Macon Kraft Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 15, 1952

100 N.L.R.B. 1509 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

MACON KRAFT COMPANY - 1509
is given formal cognizance by the Board. Accordingly, we shall dis-
,miss the Employer's petition herein, because it was filed before the
expiration of the certification year.'
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition herein be, and it hereby is, dis-
missed.
CHAIRMAN HERZOG took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Order.
7 Prior decisions of the Board , including those cited in footnote 6, above, to the extent
that they are inconsistent herewith, are hereby overruled.
MACON DRAFT COMPANY ' and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MA-
CHINISTS , LODGE No. 1034, A. F. OF L., PETITIONER
MACON KRAFT COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MA-
CHINISTS , LODGE No. 1034, A. F. OF L ., PETITIONER
MACON KRAFT COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION .OF MA-
CHINISTS , LODGE No. 1034, A. F. OF L., PETITIONER . Cases Nos.
10-RO-1975,10--RO-1976, and 10-RC-1977. October 15, 1952
Decision , Order , and Direction of Elections
Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Paul H.
Harper, 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].
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.
4. The production and maintenance unit at the Employer's
container board plant is represented jointly by the International
I The Mead Corporation and the Inland Container Corporation , d/b/a Macon Kraft
Company, is a partnership.
100 NLRB No. 178.
1510 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Brotherhood of Paper Makers, Locals 572 and 598, the International
Brotherhood of Pulp, Sulphite and Paper Mill Workers, Locals 636
and 643, herein called respectively the Paper Makers and the Pulp
Workers, and jointly the Intervenors, and the International Brother-
hood of Electrical Workers, Local 1316, AFL, which appeared at the
hearing but did not participate. The Petitioner, which represents
several groups of maintenance employees, seeks to sever three
additional groups.
In Case No. 10-RC-1975, the Petitioner seeks five painters, who
perform only maintenance work. They mix paints, do plain and
finished work throughout the plant, and, as conceded by the Pulp
Workers at the hearing, their duties parallel those of painters in other
comparable plants where separate units of painters have been found
appropriate. There is no formal apprenticeship program at the Em-
ployer's plant for painters, but there is a line of progression from mill
painter, first and second year, to finished painter,. and then to painter
lead man.
Although conceding at the hearing that a separate unit of painters
would be held appropriate by the Board under its established policy,
the Intervenors maintain in their brief that these employees are not
true craftsmen. The Employer is neutral. We find that the painters
possess the traditional skills of their craft, and are entitled to separate
representation if they so desire.2
In Case No. 10-RC-1976, the Petitioner seeks one bulldozer operator
and one pay loader operator, who work interchangeably on the two
machines. They spend at least half their time reclaiming coal and
bark which fall from the conveyors, and transferring coal from
storage to be used as fuel in the plant's furnaces. Although other-
wise neutral on the unit issues, the Employer opposes the severance
of these operators for the reason that this work is part of the
production process and they should therefore remain with other
production workers. During their remaining time, these operators
use the machines for moving trash, grading roads, building dykes,
and landscaping.
No special training is required for operating either of the two
machines. There is only one rate of pay, which an inexperienced
operator receives from the first day on the job. Proficiency in opera-
tion is attained in 1 to 2 months. Although some mechanical skill
is required to perform their duties, we see no reason for departing
from the Board's determinations in the past where employees with
similar duties were held not to be craftsmen.' For this reason, and as
2 Goodyear .Synthetic Rubber Corporation , 99 NLRB 382.
2 Crossett Paper Mills, 98 NLRB 542.
MACON KRAFT COMPANY 1511
the interests of these two operators are closely allied to those of the
production workers, we shall dismiss the petition as to them.
In Case No. 19-RC-1977, the Petitioner seeks eight pipefitters, one
pipe insulator, nine pipe welders, and eight pipefitter helpers. The
pipefitters install pipe on new installations, do layout fabrication,
erect new screw pipe as well as welding pipe of different alloys, and
perform general pipe maintenance work. The pipe welders, who
are hired as skilled mechanics, work with, the pipefitters doing layout
fabrication on new installations and making maintenance repairs.
The pipefitter helpers, and the pipe insulator 4 who is rated as a
helper, assist the pipefitters in performing their duties. The Em-
ployer has no formal apprenticeship program for these employees, but
there is a fixed 2-year progression from helper to journeyman pipe-
fitter, and possible promotion to lead pipefitter.
The Intervenors contend that the pipefitters are not true craftsmen.
The Employer makes no contention. We find that the pipefitters
possess the traditional skills of their craft.,' The Intervenors further
oppose a grouping of pipe welders with the pipefitters and helpers.
These pipe welders are regularly assigned to the pipefitting craft.
They work under the pipefitting foreman, and are entirely separate
from the five welders in the millwright department who work under
the millwright foreman and who are already represented by the peti-
tioner 6 We find that the pipefitters, pipe insulator, pipe welders,
and pipefitter helpers comprise a traditional craft which is identifiable
and homogeneous, and that they may appropriately form a separate
bargaining group if they so desire.'
We find that the following employees may constitute separate units
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act:
(a) All painters at the Employer's Macon, Georgia, plant, in-
cluding painter lead man, but excluding all other employees and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
(b) All pipefitters at the Employer's Macon, Georgia, plant, in-
cluding pipe insulator, pipe welders, and pipefitter helpers, but ex-
cluding all other employees and supervisors as defined in the Act.
If a majority of either of the voting groups vote for the Petitioner,
they will be taken to have indicated their desire to constitute a separate
appropriate unit, and the Regional Director conducting the elections
directed herein is instructed to issue a certification of representatives
' The pipe insulator spends part of his time insulating boilers, but there is no contention
that his interests are not more closely allied with the pipefitting craft than with the
boilermakers.
International Paper Company, 94 NLRB 500.
Cf. International Paper Company, 96 NLRB 295, where there was no direct evidence that
particular welders were regularly assigned to any specific craft.
' Neches Butane Products Company, 100 NLRB 388.
1512 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to the Petitioner for each such voting group described above, which
the Board, under such circumstances, finds to be a unit appropriate
for purposes of collective bargaining. In the event that a majority
in either voting group vote for the joint representatives, the Board
finds the continued inclusion of such employees in their present unit to
be appropriate, and the Regional Director will issue a certificate of
results of election to such effect.
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed in Case No. 10-RC-1976
be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication in this
volume.]
WILSON & COMPANY, INC. and UNITED PACKINGHOUSE WORKERS OF
AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER. Case No. 15-RC-672. October 15,
1952.
Decision and Order
Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election, an
election was held under the direction of the Regional Director on
April 4, 1952, among employees at the Employer's New Orleans,
Louisiana, plant. As the results of this election were inconclusive,) a
runoff election was conducted on May 2, 1952. The tally of ballots in
the runoff election shows that, of approximately 42 eligible voters,
41 cast valid ballots, of which 18 were cast for, and 23 against, the
Petitioner, and 1 ballot was challenged.
On May 6, 1952, the Petitioner filed objections to conduct affecting
the results of the election. The Regional Director caused an investi-
gation to be made of the Petitioner's objections, and on August 22
issued his report in which he found merit in the Petitioner's objections
and recommended that the election be set aside. Thereafter, the Em-
ployer duly filed exceptions to the Regional Director's report.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board 2 finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the National Labor Relations Act.
1 The tally of ballots in the original election shows that 22 votes were cast for Petitioner,
2 for Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America , AFL, and 20
against participating labor organizations , and there was 1 challenged ballot. The Regional
Director subsequently recommended that the challenge be sustained and no exceptions were
filed to his recommendation.
$Pursuant to the provisions of Section 8 (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].
100 NLRB No. 242.