United States Plywood Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 29, 1955

112 N.L.R.B. 1471 (N.L.R.B. 1955)

UNITED STATES PLYWOOD CORPORATION 1471
United States Plywood Corporation and Kalistron , Inc.' and Gen-
eral Drivers , Warehousemen & Helpers Local Union No. 89,
International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs & Helpers
of America , AFL, Petitioner . Case No. 9-RC-2435. June 29,
1955
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 William G. Wilker-
son, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing
are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.2
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. United States Plywood Corporation, herein referred to as U. S.
Plywood, is a New York Corporation. It is engaged in the manufac-
ture of plywood and related products, and its operations are multi-
state in nature. Kalistron, Inc., herein referred to as Kalistron, is a
New Jersey corporation. The record evidence discloses that U. S.
Plywood owns all the stock of Kalistron, and exercises control over
its operations and general personnel policies tllrough its plant man-
ager at the Louisville, Kentucky, plant, which is the only operation
involved herein. In fact, the two operations at the Louisville plant,
i. e., the Flexwood department and the Kalistron department, are,
to some degree, integrated in nature, and apparently constitute a single
operating division of U. S. Plywood, termed the Flexible Materials
Division. Under these circumstances, we find that IT. S. Plywood
and Kalistron constitute, for the purposes of this proceeding, a single
employer within the meaning of Section 2 (2) of the Act.'
'At the healing, after it appeared that some of the employees the Petitioner seeks to
have included in the requested unit were in fact employees of Kalistion, Inc a wholly
owned subsnliaiy of the Employer, the hearing officer, over the objection of the Employer,
permitted the Petitioner to amend its petition so as to join Kalistion, Inc , as a patty to
these proceedings Pot the reasons set forth hereinafter, we find no merit in the Em-
ployer's objections
2 At the hearing, the hearing officer iefused to permit the Employer to litigate the matter
of the Petitioner's showing of inteiest or its compliance with the non-Communist affidavit
filing requirements of the Act The hearing officer also denied the Employer's related
motions to stay the proceedings herein pending an administrative investigation of the
Petitioner's showing of interest and its compliance with the filing requirements In view
of the l;oatd's well-settled rule that a Petitioner's showing of interest and its compliance are
matters for the Board's admnnstiative determination and are not litigable in a iepresenta-
tion healing, we find that the hearing officer's rulings were propel. Ilowevet, as indicated
by the healing officer during the course of the hearing, the Boaid will per nut parties to
a representation proceeding to cause to be instituted an administrative investigation of
those compliance matters which the Board may properly decide in a collateral proceeding
See Shipowners' Association of the Pacific Coast and Its Member Companies, 110 NLRB
479, General Shoe Coiporation, 109 NLRB 018, at 618-619 The Board is administratively
satisfied that at all times pertinent hot cin, the Petitioner has made a sufficient show ing of
interest and has been and now is in compliance with the filing requirements of Section 9 (f),
(g), and (h) of the Act
S See Volney Felt Mills, Inc , 110 NLRB 1244 ; Fr ost Lumber Industries, Diiision of Olin
Industries, Inc, etc, 101 NLRB 659, at 659-600
112 NLRB No. 183.
1472 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
At the hearing, the hearing officer permitted the Petitioner, over
the objection of the Employer, to amend its petition so as to join
Kalistron as a party in this case. The Employer's objection is predi-
cated upon the argument that Kalistron cannot be made a party to
this proceeding inasmuch as it has not been properly served with
notice of the hearing. In view of our finding herein that U. S. Ply-
wood and Kalistron constitute a single employer, we are of the opin-
ion that formal service upon U. S. Plywood constituted service upon
Kalistron. In fact, the record shows that the plant manager of the
Louisville plant, Westray, who is an officer of Kalistron and who is
also in charge of that operation, actually appeared at the hearing and
gave testimony as a sworn witness. We therefore reject the Employ-
er's objection that Kalistron cannot be made a party to this proceeding
because the procedural requirement of formal notice has not been
complied with.4
We find further that U. S. Plywood and Kalistron are engaged in
commerce within the meaning of the Act, and that it will effectuate
the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction over these operations.
2. The record discloses that the Petitioner exists for the purpose of
representing employees with respect to wages, hours, grievances, and
other terms and conditions of employment. We therefore find that
the Petitioner is a labor organization within the meaning of Section
2 (5) of the Act, and further find that it claims to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
3. At the hearing the Employer moved to dismiss the petition on
the ground that it was "fatally defective" on its face because the Pe-
titioner had failed to indicate the purpose of the petition by appro-
priately marking, under the caption "Purpose of this Petition," the
box labeled "RC," thereby properly designating the type of case.
The Employer asserts , in effect, that in the absence of a stated pur-
pose for which the petition is filed there exists no question affecting
commerce concerning the representation of employees of the Em-
ployer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6)
and (7) of the Act. Over the objection of the Employer, the hearing
officer granted the motion of the Petitioner to amend its petition so
as to correct the aforementioned omission. The hearing officer re-
ferred the Employer's motion to dismiss to the Board. We find that
the omission complained of herein is technical in nature and does
not constitute grounds sufficient for the dismissal of the petition.
As indicated in the record, the hearing officer, in accord with the
Board's Rules and Procedure, which provide that amendment can be
made at any time before the close of the hearing, permitted the Peti-
4 See Producers Rice Mill, Inc, and Producers Dryer, Inc, 106 NLRB 119 , footnote 1 ;
Frost Dumber Industries , Division of Olin Ind'ustrres, Inc, supra, footnote 1; Smcth Rice
Kill Inc and DeWitt Bonded Warehouse Company, 83 NLRB 380.
UNITED STATES PLYWOOD CORPORATION 1473
tioner to amend its petition to correct the omission. In addition, and
notwithstanding the fact that a reading of the petition in its entirety
clearly reveals is purpose, all the Board's formal papers properly
designated the case as to type. Moreover, the Employer fully par-
ticipated in the hearing, had the opportunity to litigate all issues,
and has not shown that it has been prejudiced nor its position im-
paired in any manner as a result of this technical defect.' We there-
fore find no merit in this contention, and, accordingly, deny the Em-
ployer's motion to dismiss the petition.
At the hearing the Employer also moved to dismiss the petition
on the ground that no question concerning representation exists be-
cause the Petitioner made no demand upon the Employer for recog-
nition as the bargaining representative of the employees in the re-
quested unit prior to the filing of its petition. The hearing officer
similarly referred this motion to dismiss to the Board for its consid-
eration. In view of our well-settled rule that the filing of a petition
is sufficient demand to raise a question concerning representation and
that no prior demand for recognition is necessary, we find this motion
to be without merit and, accordingly, deny it.'
We therefore find that a question affecting commerce exists con-
cerning 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 to represent in a single unit all production
and maintenance employees at the Employer's Louisville, Kentucky,
plant, excluding all clerical employees, guards, watchmen, and su-
pervisors as defined in the Act.' The Petitioner indicated, however,
that as an alternative, it would represent the employees in the Flex-
wood and the Kalistron departments in separate units if the Board
deems separate units to be appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining. The Employer, on the other hand, takes no position with
respect to whether these two departments should constitute separate
units or be combined into a single unit, but, rather, leaves the question
solely to the determination of the Board. There is no history of col-
lective bargaining for any of the employees involved herein.
As indicated herein, Kalistron is a wholly owned subsidiary of
U. S. Plywood, and is known as the Kalistron department of U. S.
Plywood. In the Kalistron department, wherein it employs approxi-
mately 26 employees, the Employer processes clear vinyl sheeting,
G Cf Padgett Printing and Lithographeng Company, 101 NLRB 144, at 144, Petco Corpo-
ration-Nebo Orleans Division, 98 NLRB 150, at 152
° See General Shoe Corporation, supra, at p 620 , fldiv.ance Pattern, 80 NLRB 29
7 In its petition the Petitioner specifically requested a unit comprised of inspectors, spot-
ters, machine operators, shipping and receiving line operators, paint mixers and helpers,
piess operators, laboiers, and factorv employees However, after it had been developed at
the heating that the job designations in the petition did not conform to the Employer's
specific job classifications for the employees in the requested unit, the Petitioner , in clari-
fication of its request , unequivocally stated that it was seeking to represent a unit of all
production and maintenance employees at the Employer's Louisville plant.
1474 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
which is purchased from outside sources, into a plastic-like product
known as Kalistron.' In the Flexwood department, wherein it em-
ploys approximately 30 employees, the Employer fabricates a product
known as Flexwood through a process which consists of mounting
a thin piece of wood veneer onto a cotton-fabric backing. The Em-
ployer also manufactures a product known as Kaliwood. In this
latter manufacturing operation, vinyl sheeting is processed in the
Kalistron department and then transported to the Flexwood depart-
ment where it is attached to a flexible sheet of wood veneer. The
Flexwood department and the Kalistron department together ap-
parently constitute the Employer's Flexible Materials Division winch
is housed in the Louisville plant. The entire Louisville plant is
under the general direction and supervision of a single plant man-
ager, AVestray, who has ultimate control over personnel and related
problems in both the Flexwood department and the Kalistron
department. However, each department is operated under the super-
vision of a departmental superintendent who has the power to hire
and fire within his particular department. The record discloses
that the Flexwood and Kalistron departments are located in adjoin-
ing buildings that have connecting entrances, and that employees in
both departments enter through a common entrance-way. The two
departments use a common loading dock, with employees from both
departments sometimes working together in loading and unloading
operations, and share the same storage facilities. Moreover, the two
departments also have a common general office force, are serviced by
a single maintenance unit, and have the same research laboratory,
which, incidentally, services all the Employer's operations. Sales
for both departments are handled by U. S. Plywood. The employees
in both departments work the same hours, punch the same time clock,
have the same vacation benefits, share the same lunch room 8 and
other facilities, and have a common welfare fund. There is some
interchange of personnel between the two departments, but, such inter-
change is of a limited nature. However, the record discloses that
employees from both departments come in daily contact with each
other and that some actually work together in the performance of
their job duties. All employees are paid by check drawn upon U. S.
Plywood, with the labor costs accrued on behalf of the respective
departments being charged, for accounting purposes, to that
operation.
In view of the foregoing, and particularly in view of the centralized
control of management functions and personnel relations, the inte-
grated nature of the operations, the similarity of the interests and
9 The record reveals that although the employees of the two departments eat at separate
times, they all take advantage of the lunch room facilities at the same time during work
breaks.
UNITED STATES PLYWOOD CORPORATION 1475
conditions of employment of all employees, and the proximity of the
two departmental operations, we find that employees of the Flexwood
and Kalistron departments constitute a single unit appropriate for
the purposes of collective bargaining.'
The Petitioner would exclude from the proposed unit two clerical
employees, Borland and Jones. The Employer contends that Jones
should be included in the unit. The record discloses that Borland
works in the plant office in the Kalistron department under the
supervision of the plant superintendent in charge of that operation.
In the performance of her duties, which appear to be primarily those
of an order clerk, Borland fills out and processes bills of lading and
new orders, makes out receiving tickets, verifies incoming materials,
checks orders that are to be shipped, schedules transportation for
outgoing shipments, and performs timekeeping functions. Borland
also assists in taking labels to the shipping area of the plant, and, on
occasion, actually assists in affixing labels to packages. Although
she spends the major portion of her time in the plant office, Borland's
duties require that she spend a part of her time out in the production
area of the plant. At the time of the hearing, Borland was also
acting as a receptionist; however, these duties are temporary in
nature.
The record discloses that Jones, who is classified by the Employer
as a "Clerk and Sample Assorter," works as a clerk in the Flexwood
department under the supervision of the plant superintendent in
charge of that operation. In the performance of her duties, Jones
assists in handling employee timecards, time allocation records, and
production records. In addition to the clerical duties, she spends at
least 50 percent of her time in the production area of the plant per-
forming work, described by the Employer as "production work," re-
lated to the sorting and preparation of samples.
We believe that the evidence clearly shows that the duties performed
by these clerical employees are similar to those generally performed
by plant clerical employees, and, moreover, that their interests are
sufficiently related to those of the employees that the Petitioner seeks
to represent to warrant their inclusion in the unit. We shall, there-
fore, in accord with our well-established practice concerning plant
clericals, include them in the unit.
The Petitioner would also exclude from the unit employee Schmitt
who is classified as a laboratory assistant. The Employer, however,
would include this employee in the unit. The record discloses that
-Schmitt spends approximately one-third of his time in the glue room
mixing glues, and spends the remainder of his time in the Employer's
0Volacy Felt Dulls, Inc. supra, at p 1471 ; Amerwcan Factors, Limited, 109 NLRB 834,
at 835-836 , 11tatnt Paper Board Melts, Inc , and Szmco Waste Paper, Ino , 109 NLRB 167 ;
-Maloney-Chambers Lumber Co and Albany Lumber Company, 104 NLRB-503
369028-56-vol. 112-94
1476 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
laboratory performing work of a routine nature, such as selecting
and cutting samples and assisting in quality control work, which
does not require any technical knowledge or training. Under these
circumstances, we find that Schmitt is not a technical employee, and
shall, contrary to the contention of the Petitioner, include him in the
unit.
Upon the basis of the entire record, and in accordance with the
foregoing considerations, we find that the following unit is appro-
priate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9 (b) of the Act :
All production and maintenance employees at the Employer's Louis-
ville, Kentucky, operations, including plant clerical employees and
the laboratory assistant, but excluding office clerical employees, the
plant engineer and the quality control man,10 guards, watchmen, and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
MEMBER LEEDOM took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Election.
10 In accord with the agreement of the parties, we shall exclude the plant engineer and
the quality contiol man Iiom the unit
Moynahan Bronze Company , Inc. and International Union , United
Automobile , Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of
America , CIO, Petitioner . Case No. 7-RC-2676. June 29, 1955
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 Herbert C. Kane, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.'
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9
(c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
'Local 247, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, warehousemen and
helpers of America, AFL which intervened in this proceeding for the purpose of requesting
severance of the slapping , receiving , and transportation employees , has requested permission
to withdraw as an Intervenor The request is hereby granted.
112 NLRB No 1f11.