Midland Container Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 17, 1956

116 N.L.R.B. 1116 (N.L.R.B. 1956)

1116 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
shift, and have the authority to recommend wage increases and the
discipline, hire, and discharge of employees. We find that the night
foremen are supervisors within the meaning of the Act and shall
exclude them.
Accordingly, we find that the following employees of the Employer
at its printing plant in Nashville, Tennessee, constitute appropriate
collective-bargaining units within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of
the Act :
A. All cameramen, strippers, opaquers, platemakers, pressmen, and
apprentices in the offset department excluding all other employees,
porters, janitors, truckdrivers, office clerical employees, guards, of-
ficers, department foremen, night foremen, and all other supervisors
as defined in the Act.
B. All journeymen pressmen,6 assistants, and apprentices in the
letterpress department, excluding the employees in the offset depart-
ment, all other employees, porters, janitors, truckdrivers, office clerical
employees, guards, officers, department foremen, night foremen, and
all other supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.]
6 The parties stipulated that the classification of letterpressmen includes that of job
pressmen.
Midland Container Corporation and International Brotherhood
of Pulp, Sulphite and Paper Mill Workers , St. Louis Box Local
Union No. 842, AFL-CIO, Petitioner . Case No. 14.-RC-3004.
September 17,1956
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Thomas C. Hendrix, hear-
ing 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 fmds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent 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.
The Employer moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that
the Petitioner is not qualified to represent its employees because an
alleged supervisor, Scott Allender, participated in the Petitioner's
116 NLRB No. 140.
MIDLAND CONTAINER CORPORATION 1117
affairs and assisted in procuring its showing of interest. The Peti-
tioner contends that Allender was not a supervisor when the Petitioner
obtained its authorization cards and that, in any event, Allender did
not assist the Petitioner in their procurement.
Allender became general superintendent at the Employer's plant in
July 1954, at which time he was invested with authority to hire and
discharge employees. In December 1955, Allender made manifest
to the Employer his desire to relinquish his supervisory authority.
While the Employer indicated that this request would be granted
at sometime in the future, it seems clear on the record that Allender
continued to possess supervisory authority during all times material
to the issues herein. We so find.
In early January 1956, the Petitioner commenced its organizational
campaign at the Employer's plant. Early in February 1956, a meet-
ing was held in the rathskeller of a local bar at which several employees
signed authorization cards. While Allender was present in the bar,
he did not attend the meeting and none of the employees called as
witnesses testified that they had seen Allender there. Sometime after
this meeting, Allender signed a card for the Petitioner and at a sub-
sequent meeting was elected a committeeman of the Petitioner. There
is no evidence that Allender at any time directly approached employ-
ees and solicited their membership in the Petitioner. Ten employees
testified at the hearing that they had signed cards at the first meet-
ing, long before they became aware of Allender's interest in the Peti-
tioner. The record reveals that there are 26 employees in the requested
unit. Even assuming that 16 employees signed cards after Allender
became identified with the Petitioner, it seems clear that the Peti-
tioner had a sufficient showing of interest which was unaffected by
Allender's membership in the Petitioner or his assumption of the
office of committeeman. Accordingly, we are persuaded that the Peti-
tioner is qualified to represent the Employer's employees and that it
has a sufficient showing of interest to warrant conducting an election
at this time.' The Employer's motion to dismiss is therefore
denied 2
4. The appropriate unit :
The parties agree that a unit of all production and maintenance
employees at the Employer's plant in St. Louis, Missouri, including
' Cf. Degilu Productions , Inc, 106 NLRB 179, 182, footnote 6; Toledo Stamping if
Hanufacturinq Companij, 55 NLRB 865, 868
2 After the close of the hearing herein , the Employer filed with the Board a motion to
supplement record in which it urged that the affidavits of four employees which accom-
panied the motion be treated as part of the record or, alternatively , that the record be
reopened to receive the evidence contained in the affidavits . In its motion, the Employer
states that the affidavits establish that Allender was a supervisor during the times mate-
rial to the issues here presented and that Allender assisted the Petitioner in obtaining
its showing of interest . Even assuming that the Board were to accept the affidavits as
recorded evidence , such affidavits would be insufficient to affect the decision reached herein
The motion is therefore denied
1118 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
inside and outside shipping department employees, but excluding
office clerical employees, professional employees, watchmen, guards,
and all supervisors as defined in the Act, is appropriate. However, the
Employer contends that, in addition to Allender, the shipping clerk,
Floyd -Buchanan, is a supervisor and should therefore be excluded
from the unit. We have heretofore found that Allender is a supervisor
and we shall exclude him. The record discloses that Buchanan does
not possess any of the indicia of supervisory authority, that he re-
ceives the same benefits as the production and maintenance employees,
and that he is subject to the same working conditions. We there-
fore find that Buchanan is not a supervisor within the meaning of the
Act and we shall include him in the unit.
Accordingly, we find that all production and maintenance employees
at the Employer's plant in St. Louis, Missouri, including inside and
outside shipping department employees, but excluding office clerical
employees, professional employees, watchmen, guards, and all super-
visors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9
(b) of the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
MEMBER BEAN took no part in the consideration of the above Deci-
sion and Direction of Election.
Burroughs Corporation and Society of Skilled Trades of Wayne
County, Petitioner . Case No. 7-RC-3140. September 17, 1956
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Myron K. Scott, 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 Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
The Employer argues that the Petitioner is not a labor organiza-
tion within the meaning of the Act. However, the record reveals that
the Petitioner was formed for the purpose of representing employees
and negotiating with employers regarding wages and working condi-
tions. It is, therefore, a labor organization as that term is defined in
116 NLRB No. 139.
I