Sutherland Paper Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 5, 1955

114 N.L.R.B. 211 (N.L.R.B. 1955)

SUTHERLAND PAPER COMPANY 211
,1953 contract, we find that such contract, as automatically renewed,
constitutes a bar to any,further proceedings herein. Accordingly, we
shall dismiss the petition.
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
Sutherland Paper Company and United Paper Workers of Amer-
ica, CIO , Petitioner. Case No. 7 RC-2677. October 5, 1955
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF
REPRESENTATIVES
On June 2, 1955 , pursuant to the Board 's Decision and Direction of
Election,' elections by secret ballot were conducted under the direc-
tion and supervision of the Regional Director for the Seventh Region,
among the employees in the voting groups heretofore found appro-
pri-ate. Upon the conclusion of the balloting, a separate tally of bal-
lots for each voting group and for the pooled group of employees was
furnished the parties in accordance with the Rules and Regulations
of the Board . The tally of voting group I (the craft group ), shows
that of approximately 372'eligible voters, 364 cast ballots, of which 144
were for International Printing Pressmen & Assistants' Union of
North America , AFL, herein called Pressmen; 120 were for the Inde-
pendent Union of Sutherland Paper Company Employees, Inc., herein
called Independent ; 75 were for the United Paper Workers of Amer-
ica, herein called Paper Workers, CIO; 9 were for the International.
Brotherhood of Paper Makers , AFL, herein called Paper Makers,
AFL; 1 was against representation by participating labor organiza-
tions; and 15 ballots were challenged . The tally in voting group II,
shows that of approximately 2,303 eligible voters, 2,088 cast ballots, of
which 1,215 were for the Independent ; 713 were for the Paper Work-
ers, CIO ,; 62 were for the Paper Makers, AFL; 51 were for the Print-
ing Specialties & Paper Products Union, Local 507, affiliated with In-
ternational Printing Pressmen & Assistants ' Union of North America,
AFL, herein called Local 507; 11 were against representation by par-
ticipating labor organizations ; and 36 ballots were challenged. As the
Pressmen, the only union seeking to represent the employees of voting
group I separately, did not receive a majority of the ballots cast in that
voting group, the Regional Director pooled the votes of those employ-
ees with the votes of the employees in voting group II. The tally in
the pooled group shows that of approximately 2,675 eligible voters,
2,452 cast ballots, of which 1,335 were for the Independent ; 788 were
for the Paper Workers , CIO; 71 were for the Paper Makers , AFL; 51
2 Sutler1 enr1 Paper Company , 112 NLRB 622.
114 NLRB No. 47.
387644-56-vol. 114--15
7
•212 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
were for Local 507; 12 were against representation by participating
labor organizations ; and 51 ballots were challenged. This tally,shows
that a majority of the valid votes counted plus challenged ballots has
been cast for the Independent.
On June 6, 1955, the Pressmen filed timely objections to the conduct
affecting the results of the election, contending that Section 102.62 of
the Board's Rules and Regulations requires a runoff in voting group
I prior to a determination of its majority status in that group. In ac-
cordance with the Board's Rules and Regulations, the Regional Di-
rector for the Seventh Region caused an investigation to be made of
the issues raised in the objections and, on June 15, 1955, issued and
duly served upon the parties a report on objections. In his report, the
Regional Director found merit in the objections and recommended,
among other things, that a runoff election be directed by the Board
in voting group I.
Unlike the Regional Director, we find no merit in the objections
of the Pressmen. In the American Potash case,' the Board provided
that the group of employees for whom severance was sought would be
found to constitute an appropriate unit only if a majority of those
employees vote for the union seeking such severance. The Board pro-
vided further that if a majority of the employees for whom severance
is sought do not vote for the union seeking to represent them in a
separate unit, that group will appropriately be included in the more
comprehensive group and their votes pooled with those of the latter
group to ascertain the representation status of the combined groups.
This procedure, first adopted in American Potash, makes it clear that
no runoff was intended in craft severance elections as craft severance
was to become effective only if a majority of the employees voted for
the union seeking severance.
When these rules are applied to the instant case, we find that a
majority of the employees-in voting group I (the craft group) did
not vote for the Pressmen and that, therefore, those employees do not
constitute an appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bargain-
ing. It, therefore, became necessary to pool the ballots of voting group
I with those of voting group II. As the Independent 3 obtained a
majority of the valid ballots cast in the pooled group, we shall certify
it as the exclusive bargaining representative of all employees 'in the
following unit which the Board has found under such circumstances to
be appropriate : all of the Employer's production and maintenance
2 American Potash & Chemical Corporation. 107 NLRB 1418, at pp. 1426, 1427.
Subsequent to the election in the instant case , the Independent filed a motion with
the Board = that its name be amended to read "Union of Sutherland Paper Company
Employees , Incorporated ," and to show its affiliation with United Paper Workers of
America, CIO. It also filed an affidavit with the motion stating that, on August 15, 1955,
a majority of its members had voted for the aforesaid change in name and for the
affiliation. All parties to the proceeding were served with copies of the motion and
affidavit and no party has filed objections to the motion . We, therefore , grant the
Independent 's motion to amend its name. -
BROOKVILLE GLOVE COMPANY 213
employees at- its Kalamazoo, Michigan, operations, excluding office
clerical employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
[The Board certified Independent Union of Sutherland Paper Com-
pany Employees, Inc., affiliated with United Paper Workers of Ameri-
ca, CIO, as the designated collective-bargaining representative of the
employees of Sutherland Paper Company, Kalamazoo, Michigan, in
the unit hereinabove found to be appropriate.]
David G. Leach and Doyle H . Wallace, d/b/a Brookville Glove
Company and Westie K. Shirk , Shirley Dempsey, Pearl Johns.
Ruth Wright, Geraldine Deemer, Barbara A. Fritz, Clara
Cook, Edwin G. Bish , Beatrice Edna Aikens, Clara Luther,
Mary Jane McCool , Bessie Viola Plyier, Mona Shaffer, Peggy
A. Snyder, Josephine V. Whitehill, Norma Lee Snyder, Alberta
Kerr, Lois Jean Boarts, Donna Bowen, Margaret N. Bowen,
and Dale V. Carnahan . Case No. 6-CA-770. October 6, 1955
DECISION AND ORDER
On July 16, 1954, Trial Examiner Sidney L. Feiler issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Re-
spondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Inter-
mediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondents filed
exceptions to the Intermediate Report and submitted a supporting
brief.
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the
case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations
of the Trial Examiner with the modifications, additions, and excep-
tions stated below.
1. We agree with the Trial Examiner that the Respondents dis-
charged the 21 complaining strikers- in this case because they refused
to abandon an economic strike and return to work within a certain date
designated by the Respondents, in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) and
(1) of the Act. The Respondents contend, however, that the strike
was illegal and that the strikers are not entitled to the protection of
the Act because they participated in a strike whose objective was recog-
nition of a labor organization not in compliance with Section 9 (h) of
the Act.
114 NLRB No. 52.