S. D. Warren Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 13, 1955

114 N.L.R.B. 410 (N.L.R.B. 1955)

410 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
It was the consensus of opinion of the parties that the truckdrivers,
the plant clerical employees, the janitor, and two leadmen should be
included in the production-and maintenance unit. As there is noth-
ing in the testimony taken to indicate that these inclusions are inap-
propriate, we shall include such employees. We find that the follow-
ing employees constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act:
All production and maintenance employees at the Employer's Jeffer-
sonville, Indiana, plant, including machine shop employees, truck-
drivers, the plant clerical employees, the janitor, and leadmen, but ex-
cluding professional employees, office clerical employees, guards, and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
[The Board dismissed the petition in Case No. 9-RC-2506.]
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
S. D. Warren Company and Local 1015, United Paperworkers of
America, CIO , Petitioner. Case No. 7-.IBC-f853. October 13,1955
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 Herbert C. Kane, 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
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.
4. The Petitioner seeks as a single unit the employees in the Em-
ployer's five laboratories, all of whom are presently unrepresented and
who have been excluded from the existing production and mainte-
nance unit. The Petitioner would also represent such employees in
any other unit found appropriate by the Board or would add them
to its existing production and maintenance unit. The Employer con-
tends that a separate laboratory unit is inappropriate; and that the
employees in three of the laboratories should be excluded as either
confidential, supervisory, or professional.
The Employer is engaged in the manufacture of clean and coated
printing paper. The employees in the papermill control and the
114 NLRB No. 77.
S. D. WARREN COMPANY 411
coating inspection laboratories visually inspect and make quality
control tests on processed paper to determine if the paper conforms to
predetermined quality standards. The research laboratory employees
conduct various tests and experiments for the purpose of developing
new materials and products and improving existing ones. In addi-
tion, they consult with and advise customers on confidential problems
relating to their paper requirements. In the papermill recovery
laboratory chemical control tests are performed on liquids used in
the pulp cooking process and on the effluent wastes in the recovery
boiler process. The one employee in the water filter plant laboratory
tests water used in the cooking process to determine the amount of
chemical needed as water softener.
As these laboratory employees perform similar work and have the
common primary function of controlling the quality of the Employer's
product by chemical and physical tests during and after the production
process, there is a substantial community of interest among them.
Further, as stated above, the laboratory employees have been excluded
from the production and maintenance unit and are unrepresented. Ac-
cordingly, we find that they may be represented in a separate unit, on
the,basis that they constitute an appropriate residual unit.'
Although the record shows that the data derived from the tests
made by the papermill control and coating inspection laboratory em-
ployees may form the basis for disciplinary action against machine
operators failing to make machine corrections, this does not, as the
Employer contends, constitute these employees supervisors, as they
neither possess nor exercise the statutory authority of supervisors.
Nor are they confidential employees within the Board's definition as
there is no showing that they act in a confidential capacity to any per-
son who exercises managerial functions in the field of labor relations 2
For the same reason , we also find, contrary to the Employer, that the
research laboratory employees are not confidential employees within
the Board's definition. However, the record shows that 1 of the re-
search laboratory employees has a college degree in chemistry and the
other 2 have the equivalent in training and experience, and that they
perform work which is not standardized but which requires the ex-
ercise of discretion and judgment. In these circumstances, we find, in
agreement with the Employer, that the research laboratory employees
are professional employees.'
However, the Board is prohibited by the Act from including pro-
fessional employees in a unit with nonprofessional employees unless
the majority' of the professional employees vote for inclusion in such
a unit. Accordingly, we must ascertain the desire of the research de-
1 Huron Portland Cement Co, 112 NLRB 1465.
2Ibid, at footnote 1
Huron Portland, Cement Co , supra. There is no contention that these employees
are supervisors.
412 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
partment employees as to inclusion in a unit with nonprofessional em-
ployees 4 We shall therefore direct separate elections in the following
voting groups :
0 A. All laboratory employees at the Employer's Muskegon, Michi-
gan, mill, including the employees in the papermill control, pulpmill
recovery, coating inspection, and water filter plant laboratories, but
excluding the employees in the research laboratory, all other em-
ployees, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
B. All professional employees in the research laboratory at the Em-
ployer's Muskegon, Michigan, mill, but excluding all other employees
and supervisors as defined in the Act.
The employees in the nonprofessional voting group (A) will be
polled as to whether or not they wish the Petitioner to represent them.
The employees in the professional voting group (B) will be asked
two questions on their ballots : (1) Do you desire to be included in a
unit composed of all laboratory employees at the Employer's Mus-
kegon, Michigan, mill, for the purposes of collective bargaining? (2)
Do you desire to be represented for the purposes of collective bargain-
ing by the Petitioner? If a majority of the professional employees in
voting group (B) vote "Yes" to the first question, indicating their wish
to be included in a unit with the nonprofessional employees, they will
be so included. Their votes on the second question will then.be counted
together with the vote of the nonprofessional voting group (A) to de-
cide the representative for the whole laboratory unit. If, on the other
hand, a majority of the professional employees in voting group (B)
vote against inclusion, they will not be included with the nonprofes-
sional employees. Their votes on,the second question will then be
separately counted to decide whether'they want to be. represented
by the Petitioner in a separate professional unit.
- Our unit determination is based, in part, then, upon the results of
the election among the professional employees. However, we now
make the following findings in regard to the appropriate unit :
(1) If 'a majority of the professional employees vote for inclusion
in: the unit with the nonprofessional employees, we find that the fol-
lowing employees will constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes
of -collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the
Act :
All laboratory employees at the Employer's Muskegon, Michigan,
mill,' including the employees in the papermill control, pulpmill re-
covery, coating inspection, water filter' plant, and research labora-
tories, but excluding all other employees and supervisors as defined in
the Act. ^ ,
(2) If a majority of the professional employees do not vote for in-
clusion in the laboratory unit with the nonprofessional employees,
It Huron Portland Cement Co , supra; Sonotone Corporation , 90 NLRB 1236, 1241.
JOLLY GIANT LUMBER CO. 413
we find that the following two groups of employees will constitute
separate units appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act :
A. All laboratory employees at the Employer's Muskegon, Michi-
gan, mill, including the papermill control, pulpmill recovery, coating
inspection, and water filter plant laboratories, but excluding the em-
ployees in the research laboratory, all other employees, and super-
visors as defined in the Act.
B. All professional employees in the research laboratory at the Em-
ployer's Muskegon, Michigan, mill, but excluding all other employees
and supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.]
Jolly Giant Lumber Co. and International Woodworkers of
America, CIO, Petitioner and Lumber and Sawmill Workers
Local Union No. 2799, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and
Joiners of America, AFL. Case No. 2O-RC-850. October 13,
1955
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 David E.'Davis, hearing of-
ficer. 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 contends that the petition which was filed- on
July 14, 1955, is barred (1) by its contract of April 4, 1955, with the
Employer's predecessor, or (2) by a memorandum signed by the Em-
ployer adopting its predecessor's contract.
On April 4, 1955, the Intervenor entered into a contract with the
Dolly Varden Lumber Company, to run until April 1, 1956. As the
company contemplated selling its business, a memorandum was at-
tached to the contract, whereby the parties agreed that the contract
would terminate on the date, of sale.
On June 17, 1955, the Employer entered into a lease-purchase agree-
ment with the Dolly Varden Lumber Company, giving the Employer
an option to buy the physical assets of the latter. This agreement was
still in effect at the time of the hearing. After a shutdown of the plant,
114 NLRB No. 82.