Sutherland Paper Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 5, 1945

64 N.L.R.B. 719 (N.L.R.B. 1945)

In the Matter Of SUTHERLAND PAPER COMPANY and PAPER WORKERS
ORGANIZING COMMITTEE-CIO
Case No. 7-R-9009.-Decided November 5, 1945
Mr. Joseph S. Folz, of Kalamazoo , Mich., for the Company.
Mr. Nicholas J. Rothe, of Detroit, Mich., for the CIO.
Mr. Henry Ford, Jr., of Kalamazoo , Mich., and Mr. Jerry Raymond,
of Detroit, Mich., for the Independent.
Mr. Donald H. Frank, 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 CIO, alleging that a question affecting
commerce had arisen concerning the representation of employees of
Sutherland Paper Company, Kalamazoo , Michigan , herein called the
Company, the National Labor Relations Board provided for an ap-
propriate hearing upon due notice before Max Rotenberg , Trial Ex-
aminer. The hearing was held at Kalamazoo , Michigan , on July 5,
and 6, 1945. The Company , the CIO, and Independent Union of
Sutherland Paper Company Employees , Inc., CUA, herein called the
Independent , appeared and participated .' All parties were afforded
full opportunity to be heard , to examine and cross -examine witnesses,
and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues . At the hearing the
Independent moved the dismissal of the petition . The Trial Examiner
referred the motion to the Board for determination . For the reasons
set forth in Section III, infra , the motion is hereby denied. The
Trial Examiner 's rulings made at the hearing are free from preju-
dicial error and are hereby affirmed. All parties were afforded an
opportunity to file briefs with the Board.
'International Brotherhood of Paper Makers , affiliated with the American Federation
of Labor, was served with notice of hearing but did not participate in the hearing . During
the hearing , a Mr. Bailey identified himself as a representative of the International Brother-
hood of Paper Makers but stated that he did not desire to enter an appearance or intervene
in this proceeding.
64 N. L. R. B., No. M.
719
720 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Sutherland Paper Company is a, Michigan corporation with its prin-
cipal office, two plans, and place of business located in Kalamazoo,
Michigan. There it is engaged in the manufacture and processing
of paper box board and the manufacture of paper cartons and paper
specialties. Under normal conditions, the Company converts ap-
proximately 75 percent of the paper box board it manufactures into
various kinds of paper cartons, packages, containers, and paper spe-
cialties such as cups and plates, and sells 25 percent of its paper box
board to other users or converters of that board. The Company
manufactures about 10 percent of the food cartons made in the United
States. The two Kalamazoo plants, the sole operations of the Com-
pany involved in this proceeding, are operated by the Company as a
single plant. During the calendar year 1944, the Company purchased
raw materials valued in excess of $6,000,000, of which approximately
85 percent was purchased outside the State of Michigan. During that
calendar year, the Company's finished and partially finished prod-
ucts sold for more than $14,000,000, approximately 75 percent of which
was shipped to points outside the State of Michigan.
The Company admits that it is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, and we so find.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Paper Workers Organizing Committee, affiliated with the Congress
of Industrial Organizations, is a labor organization admitting to mem-
bership employees of the Company.
Independent Unon of Sutherland Paper Company Employees, Inc.,
affiliated with the Confederated Unions of America, is a labor or-
ganization admitting to membership employees of the Company.
HI. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Company has refused to grant recognition to the CIO as the
exclusive bargaining representative of certain of its employees until
the CIO has been certified by the Board in an appropriate unit.
The Independent's motion to dismiss the CIO's petition is based on
the contention that the Company's existing contract with the Inde-
pendent, covering substantially the same unit of employees for whom
the CIO is presently seeking an election, is a bar to this proceeding.
This contract, made on September 1, 1944, covers the 2-year period
SUTHERLAND PAPER COMPANY 721
from July 1, 1944, to June 30, 1946. A similar 2-year contract made
by the same parties and covering substantially the same unit was held,
in a previous case before the Board,' not to bar a new determination of
representatives after it had run 19 months.
A witness for the CIO testified at the hearing in the present pro-
ceeding that the CIO has 126 1-year contracts with paper mill firms
in the United States, that three of these contracts are with paper mills
located in the State of Michigan, and that he knew of no contract in
the industry, aside from the one involved herein, for a longer term.
To refute this showing, and establish that 2-year contracts are not
unusual in the industry, the Independent submitted evidence of 11
contracts. Of these it appears that 8 have no bearing on the reason-
ableness of a 2-year contract term.' The 3 remaining contracts are
for 2-year terms. One of these is an agreement between a Chicago
firm and Upholsterers International Union of North America, cover-
ing unspecified categories of employees in the Company's paper mill,
and providing for the opening of the contract as to important sub-
stantive matters at the end of the first year. The other two contracts
are contracts of the International Brotherhood of Pulp, Sulphite and
Paper Mill Workers, American Federation of Labor, covering em-
ployees similar to those involved here, employed in United States
paper mills not located in the State of Michigan.
In a recent clecision,4 we held that a contract exceeding a 1-year term
is not necessarily unreasonable and a 2-year contract is presumptively
reasonable in term, stating :
In the absence of satisfactory proof that an effective two-year
contract runs counter to the well-established custom in the in-
dustry, or is otherwise unreasonable in term under the circum-
stances of the particular case, we are presently of the opinion that,
in the interest of industrial stability, no investigation of repre-
sentatives should be undertaken until such contract is about to
expire.
Thus, the burden is on the petitioner in a case like this, to establish
that the 2-year contract term is unreasonable. We think that the CIO
sustained its burden in this case, for if adduced convincing evidence
showing that 1 year is the customary term of contracts covering paper
workers. The two or three contracts for 2-year terms relied upon
2 Matter of Sutherland Paper Company, 55 N L R B. 38
3 Two of these contracts are for a 1 -yeas term or less , one is a contract of the Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Pulp, Sulphite and Paper Mill Workers, AFL, for the duration of the
war plus 6 months , one is for substantially more than 2 years , one is for an unstated
term and three apparently cover categories of employees other than those involved herein.
4 Matter of Umbridge Worsted Company, Inc, Andrews Mall, 60 N L R. B. 1395 ; see
also Matter of The A S. Abell Company, 62 N L R B 1414, and Matter of The United
States Finishing Company, 63 N L R. B 575
670417-46-vol 64-47
722 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
by the Independent are not enough, when compared with the 126
cases instanced by the CIO, to persuade us that there is substantial
precedent in the industry for the Independent's practice of making
2-year contracts.5 Upon the basis of this record, we find that the
Independent's contract is for an unreasonably long term, and since
it has been in effect for more than 1 year, it is not a bar to the present
proceeding. We have therefore denied the motion to dismiss the
petition.
A statement of a Board agent, introduced into evidence at the hear-
ing, indicates that the CIO represents a substantial number of em-
ployees in the unit hereinafter found appropriate.6
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 CIO seeks a unit of all the Company's employees at the Kala-
mazoo plants, excluding employees in the Motor Truck Division, office
employees, salaried watchmen, officers, executives, managers, super-
intendents and assistant superintendents, foremen and forewomen,
and all other supervisory employees within our usual definition. The
Company and the Independent agree that this unit is identical with
the unit involved in their present contract.
The parties agree, and we find, that all the Company's employees
at the Kalamazoo plants, excluding employees in the Motor Truck
Division, office employees, salaried watchmen, officers, executives, man-
agers, superintendents and assistant superintendents, foremen and
forewomen, and all other supervisory employees with authority to
hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in
S We note that in a substantial number of cases before this Board , the International
Brotherhood of Pulp, Sulphite and Paper Mill Workers and the International Brotherhood
of Paper Workers, of the American Federation of Labor, held contracts covering paper mill
employees, and that each of those contracts was for a term of 1 year See Matter of
Peavey Paper Products Company, 42 N L R B. 1213; Matter of Filer Fibre Company,
44 N L R B. 1075, Matter of West Virginia Pulp cC Paper Co , 45 N L R B 59; Matter
of The Cleveland Container Company, 47 N L R. B 1309 ; Matter of Union Bag & Paper
Corp , 52 N L. R B 591 , Matter of Groveton Papers Co , 52 N L R B. 1256 ; Matter of
West Virginia Pulp & Paper Co , 53 N L R. B 814; Matter of Gair Bogota Corrugated if
Fibre Corp, a subsidiary of Robert Garr Company, Inc, 54 N L R B. 1170. .
9 The Field Examiner reported that the CIO submitted 907 membership application cards,
671 of which bore apparently genuine-original signatures and 4 of which bore printed
signatures of the names of persons appearing on the Company's pay roll of June 20, 1945,
nhich contained the names of 1837 employees in the appropriate unit, and that the cards
were dated 1 in August, 14 in September, 31 in October, 5 in November, and 15 in Decem-
ber 1944 ; and 348 in January, 384 in February, 68 in March, 13 in April, 3 in May, and 21
in June 1945 , and 4 were undated. The Independent relies on its contract to show its
interest in this case
We have considered the Independent's contention, made at the hearing, that the CIO'
has not been designated by a sufficient number of the Company 's employees to warrant a
hearing or an election , and we consider it to be without merit.
SUTHERLAND PAPER COMPANY 723
the status of employees, or effectively recommend such action, consti-
tute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
V. THE DETERIIINATION 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
Direction.
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 Rela-
tions 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 Sutherland Paper
Company, Kalamazoo, Michigan, an election by secret ballot shall be
conducted 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 Seventh 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 employees 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
said pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation or tempo-
rarily 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 rehired or reinstated prior to the date of the election, to deter-
mine whether they desire to be represented by Paper Workers Organ-
izing Committee-CIO, or by Independent Union of Sutherland Paper
Company Employees, Inc., CUA, for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining, or by neither.
MR. GERARD D. REILLY took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Election.