

1452 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
telling them to go to the polls and vote. The Employer did not inform
any other employees of the election; (2) there is no evidence that three
other employees at the Mattituck location were prevented from voting
by the^Employer, except that the Employer kept them in ignorance
of the election; and (3) the Employer asserts that it failed to produce
a payroll list at the polling place through inadvertence.
The Regional Director recommended that the election be set aside
because of the Employer's failure to post the requisite election notices
and that a new election be directed.5 On November 14, 1955, the Em-
ployer filed timely exceptions to the Regional Director's report.
The Employer does not dispute the Regional Director's finding
with respect to its failure to post election notices. Without more,
we find that this violation of instructions resulted in the election not
being adequately publicized to interested employees who were thereby
prevented from voting and that the election therefore failed to rep-
resent the desires of all employees in the appropriate unit.6 Accord-
ingly, we shall adopt the Regional Director's recommendations, set
aside the election of August 24, 1955, and direct that a new election
be held at a time to be determined by the Regional Director.
[The Board set aside the election held on August 24, 1955.]
[Text of Second Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
MEMBER BEAN took no part in the consideration of the above Sup-
plemental Decision, Order, and Second Direction of Election.
5 The Regional Director also rejected the Employer 's contention that it had no em-
ployees in the unit for the payroll period used to determine eligibility to vote. In view
of our decision to set aside the election because of the Employer 's failure to post the
requisite notices of election, we find it unnecessary to pass on the issue of eligibility
raised by the Employer's exceptions.
O Special Machine and Engineering Company, 85 NLRB 1332.
Marinette Paper Company and United Brotherhood of Carpen-
ters & Joiners of America , AFL-CIO,' Petitioner
Marinette Paper Company and International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of Amer-
ica, Local 294, AFL-CIO,2 Petitioner
Marinette Paper Company and International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO,3 Petitioner. Cases Nos. 2-RC-
7316, 2-RC-7352, and 2-RC-7397. December 23, 1955
DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before
1 Herein referred to as Carpenters . The AFL and CIO having merged subsequent to
the hearing in this proceeding, we are amending the identification of the affiliation of the
Unions accordingly.
2 Herein referred to as Teamsters.
3 Herein referred to as IBEW.
114 NLRB No, 223.
MARINETTE PAPER COMPANY 1453
Milton Pravitz, 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 these cases, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the National Labor Relations Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent ce"rtain..em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. Questions affecting commerce exist concerning representation of
employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1)
and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Employer is engaged in the manufacture of paper products
such as paper towels, napkins, tissues, and wax paper. At its Fort
Edward, New York, plant, the only plant involved herein, it has a
total complement of approximately 642 employees, of whom approxi-
mately 494 are hourly paid production and maintenance employees.
The Intervenor, Local 13275, District 50, United Mine Workers of
America, has represented a plantwide unit of the production and
maintenance employees since 1947, with the exception of a group of
seven pipefitters and plumbers in the Employer's "service shop" who
are represented in a separate unit by the United Association of Jour-
neymen Plumbers and Pipefitters, AFL. The Intervenor's recently
expired contract is not urged as a bar to this proceeding.
The Petitioners seek to sever from the existing production and
maintenance unit various alleged craft or departmental groups of em-
ployees. The Employer and the Intervenor oppose severance of the
requested units, contending that the employees sought to be severed are
neither craftsmen nor departmental groups appropriate for severance,
but that only a plantwide production and maintenance unit is appro-
priate. The various petitions will be discussed below under their
respective case headings.
The Employer's plant is divided administratively into 11 divisions.
All of the employees sought by the Carpenters are employed in what
is known as the engineering division, which is the Employer's main-
tenance organization. The engineering division is in turn comprised
of several subdivisions which include a service shop, a "finishing main-
tenance" section, an electrical maintenance and construction section, a
building and grounds section, an instrument maintenance group, and
a section for operation and maintenance of the powerhouse.
There are 98 employees in the engineering division, of whom 45 are
employed in the service shop in 12 designated classifications. The
Carpenters' primary unit request is for a "craft or departmental unit
of service shop employees" including the 7 service shop classifications
of shift mechanics, millwrights, sheet metal workers (tinsmith), rig-
gers (internal transportation crew), machinists, beltman, carpenter,
and helpers and apprentices in these classifications, and specifically
1454 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
excluding the classification of truck mechanic, parts clerk and inspec-
tor, grinders, and pipefitters, the latter because they are already rep-
resented in a separate unit. The 12th classification in the service shop,
machine mechanic, is presumably excluded, as it is not mentioned in
the primary request, although specifically mentioned in alternate re-
quests.
In the alternative, the Carpenters makes 11 additional unit requests
in order of preference. Seven of these alternate requests involve
various combinations of inclusions and exclusions of the 12 classifica-
tions of service shop employees; one alternative involves 9 classifica-
tions of service shop employees and their helpers, plus maintenance
mechanics, oilers, laborers, masons, painters and helpers from other
sections of the engineering department; and the remaining 3 alterna-
tive requests involve units of only millwrights and carpenters, or
millwrights alone.
It is apparent that the primary unit sought by the Carpenters, the
seven alternative units of service shop employees, and the proposed
unit of service shop employees plus other classifications in the engineer-
ing department, are heterogeneous groupings of employees with dif-
ferent skills and functions. Therefore, without deciding whether the
employees in the various classifications involved in these units are
craftsmen, we find that the employees sought in these units are not,
in any of the instances mentioned, a "distinct and homogeneous group
of skilled journeymen craftsmen" entitled to severance as a craft
group.'
As a further alternative the Carpenters seeks to sever the employees
in the service shop, exclusive of the parts clerk, and the pipefitters
therein, as a department, or to sever as a department any 1 of the other
7 multicraft alternative groupings which the Board may find
appropriate for severance on this basis. As contended by the Car-
penters, the service shop is a separately supervised administrative
entity, as are each of the subdivisions of the engineering division.
However, it is clear that the 12 classifications of employes in the service
shop, either alone, or in combination with certain other categories of
the engineering division as requested in one of the alternative units,
constitute a heterogeneous grouping of employees which is only a
segment of the Employer's maintenance department. As such, none
of these proposed groupings constitutes a functionally distinct and
separate departmental group appropriate for severance as a depart-
ment.5
There remains for consideration the Carpenters' alternate unit re=
quests involving only millwrights, or millwrights and carpenters.
" American Potash & Chemical Corp ., 107 NLRB 1418 ; Beaunit Mills, Inc., 109 NLRB
651, 662.
5 ILid
MARINETTE PAPER COMPANY 1455
Within the millwright line of progression, the Employer has 5 first-
class millwrights, 4 first-class shift mechanics, 1 second-class mill-
wright, and 3 millwright helpers, all employed in its service shop. The
service shop is supervised by a master mechanic. Under the master
mechanic are a machine shop supervisor, a mechanic supervisor, and a
millwright supervisor. The millwright supervisor supervises mill-
wrights, one sheet metal worker, riggers, and pipefitters.
The principal function of the service shop is the maintenance and
repair of the manufacturing equipment in the paper mill. The Em-
ployer's job description for first-class millwrights states that they are
required to repair all types of mechanical equipment, to overhaul
paper machines, to rebuild pumps, to rebuild or repair parts for ma-
chines, to repair elevators and gasoline and electric trucks, do minor
rigging jobs, rough carpentry, and metal and concrete work. In per-
formance of these duties they are required to work from blueprints and
sketches as well as verbal orders, and to use micrometers and calipers.
According to the description, first-class millwrights are expected to
take the initiative in performing jobs and to direct the work of less
experienced men. The job descriptions of the shift mechanics states
that they perform the same duties as the millwrights, but on a rotat-
ing shift schedule. The Employer's job descriptions for the second-
class millwrights and helpers states that their duties are the same as
those of the first-class millwrights, but they are not expected to per-
form such duties with the same degree of proficiency. All of the mill-
wrights are required to have their own tools.
The Employer has no formal apprenticeship program. There is,
however, an established line of progression from millwright helper,
through second-class millwright and shift mechanic to first-class mill-
wright, and the Employer's maintenance engineer testified that it
takes about 4 years to reach the first-class category in any classifica-
tion in the service shop.
The service shop supervisor testified that normally a helper must
wait 18 months before promotion to second-class millwright. How-
ever, promotions from any category are not made automatically after
expiration of a specified minimum time, but depend on seniority within
each grade, individual qualifications, and available vacancies, and
often it takes longer than 4 years to achieve first-class status.
The record does not support the Employer's contention that the
millwrights spend a large portion of their time in work outside their
trade skills. Both the maintenance engineer and the master mechanic
who supervises the service shop testified that various classifications in
the service shop "stick pretty close to the job descriptions" and "cross-
ing of craft lines" occurs only during emergencies or unusual oc-
casions. On occasion it has been necessary for the Employer to em-
ploy outside millwrights under contract, but only because of ab-
1456 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
normal workloads, and to do the same work as the regular millwrights
normally perform.
Unlike the Employer, we find no significance in the fact that it is
possible for employees from other sections of the plant to transfer
into the millwrights or other groups in the service shop. For the past
4 years at least, all such transfers have been into the helper classifica-
tion from which the employees are then required to complete the reg-
ular line of progression.
On the basis of the record before us, we find that the Employer's
millwrights and shift mechanics, and their helpers, constitute a true
craft group, exercising craft skills on a broad basis in their function
of maintaining rebuilding and repairing the Employer's production
machinery.6 As they are sought by a labor organization which his-
torically and traditionally represents them,' they may constitute an
appropriate unit if they so desire.
. The Employer has 2 carpenters, 1 employed in the service shop,
and 1 employed in the building maintenance section of the engineering
department. It is clear from the record that these carpenters are not
within the millwright line of progression, and function completely
independently of the millwrights. On occasion one or perhaps both
of the carpenters may work with millwrights on the same machine or
project, but on such occasions each group performs only its own func-
tions. We shall not include them in the millwright voting group.
Case No. 2-RC-7352-the Teamsters ' Petition
The Teamsters seeks to sever as a departmental unit the employees
of the "traffic and stores department, including receiving, shipping,
stores, and factory service employees." In the alternative it would
exclude the factory service employees. The employees involved are the
52 hourly rated employees in the Employer's traffic division, which is 1
of the plant's 11 main administrative divisions.
The functions of the traffic division are to receive and distribute
throughout the plant all of the raw materials and supplies utilized in
the manufacture of the Employer's products, to ship the finished
products, and to clean the plant and salvage or discard all waste ma-
terials. The traffic division is subdivided into four sections or depart-
ments called the stores department, bulk receiving department, ship-
ping department, and factory service department. In the stores de-
partment are six employees who store and dispense certain supplies
and parts to employees. The bulk receiving department unloads bulk
shipments of pulp and other materials and supplies them to the pro-
duction departments. In this department there are 12 lift-truck
6 American Can Company, 110 NLRB 1640, and cases cited therein.
7 Ibid.
MARINETTE PAPER COMPANY 1457
operators, 4 "parent-roll handlers" who transport huge paper rolls
to the finishing department for cutting and packaging, and 2 crew
leaders. In the shipping department there are 4 crew leaders and 17
case handlers, who load freight cars and trucks with goods to be
shipped, and also 1 over-the-road truckdriver who makes deliveries
within the surrounding area. The six employees of the factory serv-
ice division clean the plant, salvage, and dispose of waste materials.
The Teamsters urges that because the activities of the traffic division
obviously differ from the functions of the various other divisions of the
plant, the traffic division employees are entitled to separate representa-
tion as a functionally distinct department. In support of their con-
tention they also point out that the traffic division has a separately
established pay scale, does not participate in a bonus plan as do some
of the other plant divisions, and that the employees have departmental
seniority as well as job seniority and plant seniority.
It is clear, however, that none of the traffic division employees exer-
cise any particular skills. The Employer estimated that it requires
about 1 week to learn to operate a fork-lift truck, or to learn the var-
ious other jobs. Most of these employees perform unskilled work as
laborers. We find that notwithstanding its separate supervision, the
traffic department employees do not form a departmental group of a
type traditionally recognized by the Board as appropriate for sever-
ance from an existing plantwide unit." We shall therefore dismiss
the Teamsters' petition.
The Unit Sought by the IBEW
In Case No. 2-RC-7397, the IBEW seeks a unit of electricians and
instrument mechanics, and their helpers and apprentices, or, in the
alternative, a unit of electricians only. The Employer has 11 elec-
tricians in its electrical maintenance department. There are 5 first-
class electricians who work the day shift, 4 first-class electricians who
work a rotating shift schedule, 1 second-class electrician, and 1 helper.
These employees are under the separate supervision of the electrical
superintendent and the electrical maintenance foreman.
The Employer's electricians are responsible for the installation and
repair of all of the plant electrical equipment, and for electrical con-
struction work. Their duties include work on voltages up to 13,200
volts, installation, disassembly, and repair of motors of from one-
fourth to 300 horsepower, and of transformers, switchboards, and
electronic controls.
According to their job descriptions, second-class electricians and
helpers assist the first-class electricians in the performance of the
8 North American Aviation, Inc., 113 NLRB 1049; Alpine Metals Mfg. Co , 95 NLRB 1190.
1458 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
above work, and perform comparable work in accord with their ca-
pabilities, as assigned. However, only the first-class electricians are
permitted to work on the high voltages coming into the plant.
There is no formal apprenticeship or training program for elec-
tricians. The electrical superintendent testified that there is no spe-
cific requirement that an electrician spend a minimum time in a classi-
fication before promotion, but that normally there is an interval of
"several years" before a helper is promoted to second-class electrician,
and an interval of approximately 2 years between promotion to sec-
ond class and promotion to first class. The electrical superintendent
testified that electricians are "brought through the,.ranks in this way."
In the past the Employer has recruited electricians both by transfer-
ring employees in the electrical maintenance department as helpers,
and by hiring experienced men from the outside as second- or first-
class electricians. At times, the electricians work in conjunction with
other classifications of maintenance employees, when several groups
may be simultaneously performing planned maintenance work on
production equipment. However, it appears that on these occasions
and at all other times, electricians perform only their own functions,
except in unusual circumstances, and remain under their separate
supervision.
We are convinced that the installation and maintenance of the
Employer's electrical equipment requires the exercise of craft skills,
and that the electricians, who are either experienced when hired, or
acquire the required degree of proficiency in progressing to first-class
electricians, possess and exercise such skills in the performance of
their duties. We find that the electricians are a true craft group, and
as they are sought by a labor organization which traditionally rep-
resents them,9 they may constitute a separate appropriate unit if they
so desire.
As indicated, the IBEW would include instrument mechanics in the
unit with the electricians.10 However, it is clear that the Employer's
seven instrument mechanics are separately supervised by an instru-
ment maintenance engineer and instrument maintenance foreman, are
not in the line of progression of the electricians, and function inde-
pendently of the electricians. Ninety percent of the plant instru-
ments are pneumatic, and the remaining 10 percent are electrical.
When electrical instruments require maintenance, electricians dis-
connect them, the instrument mechanics repair them, and the electri-
cians then reconnect them. Occasionally, in the case of an instrument
with a complicated electrical circuit, an electrician named Prefoun-
taine is called upon to assist in its repair. This is, however, the ex-
9 Southern Paperboard Corporation , 112 NLRB 302.
10 The IBEW does not seek to represent the instrument men in a separate unit.
CHARLOTTE TANK CORPORATION 1459
tent of association between electricians and instrument ' mechanics. - -
Accordingly, we shall not include them in the group of electricians."
In accordance with the foregoing, we shall direct that elections
be conducted in the following voting groups of employees at the Em-
ployer's Fort Edward, New York, plant:
(1) All millwrights and shift mechanics and their helpers;
(2) All electricians and their helpers.
If a majority of the employees in either voting group vote for the
union seeking to represent them separately, they will be taken to have
indicated their desire to constitute a separate appropriate unit, and
the Regional Director conducting the elections is instructed to issue
a certification of representatives to the labor organization thus se-
lected in each group, which the Board, in such circumstances, finds
to' be an appropriate unit for purposes of collective bargaining.
[The Board dismissed the petition in Case No. 2-RC-7352.]
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.]
MEMBERS MURDOCK and BEAN took no part in the consideration of
the above Decision, Order, and Direction of Elections.
North American Aviation, Inc., 108 NLRB 863, 865
Charlotte Tank Corporation and International Brotherhood of
Boilermakers , Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and
Helpers, Local No. 30, AFL,1 Petitioner . Case No. 11-RC-786.
December 22, 1955
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before Martin L.
Ball, Jr., 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 this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the National Labor Relations 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
t) (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner seeks to represent a unit of production and main-
tenance employees at the Employer's tank fabricating plant in Char-
I As the AFL and CIO merged after the hearing herein, we are taking notice thereof
and amending the designation of the Petitioner accordingly.
114 NLRB No. 232.
387644-56-vol. 114-9 3