Scott Paper Company

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 13, 1981

257 N.L.R.B. 699 (N.L.R.B. 1981)

SCOTT PAPER COMPANY
Scott Paper Company and John G. Karasti, Petition-
er and United Paperworks International Union
Local No. 86, AFL-CIO-CLC. Case 30-RD-
605
August 13, 1981
DECISION ON REVIEW AND ORDER
On March 27, 1981, the Regional Director for
Region 30 issued his Decision and Direction of
Election in the above-entitled proceeding in which
he found that the "total instrument technicians"
had not been merged into a broader unit and di-
rected an election among them at the Employer's
Marinette, Wisconsin, location.
Thereafter, in accordance with Section 102.67 of
the National Labor Relations Board Rules and
Regulations, Series 8, as amended, the Union filed
a timely request for review of the Regional Direc-
tor's decision urging, inter alia, that the Regional
Director erred in carving out a unit of seven in-
strumentmen from the Employer's plantwide pro-
duction and maintenance unit and that his decision
departs from well-established precedent.
By mailgram dated May 28, 1981, the Union's re-
quest for review was granted.
The Board has considered the entire record with
respect to the issues under review and makes the
following findings:
The Employer is a Pennsylvania corporation en-
gaged in the manufacture of paper products. In
June 1979, the Union was certified as the collec-
tive-bargaining representative for "all total instru-
ment technicians" (herein called ITs) at the Em-
ployer's Marinette, Wisconsin, facility. Since the
1940's the Union has been the collective-bargaining
representative of the Employer's production and
maintenance employees at the Marinette facility.
Although the ITs classification has existed since
the late 1940's, there is no evidence that the Union
or any other labor organization, at any time prior
to 1979, sought to represent the ITs. '
Prior to the 1979 election the Union explained to
the ITs that they would be covered by the same
collective-bargaining agreement as the production
and maintenance employees. After the Union's cer-
tification on June 19, 1979, the ITs were discussed
in the then ongoing negotiations which resulted, on
July 31, in an agreement covering the plantwide
production and maintenance unit. The contract ran
'The ITs are included in broad units with other employees at the Em-
ployer's Everett, Washington, and Oconto Falls, Wisconsin, facilities. In
Case 30-UC-31 (1967), involving the Oconto plant, instrument repairmen
or mechanics were clarified into the production and maintenance unit at
that plant. However the ITs are represented separately at the Employer's
Mobile, Alabama, facility. There is testimony that the ITs' functions at
the instant location are essentially the same as the instrument mechanics
at the Oconto plant.
257 NLRB No. 97
from May 15, 1979, to May 14, 1981. The ITs were
actively negotiated over and, according to the
record, were placed in the maintenance department
under that contract. The Employer's personnel
manager, Henry Otterlei, testified that negotiations
had not yet concluded by the date of the election
among the instrument technicians and that there
were discussions in the negotiations as to where
that group would be included in the contract. Ac-
cording to Otterlei, "We put them in the mainte-
nance department." He further confirmed that the
wage provisions for "instrumentation" on page 43
of the contract and overtime provisions for that
classification on page 68 related to the instrument
technicians and were discussed between the Union
and the Company after the certification and before
the contract covering the broad unit was signed.
Local 86 President Falk, who was involved in the
1979 negotiations for the collective-bargaining
agreement, testified that it was the Union's position
that the instrument technicians be placed in the
contract "with the mechanical maintenance
people," as opposed to being in a separate unit.
There is no evidence that there was any bargaining
on behalf of the instrument technicians at this plant
as a separate unit.
The Union, subsequent to reaching an agree-
ment, invited the ITs to attend the ratification vote,
along with all other production and maintenance
employees. The record reveals that a majority of
the ITs participated in the vote, which resulted in
the contract's ratification.
The ITs do not have a separate departmental ste-
ward; one employee serves as steward for both the
electricians and the ITs.
The Regional Director, notwithstanding the
foregoing facts, concluded that the instrument
technicians had not been merged into the broader
production and maintenance unit as a result of the
parties' bargaining and, therefore, he directed an
election among the instrumentmen. In so deciding,
the Regional Director relied on the relatively short
time the ITs were subject to the terms of the
agreement-2 years-as opposed to a 40-year histo-
ry of a separate unrepresented existence. Although
he acknowledged the reference to instrument main-
tenance in the contract's recognition clause, the
Regional Director noted that "technical division"
employees were excluded. Thus, he concluded the
evidence was insufficient and too ambiguous to
show that the recognition clause merged the IT
employees into the broader unit.
We disagree. Our analysis of the record leads us
to conclude that the employer and the union repre-
sentatives at the negotiations following the election
mutually intended to, and did, include that group
699
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of employees in the collective-bargaining agree-
ment then being negotiated, and that the ITs were
ultimately placed under the maintenance section of
the contract. In addition to the evidence of intent
cited above, Local 86 President Falk, in response
to the Hearing Officer's questioning, stated there
was no contention that the instrument employees
were technicals or had to be "separated out." Per-
sonnel Manager Otterlei testified that he did not
think the instrument technician group came up for
discussion in relation to the recognition clause lan-
guage. International Representative Cluberton
stated on the record that the Union never contend-
ed that the instrument technicians were technicals
within the Board's definition, that the Union did
not seek to include technicals in the unit, and that
was the reason it did not want to change the rec-
ognition clause. Significantly, there is no separate
recognition clause for an instrument technician
unit. 2
It is clear that the instrument technicians were
covered by the recent contract for a 2-year period
and that they acknowledged their placement in the
maintenance group in their request to the Union
which preceded the instant petition.3 Further, the
2 Cf. Duval Corporation, 234 NLRB 160 (1978).
3 The Union's Exh. 2, in evidence, contains a copy of a request to the
Union by members of the Electrical Maintenance, Electric Plant Opera-
tors and Instrument Maintenance Departments of the Employer "to allow
record shows that the instrument technicians work
closely with the electricians and other maintenance
department employees and are under the direct and
overall supervision of the maintenance depart-
ment's supervisors.
Finally, the fact that the unit has been certified
for only 2 years is not, in these circumstances, suf-
ficient to overcome a finding that the ITs unit has
been merged, virtually from the date of its certifi-
cation, with the broader production and mainte-
nance unit.4
As we find unmistakable evidence that the par-
ties mutually agreed to merge the instrument tech-
nicians into the broader bargaining unit, and have
in fact done so, the petition for a decertification
election is not coextensive with the existing con-
tract unit, and we shall vacate the election and dis-
miss the instant petition.5
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the election be vacated
and that the petition be dismissed.
the above departments to negotiate with other Union Representation."
The request was supported by signatures of various employees which
were dated in November 1980. By letter dated December 23. 1980, the
Union's vice president responded, denying their request and stating that
their contract was "one of the better ones in the paper industry."
' The Armstrong Rubber Company, 208 NLRB 513 (1974).
5 W T Grant Company, 179 NLRB 670 (1969).
700