Sutherland Paper Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 30, 1953

106 N.L.R.B. 524 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

524 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1 The operations of the Respondent, Commander Mills, Inc , constitute trade, traffic, and
commerce among the several States, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) of the Act
2 Textile Workers Union of America, CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of
Section 2 (5) of the Act.
3. The Respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8 (1) of the Act.
4. By discharging and refusing to reinstate Earl Garth Smith and Bernice Smith, the
Respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of
the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
SUTHERLAND PAPER COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL
PRINTING PRESSMEN AND ASSISTANTS' UNION OF NORTH
AMERICA, A. F. L., Petitioner. Case No. 7-RC-2200. July
30, 1953
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 Russell W.
Bradley, hearing officer. The hearing officer referred to the
Board a motion of the Intervenor, Independent Union of Suther-
land Paper Company Employees, Inc., herein called the Inde-
pendent, to dismiss the petition. For reasons hereinafter
stated, the motion is denied. The hearing officer's rulings made
at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby
affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the
Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a
three-member panel [Members Houston, Murdock, and Peter-
son].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing of the National Labor Relations Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent
certain employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the
representation of employees of the Employer within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner seeks a unit composed of employees in
divisions 2, 5, and 9 of the Employer's Kalamazoo, Michigan,
plants, who are employed in the following job classifications,
together with their apprentices, assistants , and helpers:
Journeymen printing and cutting pressmen in the printing and
cutting departments, journeymen stonemen, journeymen plate-
men, journeymen diemakers, journeymen rubber platemakers
and journeymen color matchers. The Employer and the Inde-
pendent contend that the employees sought by the Petitioner
may not appropriately be severed from the existing production
106 NLRB No 85.
SUTHERLAND PAPER COMPANY 525
and maintenance unit because of the integration of the Em-
ployer's operations . They further contend that the unit sought
is inappropriate as it is not confined to employees in one
particular craft , nor does it conform to any established ad-
ministrative division of the Employer's operations . The Inter-
venor , United Paperworkers of America , CIO, herein called
the Paperworkers , contends that the unit sought is inappro-
priate because it does not include all of the employees em-
ployed in divisions 2, 5, and 9.
The Employer manufactures paperboard and folding cartons
at its North Side and East Side plants in Kalamazoo . Its con-
verting operations, which are performed for the most part by
the employees covered by the petition herein, are carried out
in divisions 2, 5, 8, and 9. In divisions 2, 5, and 9 paperboard
is printed , cut, finished , and assembled into folding cartons,
the Employer ' s principal product. Division 8 manufactures
paper specialties such as plates , cups, and cylindrical cans.
All 4 divisions employ cutting and printing presses. However,
the apprenticeship period for the mercury presses used in
division 8 is only 2 years , whereas a 4-year apprenticeship
is required on the regularpressesusedinthe other 3 divisions.
It is well established that printing pressmen, their assistants,
apprentices , and helpers constitute a traditional craft group
which may be separately represented in the paperboard in-
dustry.l The record discloses that the machines operated by
the cutting pressmen are in general similar to those operated
by the printing pressmen, and that the mercury presses in
division 8 perform both operations . Although the period of ap-
prenticeship on the mercury presses is shorter than that on
the regular presses , the general similarity of duties and
skills of all of the Employer's pressmen convinces us that they
constitute a homogeneous craft group which may function as a
separate bargaining unit . 2 However , in view of their inclusion
for many years in a plantwide unit , we find that they also
appropriately may constitute a part of this broader unit. We
shall therefore make no final unit determination until we as-
certain the desires of these employees.
The platemen , stonemen, diemakers , rubber platemakers,
and color matchers, whom the Petitioner would include in the
unit , do not appear to be members of the pressmen ' s craft.
Although their work is functionally related to that performed
by pressmen , it involves separate and distinct skills which often
entail as much or more specialized training than is required
'See Webb-Linn Printing Company , 95 NLRB 1488 ; New Haven Pulp & Board Company,
83 NLRB 268; Patterson Parchment Paper Company , 80 NLRB 1378; Square D Company, 97
NLRB 713.
2 New Haven Pulp & Paperboard Company , supr
526 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of pressmen . Accordingly we shall exclude these job cate-
gories from the voting group.'
There remains for our consideration the unit placement of
stock boosters , utility men, overlay operators, and stock
repilers, all of whom the Petitioner would include in the
bargaining unit. Each of the employees in these job categories
works in close association with the pressmen either supplying
blank stock, cleaning the presses, assuring the uniformity of
the impression, or removing and inspecting the finished product.
Nevertheless, as these jobs require little specialized training
and are not customarily included in the pressmen's craft, we
shall exclude them from the unit.4
We shall direct that an election be held among all printing
pressmen, cutting pressmen, mercury pressmen , and their
apprentices, assistants , and helpers employed in divisions
2, 5, 8, and 9 of the Employer' s Kalamazoo plant, excluding
platemen, stonemen , diemakers, rubber platemakers, color
matchers, stock boosters, utility men, overlay operators,
guards, all other employees, and supervisors as defined in the
Act.
If a majority of the employees in the voting group select the
Petitioner or the Paperworkers, they will be taken to have
indicated their desire to constitute a separate appropriate
unit, and the Regional Director conducting the election directed
herein is instructed to issue a certification of representatives
for such a unit, which the Board, under such circumstances,
finds to be appropriate for the purposes of collective bargain-
ing. In the event a majority of the employees in the voting
group select the Independent, they will be taken to have indi-
cated their desire to remain part of the existing production and
maintenance unit, and the Regional Director will issue a certifi-
cation of results of election to that effect.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
Member Peterson, dissenting:
The record herein affords but one basis for severing the
pressmen from the established production and maintenance
unit, namely, the admitted craft status of these employees.
Since 1937 all of the employees of the Employer's Kalamazoo
plants have been represented by the Independent in a single
overall unit. There is no showing on the record that the in-
terests of these craftsmen would be better served by separate
representation or that the Independent has not accorded them
fair and adequate representation.
3 ibid.
4See Ben-Mont Papers, Inc., 85 NLRB 1194, and the cases cited therein.
LEE MILLER CO. and LEMLAR MANUFACTURING CO. 527
Consequently, for the reasons stated in my dissenting
opinion in W. C. Hamilton and Sons , 104 NLRB 627, I would
dismiss the petition.
LEE MILLER CO. and LEMLAR MANUFACTURING CO.
and INDEPENDENT UNION OF METAL WORKERS, Peti-
tioner. Case No. 21-RC-3081. July 30, 1953
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Jerome A.
Reiner, hearing officer . The hearing officer's rulings made
at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby
affirmed.'
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the
Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case
to a three -member panel [ Members Houston , Styles, and
Peterson I-
Upon the entire record in this case , the Board finds:
1. Lemlar Manufacturing Co., herein individually called
Lemlar , manufactures and sells metal louvers , awnings, and
jalousies ; and Lee Miller Co ., herein individually called
Miller, sells and installs products made by Lemlar and other
manufacturers. Between March 1, 1952, andFebruary28, 1953,
the goods destined for out-of-State shipment sold by Miller
and Lemlar were valued at over $47 , 000 and $ 39,000, respec-
tively . As found in paragraph numbered 4, infra, these com-
panies together are a single employer within the meaning of the
Act, but whether considered together or individually , we find
they are engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act,
and we shall therefore assert jurisdiction herein. 2
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent
certain employees of the Employer.'
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the
representation 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 a single unit of both Miller's
installation employees and Lemlar ' s factory employees at
'The Intervenors , Sheet Metal Workers International Association , Local Unions Nos. 108,
371, and 548, AFL, moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that the unit sought is
inappropriate . For the reasons set forth in paragraph numbered4, infra, the motion is denied.
2Stanislaus Implement and Hardware Co., 91 NLRB 618.
3 The Intervenors refused to stipulate that the Petitioner is a labor organization within the
meaning of the Act. We find that the Petitioner 's purpose is to organize and admit to member-
ship the Employer 's employees for collective bargaining concerning conditions of employ-
ment , and that it is therefore a labor organization within the meaning of the Act. Thomas L.
Green & Company, Inc., 103 NLRB 1023.
106 NLRB No. 83.