Thatcher Glass Manufacturing Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 30, 1951

97 N.L.R.B. 238 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

238 ' DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
THATCHER GLASS MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC' and INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS , CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND
HELPERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL No. 691, AFL, PETITIONER . Case No.
9-RC-1239. November 30,1951
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 Seymour Goldstein, 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 [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Murdock].
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. The Glass Bottle Blowers Association of the United States and
Canada, AFL, hereinafter referred to as GBBA, and its affiliate locals
Nos. 42, 174, 180, and 181, all joint Intervenors herein, urge that the
contract now in existence between GBBA and Local 42 and the Em-
ployer covering the production and maintenance employees of the
Employer's Lawrenceburg, Indiana, plant constitutes a bar to the
instant petition.
Pursuant to a consent election held under the direction of the
Regional Director for the Ninth Region, GBBA was certified on De-
cember 29, 1945, as the exclusive bargaining- representative of a single
unit comprising the production and maintenance employees at the
Employer's Elmira and Olean, New York, and Streator, Illinois,
plants.3 Shortly thereafter GBBA and its affiliate locals 174,180, and
181 entered into the first of a series of contracts with the Employer
covering these employees, the most recent having been executed on
.September 1, 1950, for a term expiring September 1, 1951. On March
1, 1951, GBBA and its Local 42 entered into an agreement with the
Employer -extending the coverage of the 1950-1951 contract to include
1 The Employer's name appears as amended at the hearing.
2 The hearing officer referred to the Board the Employer's motion to dismiss the petition
on the ground of surprise occasioned by amendment of the unit description , over the
Employer 's objection , at the hearing . As the record discloses that the Employer was given
full opportunity to participate, and as the issues were in fact fully litigated at the hearing,
we find that the Employer was not prejudiced by the amendment . The motion is hereby
denied,
a During the period of 1937 to 1945 , OBBA represented the same employees on a single-
plant basis.
97 NLRB No. 33.
THATCHER GLASS MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC. 239
the production and maintenance employees of the Employer's newly
acquired Lawrenceburg, Indiana, plant.' On May 9, 1951, the Peti-
tioner filed the petition in this case, seeking to represent the production
and maintenance employees of the Lawrenceburg plant. On May
29, 1951, the Employer and the Intervenors executed an amendment
to the multiplant contract which, among other things, extended its
termination date to September 1, 1952.
As the petition herein was filed before the execution of the May 29,
1951, extension agreement, we find that neither it nor the September
1, 1950, contract, which has since expired, constitute a bar to a present
determination of representati ves.
We find that 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 unit embracing all production and main-
tenance employees of the Employer's Lawrenceburg, Indiana, plant,
excluding machine operators and upkeep men and employees of the
mold-making department.5 There is no dispute among the parties
as to the composition of the unit, the only issue being as to its scope.
Both the Employer and the Intervenors urge that a unit restricted
to the production and maintenance employees of a single plant, as
requested, is inappropriate in view of the high degree of integration
of the Employer's four-plant operations and the history of collective
bargaining for production and maintenance employees on the basis
of a multiplant unit covering the plants of this Employer.
At all of the Employer's 4 plants (Elmira and Olean, New York,
Streator, Illinois, and Lawrenceburg, Indiana) the Employer is en-
gaged in making glass containers. The production operations at
all the plants are substantially the same. At each plant, raw materials
are processed into the finished product. The Employer's central
office is located at the Elmira, New York, plant, where production is
scheduled, and a system of purchasing and sales for all the plants is
maintained. General personnel policies are determined at Elmira, a
central payroll system is maintained, and wages throughout the system
are comparable. However, each local plant payroll is made out at the
respective plant, and wages are paid at each plant with funds deposited
locally by the Elmira office. Employees are generally hired at the
4 Although it was testified , as to the Lawrenceburg plant, that "plant employees started
to get into operation as far back as February , 1951," actual production did not begin until
April 16, 1951.
5 The machine operators and upkeep men are currently represented by the GBBA, and
the mold makers and apprentices by the American Flint Glass Workers Union of North
America , AFL. In the case of each of these groups the contract covers a multiemployer
unit and was executed for the Employer by the Glass Container Manufacturers Institute, of
which the Employer is a member.
240 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
local plant, subject to approval by the Elmira office. Employees at
the other plants were offered the opportunity to come to the Lawrence-
burg plant when that plant was first opened up, and approximately
33 employees availed themselves of the opportunity to transfer. There
have also been other instances of interplant transfer, notably in 1947,
when the Employer-closed down one of its tanks at the Olean plant,
and approximately 50 employees were transferred to Elmira and
Streator.
The Lawrenceburg plant was built by the Employer in 1950 and
1951. Employees were at work as early as February 1951, but actual
production of glass containers did not begin until April 16, 1951.
Thus the plant is new, and was included within the multiplant con-
tractual unit for only approximately 2 months before the filing of this
petition. In the light of the entire record, we believe that the inte-
gration of the Lawrenceburg plant with the other plants of the Em-
ployer's system is not such as to preclude the possibility that it may ap-
propriately constitute a separate unit. On the other hand, it may also
appropriately form part of the existing multiplant unit. As the
Lawrenceburg plant is a new one, having only recently been put into
operation, we believe that its production and maintenance employees
should be given the opportunity to express their desires as to repre-
sentation in a self-determination election.6
We shall accordingly direct that an election be held in the following
voting group : All production and maintenance employees at the
Employer's Lawrenceburg, Indiana, plant, excluding machine opera-
tors, machine upkeep men and their apprentices and learners, em-
ployees in the mold-making department, office and plant clerical
employees, first aid employees, engineers and technical employees,
guards,' professional employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
If a majority vote for the Petitioner, they will be -taken to have indi-
cated their desire to constitute a separate appropriate unit, and the
Regional Director conducting the election directed herein is in-
structed to issue a certification of representatives to the Petitioner for
a unit comprising the employees above described, which the Board;
under such circumstances, finds to be appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining. In the event a majority vote for the Inter-
venor, that organization may,bargain for such employees as part of
6 Cf R . P. Scherer Corporation, Hypospray Division, 95 NLRB 1426 ; Potlatch Forests,
Inc , 94 NLRB 1444; Brown Equipment i Manufacturing Co., Inc., 93 NLRB 1278; Sinclair
Refinery Company, 92 NLRB 643.
1 At the hearing the Employer indicated that four compressor operators would be desig-
nated as part-time watchmen. It was expected that they would spend not more than 1
hour per shift in watchmen 's duties and the remainder of their time in their regular duties
as compressor operators . If in fact they do not spend more than 50 percent of their time
as watchmen , they shall be included as production employees Otherwise they shall be
excluded as guards.
MILPRINT, INCORPORATED 241
the multiplant production and maintenance unit that it now repre-
sents, and the Regional Director will issue a certificate of results of
election to such effect.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
MILPRINT , INCORPORATED and INTERNATIONAL BROTIIERIIOOD OF ELEC-
TRICAL WORKERS , LOCAL UNION 494, AFL, PETITIONER . Case No.
13-IBC-2166. November 30, 1951
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 Herman J. DeKoven,
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, Murdock and Styles].
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
employees 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 Petitioner requests that the Board find appropriate a unit
consisting of all journeyman electricians, apprentices, and electronic
technicians at the Employer's Milwaukee, Wisconsin, plant, excluding
supervisors and all other employees. The Intervenor and the Em-
ployerer assert the only appropriate unit is the existing bargaining
group covering all employees with the exception of the lithographic
department, the rotary pressroom, and printing employees.
The Employer's Milwaukee plant is engaged in the conversion of
film into packages and printing labels and similar material thereon.
There are approximately 600 employees in the broad production and
maintenance unit represented by the Intervenor which has been the
bargaining agent since 1937. The employees whom, the Petitioner
' United Paper Workers of America, CIO , Local Number 356 , herein called the Intervenor,
was granted permission to intervene at the hearing upon the showing of a contractual in-
terest in the representation of these employees.
97 NLRB No. 34.