St. Regis Paper Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 4, 1979

244 N.L.R.B. 803 (N.L.R.B. 1979)

ST. REGIS PAPER CO.
St. Regis Paper Company and Roy F. Roe
Middletown Printing Pressmen & Assistants' Local
Union No. 235, International Printing and Graphic
Communications Union, AFL-CIO and Roy F.
Roe. Cases 9-CA-12269 and 9 CB-3803
September 4. 1979
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MFMBERS PN1. 0
AND MURPHY
On April 16, 1979, Administrative Law Judge
Thomas D. Johnston issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter. the General Counsel filed
exceptions and a supporting brief.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the at-
tached Decision in light of the exceptions and brief
and has decided to affirm the rulings, findings,' and
conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and to
adopt his recommended Order.
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board adopts as its Order the recommended Or-
der of the Administrative Law Judge and hereby or-
ders that the complaint be, and it hereby is, dismissed
in its entirety.
I Respondent Union has excepted to certain credibility findings made by
the Administrative Law Judge. Jt is the Board's established policy not to
overrule an administrative law judge's resolutions with respect to credibility
unless the clear preponderance of all of the relevant evidence convinces us
that the resolutions are incorrect. Standard Dr) Wall Products. Inc.. 91
NLRB 544 (1950). enfd. 188 F.2d 362 (3d Cir. 1951). We have carefully
examined the record and find no basis for reversing his findings.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASES
THOMAS D. JOHNSTON, Administrative Law Judge:
These consolidated cases were heard before me at Middle-
town, Ohio, on October 2 and 3, 1978.' pursuant to charges
filed on March 7 by Roy Roe, an individual, against St.
Regis Paper Company (herein referred to as Respondent
Company) in Case 9-CA-12269 and against Middletown
Printing Pressmen & Assistants' Local Union No. 235. In-
' All dates referred to are in 1978 unless otherwise stated.
ternational Printing and Graphic Communications Union,
AFL-CIO (herein referred to as Respondent nion). in
C'ase 9 CB-3803. and a consolidated complaint issued on
May 12.
The consolidated complaint. which was amended at the
hearing, alleges that Respondent Company violated Section
8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
amended (herein referred to as the Act), and that Respon-
dent Union violated Section 8(b)(I)(A) and (2) of the Act
by their executing a collective-bargaining agreement which
included at the behest of Respondent Union the establish-
ment of separate classifications of slitter operator and
coater operator for employees formerly classified as jour-
neyman operator, thus arbitrarily changing the job classifi-
cation and creating new classifications which placed in
jeopardy the seniority of five employees in the bargaining
unit formerly classified as journeyman operator, and by
subsequently entering into an agreement to supplement the
collective-bargaining agreement providing for specific as-
signments of employees to the classifications of slitter op-
erator and coater operator and reduction of "classification
seniority" of the five employees for the purpose of shift
selection in slitter or coater operations, which agreement
caused the five coater and/or slitter operators to suffer a
reduction of their seniority rights and which agreement was
executed by Respondent Company with knowledge that
Respondent Union was seeking the reduction of the senior-
ity of the five employees in order to mollify Respondent
Union and/or increase the seniority rights of Respondent
Union's President James Hardy and Executive Board
Member Dewey C. Tolson.' It further alleges that Respon-
dent Union also violated Section 8(b)( I )(A) of tile Act b)
failing and refusing to process a grievance filed by Roy Roe
concerning the reduction in his seniority resulting from the
above-described agreement to higher levels of the grievance
and arbitration procedure, thereby failing and refusing to
fairly represent the employees of Respondent Company for
arbitrary and capricious reasons.
Respondent Company in its answer dated May 16 and
Respondent Union in its answer dated May 19, which was
amended at the hearing, both deny having violated the Act
as alleged.
The issues involved are whether Respondent Company
violated Section 8(a)( 1) and (3) of the Act and whether Re-
spondent Union violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the
Act by their unlawfully executing the collective-bargaining
agreement extablishing separate classifications of slitter op-
erator and coater operator and by entering into a supple-
mental agreement assigning employees to those classifica-
tions, thereby causing the five employees to suffer
reductions in their seniority rights for discriminatory rea-
sons as alleged, and whether Respondent Union also vio-
lated Section 8(b)( I )(A) of the Act by unlawfully refusing to
process Roe's grievance.
Upon the entire record in these cases and from my obser-
vations of the witnesses, and after due consideration of the
briefs filed by the General Counsel and Respondent Com-
pany, I hereby make the following:
2 The Respondent Company's records do not list a Dewey C Tolson, but
do list a Dorsey C. Tolson. Jr.. who appears to be the individual referred to.
Neither the Charging Party nor Respondent Union submitted hriefs
244 NLRB No. 126
8(13
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
FINDINGS 0() FA('I 4
1. 1111 BSINESS () RSPONI)ENI COMPANY
Respondent Company, a New York corporation, oper-
ates a plant located at Middletown, Ohio, where it is en-
gaged in the business of the production of various paper
and packaging materials. During the 12-month period pre-
ceding May 12, a representative period. Respondent Com-
pany sold and shipped goods and materials valued in excess
of $50,000 from its Middletown, Ohio. plant directly to
points located outside the State of Ohio.
Respondent Company is an employer engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
II. Ie I.ABOR OR(GANIZAIO(N INVO)I.V'lI)
Middletown Printing Pressmen & Assistants' Local
Union No. 235, International Printing and Graphic Com-
munications Union. AFL-CIO, is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
11. tli ALl.E(iEI) UNFAIR LABOR PRA('II(ES
A. Background
Respondent Company operates a plant located at Mid-
dletown, Ohio. where it is engaged in the production of
various paper and packaging materials. Included among its
supervisory personnel are Regional Industrial Relations
Manager Peter Sarandos, Regional Plant Manager Claude
Brown, and Personnel Manager Robert Husted. 5
Respondent Union is the bargaining representative of a
unit comprised of certain production, maintenance, and
shipping employees at the plant and has had successive col-
lective-bargaining agreements with Respondent Company
covering them. These collective-bargaining agreements are
negotiated jointly between Respondent Company and the
various local unions which separately represent Respondent
Company's employees at its plants located at Atlanta,
Georgia. Birmingham, Alabama, Dallas, Texas, and Mid-
dletown, Ohio.
Their 1975-77 collective-bargaining agreement contained
a job classification for the finishing department of the Mid-
dletown plant set forth as follows: "Journeymen-Slitter,
Waxer, Sheeter, Paper Cutter, and WS Coater."6
Under that collective-bargaining agreement's progression
chart for the Middletown plant, this job classification was
listed as "journeymen operator" without being further de-
fined.
The five individuals alleged to be discriminatees, namely,
Rexford Taulbee, Roy Roe, Daniel Perdue, Clayton Nunn,
and Elmer Evans, worked in the finishing department.
Prior to the execution of a new collective-bargaining
agreement, discussed infra, to replace the 1975-77 collec-
' Unless otherwise indicated, the findings are based upon the pleadings,
admissions. stipulations, and undisputed evidence contained in the record
which I credit.
5 These three individuals are supervisors under the Act.
'According to Respondent Union's president, James Hardy. they no
longer have sheeters, papercutters, or WS coaters at the Middletown plant.
tive-bargaining agreements, these five employees were the
only journeymen operators employed in the finishing de-
partment who could perform the work of both coater op-
erator' and slitter operator, which jobs pay the same rate.
The remaining journeymen operators in the finishing de-
partment did not perform and were not qualified to perform
work as coater operators, but only worked as slitter opera-
tors. Included among the latter group were Respondent
Union's President Hardy, although he was not assigned
there at the time, and Dorsey Tolson, Jr.. who is a member
of Respondent Union's executive board.
Taulbee, Roe. Perdue, Nunn, and Evans all had more
plant seniority8 than did both Hardy and Tolson.' They also
had more classification seniority in the finishing department
than did both Hardy and Tolson."' Although Hardy was
rehired as a slitter operator in 1970, he had not worked in
that job the entire time, hut had been bumped back to
lower paying jobs, such as roll doctor operator and slitter
helper.
According to Regional Industrial Relations Manager
Sarandos and Regional Plant Manager Brown, whose testi-
monies I credit. prior to the execution of the new collective-
bargaining agreement Taulbee. Roe, Nunn, and Evans were
assigned jobs as either coater operators or slitter operators,
depending upon Respondent Company's needs. Under cer-
tain circumstances coater operators would displace slitter
operators in the line of progression, causing the bottom slit-
ter operators to be bumped to lower paying jobs.
On August 6, 1976, Elmer Evans. who was working as a
coater operator on the third shift but wanted to replace a
slitter operator with less classification seniority than himself
on the second shift, filed a grievance alleging that Respon-
dent Company's failure to grant his request violated article
Vll, section A, of the collective-bargaining agreement.
That section provided, in pertinent part, that "[shift prefer-
ence shall be selected on the basis of seniority within the
employee's classification.""
Respondent Company initially denied the grievance on
the basis that Evans' job classification was coater operator,
and he was not a fully qualified slitter operator. However,
on August 6, 1977, the grievance was settled by permitting
Evans to exercise the shift preference as requested and per-
mitting him to better familiarize himself with the slitter op-
eration. The settlement agreement further provided that it
was not precedent setting, and shift preference to a skill
level where training is necessary would not be permitted.
According to Hardy, who at the time held the position of
chapel chairman, and Billie Perry, who was then serving as
the president of Respondent Union, both of whom I credit,
'The terms "coater" and "waxer" refer to the same job.
Their plant seniority dates are as follows: Taulbee-October 30. 1950;
Roe-February 3, 1953; Perdue-June 4, 1953; Nunn Aprii 13, 1965;
Evans-January 31, 1966.
9Their plant seniority dates are as follows: Tolson February 14. 1967;
Hardy--October 5, 1970.
t Their classification seniority dates as of July 28, 1977, were as follows:
Taulbee-January 24, 1957; Roe-March 30. 1957; Perdue July 2, 1958:
Nunn-August 6, 1968: Evans-July 3, 1970: Hardy-December 5. 1973;
Tolson-December 25, 1973.
" Classification seniority is determined by the amount of time an em-
ployee works on a job and is used for purposes of shift preference, while
layoffs are based upon plant seniority.
804
SI'. RE(ilS PAPER CO.
Respondent ('ompany's position on the Evans grievance
was that coater operator and slitter operator were different
job classification.
Regional Industrial Relations Manager Sarandos. who
represented Respondent Company on the grievance. testi-
fied that Evans' primary job was coater operator, and al-
though he had worked as a slitter operator on a limited
basis, he was not qualified for the job. According to Saran-
dos, it had never been concluded whether this was one title
with two jobs or two titles or classifications. His contention
was that slitter operator and coater operator were separate
jobs with two lines of progression.2 although in the event of
a layoff, the coater operators could bump the slitter opera-
tors.
Sarandos stated that after the Evans grievance was set-
tled, it created questions about what type of latitude the
employees in the finishing department known as journey-
men operators had fiom the standpoint of shift selection.
and there was also a lot of disagreement and controversy
about whether there was one or two lines of progression.
President Hardy testified that subsequent to Evans' griev-
ance and after being informed by Respondent Company of
various moves it contemplated making involving coater op-
erators and slitter operators, he contacted Sol Fishko, who
is the president of the International Printing and Graphic
Communications Union. AFL-CIO (herein referred to as
the International) for advice. and after discussions with
Donald McCaughan, who is a vice president of the Interna-
tional and represents Respondent Union and other local
unions in negotiations, a decision was made to determine
whether these were separate job classifications.
B. Negotiations and the New Collective-Bargaining
Agreement
Negotiations for the new collective-bargaining agreement
were conducted in May and June 1977. Prior to these nego-
tiations Respondent Union held a meeting of its members,
as required by its procedures, to approve the proposals
which it intended to submit at the forthcoming negotia-
tions.
President Hardy stated that Respondent Union's execu-
tive committee, comprised of Vice President Russell Boyd.
Leroy Huff, Ronnie Thomas. Dorsey Tolson. and himself.
submitted a proposal to have clarified whether the jobs of
coater operator and slitter operator were separate job classi-
fications. Among this group only Hardy and Tolson had
worked in either of these classifications.
Both President Hardy, who served as chairman of Re-
spondent Union's negotiating team, and Ronnie Thomas.
who is the secretary-treasurer of Respondent Union and
represented it in the negotiations, credibly testified without
contradiction that at this union meeting they were given
authorization by the membership to clarify and settle the
issue of whether coater operator and slitter operator were
separate job classifications.
12 This was explained by Sarandos to mean that slitter operator and slitter
helper were in one progression line, while coater operator and coater helper
were in another line.
While Rov Roe stated he read Respondent Union's pro-
posals prior to negotiations but did not see anything in
them about these classifications being separate. this pro-
posal was not included in the initial written proposals sub-
mitted to Respondent Cornompan b the multiple local
unions.
Following the union meeting a prenegotiation meeting
was held between the representative of the four local unions
to decide upon the proposals to submit to Respondent
Company. Hardy testified that at this meeting he informed
them he needed a clarification of the classifications in issue
at the Middletown plant. Thomas stated that they discussed
the matter with the representatives from the other local
unions, and he was informed by the president of the Dallas
local union that the coater operator and slitter operator
jobs at the Dallas plant were separate job classifications.
which the collective-bargaining agreement reflects.
Both Hardy and Thomas credibly testified that at the
negotiations a proposal was submitted by Hardy for clarifi-
cation of the classifications of slitter operator and coater
operator. According to Hardy. it was Respondent Compa-
ny's position at negotiations that these positions had never
been negotiated as one, but were separate classifications.
Hardy, who denied that Respondent Union ever requested
that journey man operator be split in two, stated that it was
the Union's position that these classifications were always
split but not enforced. and that it wanted Respondent Com-
pany to clarify the matter.
Personnel Manager Husted, who participated in repre-
senting Respondent Company in negotiations and whose
testimony I credit, testified that at the first meeting a pro-
posal was made by Respondent Union asking for clarifica-
tion of the slitter operator and coater operator classifica-
tions. Regional Industrial Relations Manager Sarandos
who only participated indirectly in negotiations. corrobo-
rated Husted's testimonv that Respondent Urnion was seek-
ing clarification of those classifications.
Based on the credible testimonies of President Hardy for
Respondent Union and Personnel Manager Husted and
Regional Industrial Relations Manager Sarandos for Re-
spondent Company, they agreed at negotiations to abolish
the title ofjourneyman coater in the finishing department at
the Middletown plant and to establish the titles "journey-
man slitter operator" and "journeyman coater operator."
with separate progression lines set out in the collective-bar-
gaining agreement." They further agreed to submit to arbi-
tration for determination which individuals would be
placed in each of those two categories.
While a letter dated May 25. 1977. from Regional Indus-
trial Relations Manager John Sukup to Bruce Underwood.
who was the secretary of the negotiating committee for the
local unions, stated that one of Respondent Union's pro-
posals agreed to was that the journeyman operator classifi-
cation would be separated into two classifications, slitter
operator and coater operator. Hardy testified that upon re-
ceiving it he noted his objection h writing on it. "Not
agreeable to Middletown." His reason was it was not
worded right. because the journeyman classification had al-
ways been separate.
11 According to Sarandos. this as in keeping with what was alread being
done at the plant.
805
D)tL(ISIONS ()1: NATIONAI. IABOR RELATIONS BOARDI
On June 4. 1977. President Hardy held a meeting of the
journeymen operators in the finishing department. The em-
ployees were notified of' this meeting by a notice posted on
Respondent I nior's bulletin board about a week earlier
infirming them there would be a special meeting of the
finishing department operators held on June 4. 1977. con-
cerning classifications in the finishing department and urg-
ing all journeymen operators to attend. At this meeting
Hardy informed them of what they had found out at prene-
gotiations and of' their discussions at negotiations about
their job classifications. lardy then took a vote, limited to
the journeymen operators. including both those presently
working as journeymen operators and those who had recall
rights, to decide whether to accept cater operator and slit-
ter operator as separate classifications or to continue nego-
tiations and try to make Respondent Company clarify
things. The vote was tied at 6 to 6. However, after Hardy.
who had recall rights, was asked by other journeymen op-
erators present to vote, he then cast the deciding vote,
which decided that coater operator and slitter operator
would be separate classifications which would also change
the progression chart. Only one employee, Clayton Nunn.
who stated he told Hardy he did not think he had a right to
vote, objected to Hlardy' voting.' Tolson and Roe were
among those employees present.
About the latter part of June Respondent Union. as re-
quired by its procedures, held a general meeting of its mem-
bers to ratify the terms of' the new collective-bargaining
agreement negotiated with Respondent Company. Pres-
ident Hardy testified that at the meeting, after informing
them of what had transpired at negotiations about the clas-
sifications of coater operator and slitter operator being
separate with separate lines of progression, which are
spelled out in the new collective-bargaining agreement it-
self, and informing them of the issue to be arbitrated, the
members voted in favor of ratifying the new collective-bar-
gaining agreement and also approved proceeding to arbitra-
tion to decide how the employees would receive their classi-
fications as slitter operator and coater operator.
Both Roe and Nunn testified they attended the ratifica-
tion meeting and went over the proposals, but denied seeing
any provisions about separating the classification of'jour-
neymen operators in the finishing department. Nunn, how-
ever, acknowledged he did not read the entire document or
specifically look for a classification change. Roe also testi-
fied that at the meeting he asked Hardy about it. and, as
best he could remember, Hardy's response was that the is-
sue had been tabled and would have to be settled later
through arbitration.
I credit the testimony of President Hardy concerning
what transpired at the ratification meeting, which is also
consistent with what was agreed upon at negotiations re-
garding the classification issue as well as the June 4 vote, at
which Roe was present, that these classifications would be
separate.
14 Art. XIV. rule tO. of Respondent Union's bylaws provides: "The num-
ber of votes necessary to determine a question, where there is no special
regulation to the contrary. shall always be a majority, and. in case of a tie,
the presiding officer (unless he is directly interested in the question} shall give
the casting vote."
('C. The .4rhitrator'S Deciion
About November an arbitration meeting was held for the
purpose of determining how the employee would receive
their classifications as coater operator and slitter operator.
Approximately 5 days prior to the arbitration meeting
Regional Industrial Relations Manager Sarandos. with the
approval of' President Hardy and International Vice Pres-
ident McCaughan. held a meeting of the coater operators
and slitter operators along with their helpers in an attempt
to settle the matter short of arbitration. Respondent Union
was represented by Chapel Chairman Lonnie Hatton and
Vice President Boyd at the direction of President Hardy,
who did not attend.
Sarandos at this meeting otlcred a proposal that one of
the fi)ur employees trained on both coating and slitting
equipment would be allowed in the order of greater classifi-
cation seniority to elect the job of slitter operator. Sarandos
also stated that under the proposal 1'' of the 5 employees
who was only trained in coating had to become a coater
operator. and the remaining 13 employees would become
slitter operators.
The employees with their representatives then caucused
outside the presence of Respondent ('ompany's representa-
tives to consider the proposal and voted 17 to I to reject the
offer and decided to proceed to arbitration.
Former President Perry acknowledged that on prior oc-
casions he had called certain groups of employees together
in order for Respondent Company to talk to them.
Respondent Company was represented at the arbitration
meeting by Regional Industrial Relations Manager Saran-
dos. Representing Respondent Union were President Har-
dy. Vice President Boyd. Chapel Chairman Hatton. Secre-
tary-Treasurer Thomas, and Executive Board Members
Leroy Huff and Dorsey Tolson. Only Hardy and Tolson
among this group worked in the finishing department.
Based upon the credible testimonies of Sarandos, ardy.
Thomas, and Boyd, at this meeting an agreement was
reached between Respondent Company and Respondent
Union, whose representatives voted unanimously to ap-
prove it, regarding the placement of the employees as
coater operators and slitter operators and submitted to the
arbitrator, who agreed to approve it." This agreement, set
forth in the arbitrator's decision dated December I. 1977,
designated Taulbee, Roe. Nunn, and Evans as coater op-
erators and Perdue along with 12 other employees as slitter
operators. Tolson was listed among the slitter operators,
while Hardy was not listed. It provided that Taulbee, Roe,
Perdue, Nunn, and Evans were grandfathered for purposes
of (I) shift selection preference in coating and/or slitting,
(2) bumping into the journeyman slitter operator classifica-
tion in accordance with plant seniority, and (3) recall rights
to the classification of journeyman coater operator.
Other pertinent provisions contained in the decision are
as follows:
II. It is further awarded that grandfathering will
cease should the employees bid out of the classification
or their employment be terminated.
1i This employee was not specifically identified.
16 Both Thomas and Boyd denied they had anything to gain as a result of
the decision.
ST. REGIS P.
Ill. It is further awarded that the classification se-
niority to be used by Taulbee. Roe, Nunn, and Evans
when expressing shift preference in the slitting classifi-
cation will be 51 percent of their existing classification
seniority as of 12-4-77 or a greater period of time
should Company records reflect such a period.
IV. It is further awarded that time spent by Taul-
bee, Roe, Nunn, and Evans in the slitting classification
after 12-4 77 will be added to the 51 percent adjusted
seniority date and subtracted from the classification
seniority date in the coating classification.
V. It is further awarded that the classification se-
niority to be used by Perdue when expressing shift
preference in the coating classification will be 51 per-
cent of his existing classification seniority as of 12-4-
77 or a greater period of time should Company records
reflect such a period.
VI. It is further awarded that time spent by Perdue
in the coating classification after 12 4-77 will be added
to the 51 percent adjusted seniority date and sub-
tracted from the classification seniority date in the slit-
ting classification.
* *
VIII. It is further awarded that except for the modi-
fied adjusted classification dates as indicated abo ve, all
other classification seniority dates will remain un-
changed and will continue to prevail for shift selection.
Based upon the credible testimonies of Sarandos. Brown,
Thomas, and Hardy. only Taulbee, Roe. Nunn, and Evans
worked on both the coater operator and the slitter operator
jobs. while, according to Hardy and Thomas, an examina-
tion of Respondent's records also showed that Daniel Per-
due, unlike the other employees, was classified on both jobs.
However, according to the testimony of Sarandos as well as
the testimonies of both Hardy and Thomas, who along with
other representatives from Respondent Union had previ-
ously examined Respondent Company's records, Respon-
dent Company did not have any records to show how much
time these employees had actually worked as coater opera-
tors or slitter operators.
Sarandos stated he felt the 51-percent classification se-
niority figure set forth in the arbitrator's decision was in
excess of what those employees had actually worked in
those particular jobs, since Respondent Company tended to
use them in their regular jobs as coater operators or slitter
operators." He denied this would give greater classification
seniority to Hardy and Tolson than to Roe, which the rec-
ord reflects.
President Hardy also testified that the 51-percent figure
exceeded the times that Taulbee. Roe, Nunn, and Evans
could have worked as slitter operators and denied that Roe
had spent 51 percent of his time working as a slitter opera-
tor.
Roe did not attend the arbitration meeting" and was not
? The evidence reflects that prior to the arbitrator's decision, the primary
jobs of Taulbee. Roe. Nunn, and Evans were coater operators. while Perdue
was a slitter operator.
ms Roe stated that Vice President Boyd informed them that space at the
arbitration meeting room was limited and that the executive board would
Lake care of the arbitration.
807
questioned about the amount of time he had spent working
as a coater operator or a slitter operator. While Roe esti-
mated at the hearing in the instant cases he had worked as
a slitter operator probably 50 percent of the time or better.
he acknowledged he could not give a more exact figure.
because he did not keep any records.
There was no evidence presented to show the amount or
approximate amount of time that Nunn. Taulbee. Evans. or
Perdue had worked either as a slitter operator or as a coater
operator.
Nunn and Roe testified that since the arbitration decision
they have only worked as coater operators. Roe also denied
he has been laid off. bumped from a job, or suffered a wage
loss, and Nunn acknowledged he has not been displaced.
D. Respondent Union Refusal To Process Roe' Grievance
Roy Roe filed a grievance dated December 8, 1977. with
Respondent Union, complaining about his losing 49 per-
cent of his classification seniority for shift preferences under
the arbitrator's decision and requesting that that provision
of the decision be changed or stricken.
Respondent Union, by letter dated December 12, 1977.
signed by President Hardy. informed Roe that the griev-
ance committee had determined that there was no alid
grievance, since under the collective-bargaining agreement
the arbitrator's decision xas final and binding upon the
parties. Roe stated that Hardy gave him the letter and told
him the committee had met. and they felt he did not have a
grievance.
According to President Hardy. the grievance committee.
on which he voted, denied the grievance on the basis of the
arbitrator's award. Hardy further testified that the griev-
ance was not given to Respondent Company nor discussed
with it.
Respondent Union admitted it has refused to process the
grievance further.
E. A nalv.si.s and Conclusions
The General Counsel contends, contrary to the denials
by both Respondent Company and Respondent Union.
that Respondent Company violated Section 8(a)( 1) and (3)
of the Act and Respondent Union violated Section
8(b)(I)(A) and (2) of the Act by their unlawfully executing
the collective-bargaining agreement establishing separate
classifications of slitter operator and coater operator and by
entering into a supplemental agreement assigning employ-
ees to those classifications, thereby causing the five employ-
ees to suffer reductions in their seniority rights, with such
action being taken at the behest of Respondent Union and
to mollify Respondent Union and/or increase the seniority
rights of President Hardy and Executive Board Member
Tolson. The General Counsel further asserts that Respon-
dent Union also violated Section 8(b)(l)(A) of the Act by
unlawfully refusing to process Roe's grievance.
Section 8(aXI) of the Act prohibits an employer from
interfering with. restraining, or coercing its employees in
the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the
" Neither Taulbee. Evans, nor Perdue testified.
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELAFI ONS BOARD
Act. Section 8(a)(3) provides in pertinent part: "It shall be
an unfair labor practice for an employer ... by discrimina-
tion in regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term
or condition of employment to encourage or discourage
membership in any labor organization .... "
Section 8(b)( )(A) of the Act prohibits a union from re-
straining or coercing employees in the exercise of their
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. Section 8(b)(2) of
the Act prohibits a union from causing or attempting to
cause an employer to discriminate against an employee in
violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act.
The Supreme Court in Ford Motor Co. v. Huffman, 345
U.S. 330. 338 (1953), in discussing the obligation of the
collective-bargaining representative, stated: "[Tlhe com-
plete satisfaction of all who are represented is hardly to be
expected. A wide range of reasonableness must be allowed
a statutory bargaining representative in serving the unit it
represents, subject always to complete good faith and hon-
esty of' purpose in the exercise of its discretion." The law is
well settled that unions when acting in a statutory repre-
sentative capacity are prohibited by Section 8(b)(l)(A) of
the Act from taking action against any employee upon con-
sideration or upon the basis of classifications that are irrele-
vant, insidious, or unfair. United Steelworkers of America,
AFL-CIO. Local Union No. 2869 (Kaiser Steel Corpora-
tion), 239 NLRB 982 (1978).
The findings, supra. establish that the issue of whether
coater operator and slitter operator were separate job classi-
fications in the finishing department under the old collec-
tive-bargaining agreement arose, approximately eleven
months prior to the expiration of that collective-bargaining
agreement. as a result of a grievance filed by Evans. The
settlement of Evans' grievance, which was limited to him
alone, did not resolve this issue, on which Respondent
Company had taken the position that these were separate
job classifications.
Respondent Union through its executive board thereafter
presented a proposal to its members, which they approved.
authorizing clarification and settlement of this issue at ne-
gotiations for the new collective-bargaining agreement.
During these negotiations Respondent Company and Re-
spondent Union agreed that these jobs would be classified
separately as journeyman slitter operator and journeyman
coater operator with separate progression lines set out un-
der the new collective-bargaining agreement. They also
agreed to resolve through arbitration the placement of em-
ployees in those job classifications. Not only did the em-
ployees who performed these jobs vote in favor of separat-
ing the classifications themselves, upon being given the
opportunity by their representatives, but also the member-
ship, through the subsequent ratification of the collective-
bargaining agreement, approved it and also authorized the
placement of the employees in those classifications to be
determined through arbitration.
Insofar as the placement of the employees in these classi-
fications is concerned, the evidence, supra, establishes that
prior to the arbitrator's decision, four of alleged discrimi-
natees, namely, Taulbee, Roe. Nunn. and Evans. were pri-
marily coater operators who also did some work as slitter
operators, while the remaining discriminatee. Perdue, al-
though classified under the Respondent Company's records
to perform both jobs, primarily worked as a slitter operator.
Under the aritrator's decision, while Taulbee, Roe, Nunn,
and Evans were designated coater operators and Perdue
designated a slitter operator, they were grandfathered for
purposes of shift selection preference in coating and/or slit-
ting, bumping into the journeyman slitter operator classifi-
cation in accordance with plant seniority, and with recall
rights to the classification of journeyman coater operator,
thus protecting their rights for having worked in those jobs.
Further, under the arbitrator's decision. although Taulbee,
Roe. Nunn, and Evans were not given full classification
seniority as slitter operators or Perdue as a coater operator,
absent, as here, any evidence to refute the testimonies of
Regional Industrial Relations Manager Sarandos and Pres-
ident Hardy. who both participated in the arbitration pro-
ceeding. that these employees had worked less than 51 per-
cent of their time in those job classifications, I find that the
51-percent adjusted seniority dates allowed them in those
classifications when expressing shift preferences in those
classifications were not discriminatory. To hold otherwise
not only would ignore the facts that Taulbee, Roe, Nunn,
and Evans had previously worked primarily as coater op-
erators and Perdue as a slitter operator and that they were
given full classification seniority in those classifications. but
also would in effect prejudice the remaining employees in
the finishing department who had previously spent all of
their time working as slitter operators and were not quali-
fied to perform the job of coater operator.
Not only does the evidence further establish that these
actions regarding the negotiation and arbitration proceed-
ings were taken by Respondent Union's officials and repre-
sentatives, including among others President Hardy and
Executive Board Member Tolson. with the approval of its
members, and appear consistent with its own procedures?
but also there is no evidence to establish that they were
taken by Respondent Company either at the behest of Re-
spondent Union or to mollify Respondent Union or in-
crease the seniority rights of President Hardy and Executive
Board Member Tolson, as alleged. Rather, as previously
noted, the issue arose long before negotiations with Respon-
dent Company taking the position that these were separate
job classifications.
The General Counsel's theory of the violations, which
was refuted b the credible evidence, was erroneously
premised on the basis that the actions taken here were with-
out the approval of the members and were taken for the
purpose of benefiting Hardy and Tolson at the expense of
the five alleged discriminatees rather than for the purpose
of clarifying terms under the old collective-bargaining
agreement involving job classifications.
Under the foregoing circumstances and for the reasons
discussed. I am persuaded and find that Respondent Com-
pany and Respondent Union did not violate Section 8(a)(l)
and (3) of the Act and Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act
by unlawfully executing the collective-bargaining agree-
ment establishing separate classifications of slitter operator
and coater operator or by entering into a supplemental
2O Even if President Hardy improperly voted at the June 4 meeting, any
defect would have been cured by the subsequent ratification of the collective-
bargaining agreement by the members.
808
ST. REG(ilS PPER CO.
agreement assigning emploNees to those classifications.
therehb causing the five alleged discriminatees to suffer re-
ductions in their seniority rights tfor discriminator reasons
as alleged.
The remaining issue to be resolved is whether Respon-
dent Union violated Section 8(b(I1)(A) of the Act b un-
lawfully refusing to process Roe's grievance.
The evidence. suprtl, establishes that Roe filed a griev-
ance with Respondent Union alleging that under the arbi-
trator's decision he had lost certain classification seniorits
for purposes of' shift preference and requesting that those
provisions of the arbitrator's decision be changed or
stricken. Respondent Union's grievance committee rejected
the grievance and refused to process it further as being an
invalid grievance on the grounds that under the collective-
bargaining agreement, the arbitrator's decision was final
and binding.
Since the issue of Roe's classification seniority, which was
the subject of his grievance, had already been determined
through the arbitration procedure and with sufficient unre-
futed evidence to support such decision, Respondent Union
had ample grounds for justifying its refusal to process the
grievance. Absent, as here, any evidence to otherwise show
that it acted arbitrarily and capriciously in refusing to pro-
cess the grievance, I am persuaded and find that Respon-
dent Union did not unlawfully refuse to process Roe's
grievance in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act as
alleged.
Co( I SlONS )I 1 .Au
1. St. Regis Paper (Cornompan\ is an emplo er engalged im
commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) oft the
Act.
2. Middletow n Printing Pressmen and Assistants' Local
Union No. 235. International Printing and Graphic ('om-
munications Union. AFL CIO, is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. Respondent Company did not violate Section 8(a)(l)
and (3) of the Act as alleged in the amended consolidated
complaint.
4. Respondent Union did not violate Section 8(b)()I(A)
and (2) of the Act as alleged in the amended consolidated
complaint.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of
law and the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c) of
the Act, I hereby issue the following recommended:
ORDER2 1
It is hereby ordered that the amended consolidated com-
plaint be. and it hereby is. dismissed in its entirety.
21 In the event no exceptions are filed as pros ided b) Sec 102.46 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations Board, the findings.
conclusions. and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48
of the Rules and Regulations, he adopted b the Board and become its
findings, conclusions. and Order, and all objections thereto shall be deemed
waived for all purposes
X09