Pollock Paper Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 25, 1956

115 N.L.R.B. 231 (N.L.R.B. 1956)

POLLOCK PAPER CORPORATION 231
grants separate representation to maintenance employees when no pre-
vious bargaining history of representation on a broader basis exists a
In my opinion, parity of reasoning dictates the conclusion that if the
skills of the maintenance employees are sufficiently distinct from those
of the production employees for unit purposes-and certainly that is
so here-the corollary is equally true. Indeed, there have been Board
cases, albeit few in number, where absent bargaining history units of
production employees have been found appropriate.6 Furthermore,
if, as I believe, there is sufficient basis for finding that units of produc-
tion and maintenance employees could be separately appropriate here,
there is equal reason for holding that separate units of the Turbo pro-
duction employees and Dexdale production employees would likewise
be appropriate. For, the record makes it manifest that the duties
and -skills of these production employees are completely different.
Thus, the Dexdale division makes women's hosiery and the Turbo
division makes automatic machinery; employee skills in each of these
production divisions differ and there is no interchange of employees;
each division does its own hiring and job tenure is divisionwide; most
of the Dexdale employees are paid on a piece-rate basis while Turbo's
are hourly rated; wages are handled separately for each division;
supervision is separate; and working hours differ.
In these circumstances, I believe that since each of the three groups
involved could constitute a separate appropriate unit, the combina-
tion here proposed is also appropriate. There does not appear to be
any persuasive reason for not establishing a unit of the Turbo produc-
tion employees and the maintenance employees, particularly in light of
the fact that the remaining group-the Dexdale production employ-
ees-would be separately appropriate in the event another union
desires to represent it. Accordingly, I would direct an election among
the employees sought by the Petitioner.
c See footnote 4, supra.
6 Stauffer Chemical Company, 108 NLRB 1037 ; Wrought Iron Range Company, 75
NLRB 400.
Pollock Paper Corporation (Waterproof-Ohio Division) and
Middletown Printing Pressmen's and Assistants' Union, Local
Number 235 , AFL-CIO,' Petitioner . Case No. 9-RC-2597. Janu-
ary 25,1956
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Rosemary S. Macke, hearing
1 The AFL and the CIO having merged, we are amending the identification of the Unions'
affiliations.
115 NLRB No. 33.
232 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
officer.2 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 organizations involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees-of the Employer.
3. The Intervenor asserts, and the Petitioner denies, that a current.
contract between the Employer and Wax Paper Workers, Local Union
No. 78, affiliated with the Intervenor, hereinafter called Local 78, is a
bar to this proceeding. The Employer takes no clear position.
On November 17, 1954, the Employer and Local 78 entered into a
contract covering certain employees sought herein by the Petitioner.
This contract provided :
This agreement shall be effective as of October 15, 1954, and shall
continue in effect until October 14, 1955. However, either party
has the right to open the contract upon sixty (60) days' notice
prior to October 14, 1955, to amend or negotiate a new agreement
and, in order to do so, a written notice specifying. the desired
changes must be served by the party desiring to open the contract.
If no such notice, as specified above, is given, this agreement shall
automatically renew itself for one (1) additional year. If such
notice is given and no agreement by negotiation, conciliation or
mediation is reached by October 14, 1955, this agreement shall re-
main in effect until either party serves a sixty-day notice of desire
to terminate this agreement.
By letter dated August 9, 1955, Local 78 informed the Employer that
it was desirous of opening negotiations for a new agreement governing
wages and working conditions, and set forth certain specific proposals.
On September 7, 1955, the Petitioner filed the instant petition. The
Employer and Local 78 reached no agreement. We conclude that the
petition is not barred by the contract, since it was timely filed near the
expiration date of the contract after automatic renewal was forestalled
by Local 78 and before any new contract became effective.3
4. The Petitioner seeks a unit of production and maintenance em-
ployees at the Employer's Middletown, Ohio, plant, including ware-
7 International Brotherhood of Bookbinders, AFL-CIO, heiemafter called the Intervenor,
was permitted to intervene on the basis of its contract.
In its brief, the Intervenor moves that the Board ( 1) dismiss the petition on the
ground that an existing contract is a bar to this proceeding and that the requested unit
is inappropriate , and (2) refer the issues raised herein to the executive council of the
American Federation of Labor to permit that body to make effective the Federation's
internal disputes plan. As to (1), we find below that the contract is not a bar and we
make a unit finding As to (2), Section 9 of the Act requires the,Board to determine
such issues . Moreover , the Board does not take cognizance of the internal affairs of
labor organizations unless thereby some policy of the Act is violated . New Castle Prod-
ucts, Incorporated , 99 NLRB 811 , footnote 12. The motion Is therefore denied.
3 New Jersey Porcelain Company, 110 NLRB 790.
POLLOCK PAPER CORPORATION 233
house, shipping, and receiving employees and local truckdrivers, but
excluding pressroom employees, over-the-road truckdrivers, 'office
clerical employees, professional employees, guards, and all supervisors
as defined in the Act. The Intervenor, alleging bargaining history
on a different basis, contends that the requested unit is inappropriate.
The Employer takes no position as to the scope of the appropriate
unit. The parties also fail to agree as to the unit placement of certain
categories, which are discussed below.
The Employer is a Texas corporation. It operates plants in four -
States. At its Middletown plant, the only plant immediately involved
herein, the Employer is engaged in paper converting. The Employer
divides its Middletown operations into several principal departments
including the receiving, printing, waxing and coating, finishing, and
shipping departments, and several "staff supporting departments,"
including maintenance, ink laboratory, end label testing section, of-
fice clerical employees, and factory clerical employees.
Since about 1931, the Employer and the petitioning International
and the Intervenor and certain of their locals have bargained for
certain categories involved in this proceeding. In 1954 and 1955 the
parties executed their most recent contracts, as follows : On November
17, 1954, the Employer and Local 78 entered into a contract covering
various categories at the Employer's Middletown plant.4 On August
47 1955, the Employer and the petitioning International and several of
its locals, including the petitioning local, entered into a multiplant
contract covering categories at the Middletown and other plants e
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, AFL-CIO, hereinafter
called the Teamsters, presently represents over-the-road truckdrivers
working out of the Employer's Middletown plant, but there are other
plant employees not represented by any union. The unit requested
by the Petitioner would exclude these truckdrivers and the employees
presently represented by the Petitioner itself, but would include the un-
represented employees and the employees currently represented by
Local 78.
The unit requested by the Petitioner, excluding the craft employees
whom it currently represents in a multiplant unit and the over-the-
road truckdrivers whom the Teamsters represents, is a production
.and maintenance unit, and as such may be appropriate for the purposes
of collective bargaining. However, the requested employees may also
be appropriately established as two separate units. Thus, it is clear,
on the basis of the bargaining history, that the employees currently
4 This contract covers the following categories : "all waxing , coating , slitting , trimming,
rewinding , punching , and cutting machine employees , and all other employees used in the
operation of the Company 's business for the foregoing purposes , also wrapping, shipping,
and all other factory finishing employees necessary to complete the finished product."
6 At the Middletown plant, the contract covered pressroom employees, including journey-
men, gravure pressmen, apprentice pressmen , press assistants , apprentice assistants, ink
mixers and their helpers, proofing press operators, setup men , and washroom men.
234 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
represented by Local 78 may constitute an appropriate bargaining
unit, and-that the remaining employees, comprising all hitherto un-
represented employees, excluding employees currently represented by
any labor organization, may constitute an appropriate unit on a
residual basis. We shall therefore make no final unit determination
-at this time, but shall direct that the question concerning representa-
tion be resolved by separate elections by secret ballot among the em-
ployees in two voting groups, consisting of (1) the employees presently
represented by Local 78 and (2) the above unrepresented employees.
We shall now consider the group placement of certain categories.
End label paper testers: The Petitioner would include these em-
ployees in its proposed unit. The Intervenor would include them in
its established unit. The Employer would exclude them from any
`unit on the basis of bargaining history or as technical employees.
End label paper testers constitute part of the Employer's overall
technical department, whose headquarters are located in Dallas, Texas.
The Employer has similar employees at all of its other plants. End
label paper testers have not been included in the bargaining units at
any of its plants, including the units at the Middletown plant. If
possible, the Employer selects these testers from women who have had
high school physics and chemistry ; it has selected them from produc-
tion workers. They work in an enclosure near the production area
under the supervision of the production foreman. They test samples
,of the Employer's products for weight, strength, and other qualities.
They use special equipment, but the tests they perform are very
routine. They are hourly paid employees and work about the same
hours and have the same employee benefits as other such employees.
Upon the entire record, we find that the end label paper testers are
not technical employees. We see no reason for the exclusion of these
unrepresented employees from any bargaining unit at the Middletown
plant, and include them in voting group 2.8
The janitor: The Petitioner would include the janitor. The other
parties take no position. The janitor apparently performs the usual
duties of his classification. As he appears to be a maintenance em-
ployee, and as no reason was advanced for excluding the janitor, we
shall include him in voting group 2.°
The ink color matcher: The Employer would exclude this employee.
The other parties take no position. The ink color matcher works
in the laboratory, a separate enclosure, and at the Employer's presses,
under the exclusive supervision of the ink chemist. He works closely
with the chemist and helps to develop various ink formulas. The
Employer does not appear to have bargained for this category with
either of the labor organizations involved herein. A good background
e Courtaulda (Alabama), Inc., 102 NLRB 1609.
° Unde, wood Corporation , 107 NLRB 1132.
POLLOCK PAPER CORPORATION 235
in high school physics or chemistry or several years of junior college
work in these fields is required for this position. We find that the ink
color matcher is a technical employee. We shall follow the Board
policy of excluding technical employees from production units when
one of the parties objects to their inclusion.' We shall therefore ex-
clude the ink color matcher from both voting groups.
As noted above, we make no final unit determination at this time.
We shall direct separate elections among employees in the following
voting groups at the Employer's Middletown, Ohio, plant, including in
each group probationary employees,' but excluding from each, the
ink color matcher, office clerical employees, professional employees,
guards," and a]] supervisors as defined in the Act :
Group 1: All waxing, coating, slitting, trimming, rewinding,
punching, and cutting machine employees, all other employees em-
ployed for the foregoing purposes, and wrapping, -shipping, and all
other factory finishing employees necessary to complete the finished
product.
Group 2: All other employees, including local truckdrivers, end
label paper testers, and the janitor, but excluding over-the-road truck-
drivers and pressroom employees (journeymen, gravure pressmen,
apprentice pressmen, press assistants, apprentice assistants, ink mixers
and their helpers, proofing press operators, setup men, and washroom
men) .
As both labor organizations appear to have an adequate showing of
interest among employees in voting group 1, we shall place the names
of both organizations on the ballot in the election among these em-
ployees. As only the Petitioner appears to be interested in repre-
senting employees in voting group 2, and as it appears to have a
sufficient showing among them, we shall place only the Petitioner's
name on the ballot in the election among these employees.
If the Intervenor wins the election among employees in voting
group 1, or if the Petitioner wins only this election, then the employees
in this group will be taken to have indicated their desire to constitute
a separate unit, and the Regional Director conducting the elections
directed herein is hereby instructed to issue a certification of repre-
sentatives to the bargaining agent so selected for such separate unit,
which unit the Board, under such circumstances, finds to be appro-
priate for the purposes of collective bargaining. If, however, the
Petitioner wins the elections among employees in both voting groups,
the employees in these groups will be taken to have indicated their
desire to constitute a single combined unit, and the Regional Director
8 Pacific Moulded Products, 111 NLRB 882.
8 The parties apparently agree, and we find, that probationary employees should be
included.
10 The parties in effect agree, and we find, that the Employer 's firemen-watchmen are
employed as guards within the meaning of the Act and should therefore be excluded.
236 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
is instructed to issue a certification of representatives to the Petitioner
for such combined unit, including therein the employees in both group
1 and group 2, which unit the Board, under such circumstances, finds
to be appropriate.
If neither labor organization wins in either or both of the voting
groups, the Regional Director is instructed to issue a certification of
results of election or elections to such effect.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.]
MEMBER MURDOCK took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Elections.
Rockwell Valves, Inc., Petitioner and International Association
of Machinists and/or its Local 978, AFL-CIO. Ca,'e No. 16-RM-
106. January 27,1956
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Lewis A. Ward, 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 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 employees
of the Employer.
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the represen-
tation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section
9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, for the following
reasons:
The Employer filed its petition on November 22, 1955, contending
that the Union no longer represents a majority of its employees. The
hearing officer referred to the Board the Union's motion to dismiss the
petition on the ground that a year had not elapsed between the time
the Union was certified by the Board on January 19, 1955, as bargain-
ing representative of the Employer's production and maintenance
employees and the filing of the petition.
Following certification of the Union by the Board, the Employer
and the Union held several bargaining conferences, but were unable
to reach agreement on the terms of a contract. On June 15, 1955, most
of the Employer's employees went on strike. The record shows that
the Employer has hired permanent replacements for the strikers, and
115 NLRB No. 40.