Riegel Paper Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 25, 1945

63 N.L.R.B. 538 (N.L.R.B. 1945)

0
In the Matter of RIEGEL PAPER CORPORATION and PAPER WORKERS
ORGANIZING COMMITTEE, CIO
Case No. 4-R-1734.-Decided August 25, 1945
Herr and Fisher, by Mr. Lloyd Fisher, of Flemington, N. J., for the
Company.
Mr. William Sheer, of Philadelphia, Pa., for the Union.
Mr. Harry Nathanson, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a petition duly filed by Paper Workers Organizing Commit-
tee, CIO, herein called the Union, alleging that a question affecting
commerce had arisen concerning the representation of employees of
Riegel Paper Corporation, Milford, New Jersey, herein called the
Company, the National Labor Relations Board provided for an ap-
propriate hearing upon due notice before Eugene M. Purver, Trial
Examiner. The hearing was held at Easton, Pennsylvania, on June
4, 1945. The Company and the Union appeared and participated.
All parties were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine
and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidelice bearing on the
issues. The Trial Examiner's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. All parties were
afforded an opportunity to file briefs with the Board. Upon the entire
record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Riegel Paper Corporation, a New Jersey corporation, is engaged
in the manufacture of paper and paper products at its plants in Mil-
ford, Riegelsville, Hughesville, and Warren Glen, New Jersey. Dur-
ing the year 1944, the Company used approximately 100,000 tons of
raw materials which included pulp, waste paper, fibrous material, and
63 N. L. R. B., No. 84.
538
RIEGEL PAPER CORPORATION 539
chemicals, and more than 90 percent of which was shipped to the
Company's plants from points outside the State of New Jersey. For
the same period the Company sold approximately $16,150,000 worth of
its products, about 72 percent of which was shipped to points outside
the State of New Jersey.
The Company admits that it is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
H. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Paper Workers Organizing Committee, affiliated with the Congress
of Industrial Organizations, is a labor organization admitting to
membership employees of the, Company.
III. THI QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Company has refused to grant recognition to the Union as the
exclusive bargaining representative of certain employees at its Milford
plant until the Union has been certified by the Board in an appropriate
unit.
The Company contends that no election should be held at this time
because it is now "facing a third election in 4 years." We find no
merit in this contention, inasmuch as the last election among the
Milford employees was held on March 29, 1944,1 more than 1 year ago,
and a statement of a Board agent, introduced into evidence at the
hearing, indicates that the Union now represents a substantial number
of employees in the unit hereinafter found appropriate.2
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Company, within the meaning
of Section 9,(c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Union desires a unit consisting of all production and mainte-
nance employees at the Company's Milford plant, excluding office cler-
ical workers, supervisors, foremen, and executives. The Company
agrees that the categories of employees sought by the Union are appro-
priate, but contends that the unit should include the employees of all
four of its plants.
In the last proceeding affecting the Company's employees 3 the
United sought the identical unit now petitioned for by the Union, and
1 See Matter of Riegel Paper Corporation, 55 N. L . R. B. 358. There , the employees
voted against representation by United Paper, Novelty & Toy Workers International Union,
herein called the United , the only labor organization on the ballot.
2 The Field Examiner reported that the Union submitted 293 authorization cards and
that there were 800 employees in the alleged appropriate unit.
3 See footnote 1, supra.
540 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Company took the same position it presently advances. Neverthe-
less, in its Decision and Direction of Election in that case the Board
stated :
The plants are located within a few miles of each other. Each
has its own supervisor who may discharge employees and who
occasionally hires employees, although the personnel office for the
four plants is located at the Milford plant. Top management
of the Company exercises control over all plants, and its New York
Office handles purchases, sales, accounting and traffic for all
plants. All plants are served by a chief electrician and a chief
engineer, and the Company's power line connects each mill to the
others. The work done in each of the plants is similar and some
products are sent from one to another for finishing. However,
the Milford plant, which is considerably larger than any of the
other three, would be able to operate independently of the others
in the event of their cessation of operation.
The [United] has made no attempt to organize any but the Mil-
ford plant, and contends that the employees of that plant should
not be denied the benefits of organization because the other plants
have not been organized. The record shows that in 1941 the Com-
pany and an A. F. of L. union entered into a consent election
agreement which applied only to the Milford plant, and that on
December 3, 1943, the Company and the [United] requested the
Board to conduct an election among the employees of the Milford
plant. The Company asserts, however, that it has since reversed
its position because, among other reasons, it recently learned of
certain cases in which the Board has held in accordance with its
contention of the present case. The cases cited by the Company
are not controlling here.
In view of the above circumstances, we conclude that the unit
sought by the [United] is appropriate for collective bargaining at
the present time. This conclusion will not, however, preclude a
finding at some later date that a larger and more inclusive unit'
is then appropriate.
Evidence adduced at the hearing in the instant case reveals substan-
tially the same facts4 The Union, as successor to the United, contin-
ued the attempts to obtain representation of only the employees of the
Milford plant. We note, moreover, that there is practically no inter-
change between the production and maintenance employees of the Mil-
ford plant and those of the other three plants. Thus, we are persuaded
that the unit sought by the Union is appropriate.
* At the hearing in this proceeding , company witnesses testified that the War Production
Board, the Office of Price Administration , the War Manpower Commission , and other gov-
ernmental agencies regarded the Company 's four plants as a single unit. Their criteria are
necessarily different from those of this Board, which operates under a specific statute.
RIEGEL PAPER CORPORATION 541
We find that all production and maintenance employees of the Com-
pany's Milford, New Jersey, plant, excluding office clerical workers,
supervisors, foremen, executives, and all other supervisory employees
with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise
effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively recommend such
action, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
We shall direct that the question concerning representation which
has arisen be resolved by an election by secret ballot among the em-
ployees in the appropriate unit who were employed during the pay-roll
period immediately preceding the date of the Direction of Election
herein, subject to the limitations and additions set forth in the Direc-
tion.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National Labor
Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act,
and pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of National Labor Relations
Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3, as amended, it is hereby
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representa-
tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Riegel Paper Cor-
poration, Milford, New Jersey, an election by secret ballot shall be con-
ducted as early as possible, but not later than thirty (30) days from
the date of this Direction, under the direction and supervision of the
Regional Director for the Fourth Region, acting in this matter as
agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject to Article
III, Sections 10 and 11, of said Rules and Regulations, among the em-
ployees 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 the
said pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation or temporarily
laid off, and including employees in the armed forces of the United
States who present themselves in person at the polls, but excluding any
who have since quit or been discharged for cause and have not been re-
hired or reinstated prior to the date of the election, to determine
whether or not they desire to be represented by Paper Workers Or-
ganizing Committee, CIO, for the purposes of collective bargaining.