Northeastern Container Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 10, 1947

74 N.L.R.B. 42 (N.L.R.B. 1947)

In the Matter of NORTT-TEASTERN CONTAINER CORPORATION, EMPLOYER
and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD Or PULP, SULPHITE AND PAPER
MILL WORKERS, LOCAL No. 583, AFL, PETITIONER
Case No. 6-R-1715.Decided June 10, 1947
Davies, Auerbach,, Cornell and Hardy, by Mr. C. TV. Hoey, for the
Employer.
Mr. Gene Aubuchon, of Cleveland, Ohio, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Melvin J. TVelles, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
Upon a petition duly filed, the National Labor Relations Board, on
April 8, 1947, conducted a prehearing election among employees of the
Employer in the alleged appropriate unit, to 'determine whether or
not they desired to be represented by the Petitioner for the purposes
of collective bargaining.
At the close of the election a Tally of Ballots was furnished the
parties. The Tally shows that there are approximately 131 eligible
voters and that 120 of these eligible voters cast ballots, of which 7:3
were for the Petitioner, 33 were against the Petitioner, and 14 were
challenged.
Thereafter, a hearing was held at Bradford, Pennsylvania, on April
30, 1947, before Henry Shore, 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 the case, the National Labor :Relations
Board-makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE TMPLOYER
Northeastern Container Corporation, a New,York corporation en-
gaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of corrugated paper
and shipping containers, has its principal office and plant at Bradford,
Pennsylvania. During the past year, the Employer purchased for use
74 N. L. R. B., No. 11.
42
NORTHEASTERN CONTAINER CORPORATION 43
at its Bradford, Pennsylvania, plant materials valued in excess of
$500,000, of which approximately 90 percent was shipped to the plant
from points outside the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. During the
same period, the finished products manufactured at this plant were
valued in excess of $500,000, of which approximately 40 percent was'
shipped to points outside the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
The Employer admits, and we find, that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Petitioner is a labor organlziition affiliated with the American
Federation of Labor, claiming to represent employees of the Employer.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING.REPRESENTATION
The Employer refuses to recognize the Petitioner as the exclusive
bargaining representative of employees of the Employer until the Peti-
tioner has been certified by the Board in an appropriate unit.
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the
representation of employees of the Employer, within the meaning of
Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Petitioner and the Employer agree that all production and
maintenance employees of the Employer, exclusive of clerical and
supervisory employees, constitute an appropriate bargaining unit.
The Employer, however, contrary to the Petitioner, would include m
the unit truck drivers.
The truck drivers, seven in number, haul finished products of the
Employer from the plant to customers within a radius of 150 miles.
They perform all their work outside the plant, although they are super-
vised by the plant superintendent, as are the production and mainte-
nance employees. Pursuant to our usual policy of not including truck
drivers in a production and maintenance unit, in cases of dispute among
the parties, we shall exclude the truck drivers.'
We find that all production and maintenance employees of the Em-
ployer, excluding truck drivers, clerical employees, and all supervisory
employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or
otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively recom-
mend such action, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
'Matter of Byron Jacbson Company , 66 N. L R . B 1312 , Matter of Tiiangle Hosiery
Company, Inc., 65 N L R. B. 69
44 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
The results of the election held previous to the hearing show that the
Petitioner secured a majority of the votes cast, and that the challenges
'are insufficient to affect the results of the election.-' Accordingly, we
shall certify the Petitioner as the collective bargaining representative
of the employees in the appropriate unit.
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
IT Is HEREBY CERTIFIED that International BPOtherhood of Pulp, Sul-
phite and Paper Mill Workers, Local No. 583, AFL, has been desig-
nated and selected by a majority of the Employees in the unit described
in Section IV, above, as their representative for the purposes of collec-
tive bargaining and that, pursuant to Section 9 (a) of the Act, the said
organization is the exclusive representative of all such employees for
the purposes of collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay,
wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment.
CHAIRMAN HERZOG took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Certification of Representatives.
2 Of the 14 challenged ballots, 7 were cast by truck drivers, whom we have excluded from
the unit, 2 were cast by employees who, as the Petitioner and the Employer agree, were
ineligible to vote because they were added to the pay roll subsequent to the eligibility
date , and the remaining 5 were cast by employees who, the Petitioner and the Employer
agree , are supervisory within the meaning of the Board s usual definition