West Virginia Pulp and Paper Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 16, 1951

96 N.L.R.B. 871 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

WEST VIRGINIA. PULP AND PAPER COMPANY 871
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in
the case, the Trial Examiner makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. United Steelworkers of America, C. I. 0., is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. All production and maintenance employees of the Respondent at its Worces-
ter, Massachusetts, plant, including shipping and receiving room employees
and inspectors, but excluding office employees, departmental clerks, executives,
-foremen, assistant foremen, draftsmen, professional employees, guards, and all
supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes
of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
3. United Steelworkers of America, C. I. 0., was on July 20, 1950, and at all
times since has been, the exclusive representative within the meaning of Sec-
tion 9 (a) of the Act of all employees in the aforesaid unit for the purposes of
-collective bargaining.
4. By refusing to bargain collectively with United Steelworkers of America,
C. I. 0., as the exclusive bargaining representative of the employees in the ap-
propriate unit, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act.
5. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise
-of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged in and is
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the
Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
-commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication in this volume.]
WEST VIRGINIA PULP AND PAPER COMPANY and UNITED PAPERWORKERS
OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER . Case No. 6-RC-,848. October 16,
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 Joseph C. Thackery, 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 Reynolds 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 organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
96 NLRB No. 120.
872 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR 'RELATIONS BOARD
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c)y
(1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The parties are in agreement as to the description of the appro-
priate unit as consisting of all production and maintenance employees
at the Employer's Tyrone,•Pennsylvania, plant, excluding all office and
clerical employees, professional employees, guards, and supervisors as
defined in the Act. They disagree, however, as to the unit placement of
gate watchmen, fire watchmen, the wood scaler, tour foremen, boss
beatermen, the bleach plant foreman, the painter foreman, and the
labor construction foreman, all of whom the Employer would exclude
from the unit.
Gate watchmen: The Employer contends that three employees classi--
fied as gate watchmen should be excluded from the unit upon the
ground that they are guards within the meaning of the Act. These
employees, who work on a three-shift basis, are regularly assigned to
the main gate of the plant. Their duties are to report fires, to report
infractions of the Employer's rules, to prevent the removal of property
without proper authority, and to see to it that only duly authorized
persons enter or leave the plant. The fact that these watchmen are not
armed, deputized, or uniformed does not detract from their status as,
guards within the meaning of the Act.' Because these employees are
employed to enforce against employees and other persons rules to pro-
tect the property of the Employer, we find that they are guards within-
the meaning of the Act. Accordingly, we shall exclude them from the
unit hereinafter found appropriate.
Fire watchmen: The Employer also contends that three employees
classified as fire watchmen should 'be excluded from the unit upon the'
ground that they are guards within the meaning of the Act. These
employees are not interchangeable with gate watchmen. Fire watch-
men work from 3 p. m. to 7 a. m. and make regular tours of the plant,.
observing whether or not fires are threatened. If they discover a situa-
tion which requires remedial action, they report that fact to the fore-
man in charge of that area. Their employment is admittedly required'
by fire insurance laws, and is not concerned with the enforcement of
the Employer's own policies or rules.
The broad function of these fire watchmen to protect life and prop-;
erty from fire hazards is insufficient to bring them within the defini-
tion of "guard" as defined in the Act, which specifically prescribes that-
such an individual be employed as a guard to enforce rules against
employees and others. Accordingly, we find that the employees
whose function is limited to fire protection are not guards? Because-
I Fruit Growers Supply Company, 94 NLRB 909.
'Argonne National Laboratories, 89 NLRB 1236 , 1237 ; Carbide and' Carbon Chemicals-
Corporation, 79 NLRB 83 , 86-87 ; Standard Oil Company of California; 79+ NLRB 1466,
1474.
I
WEST VIRGINIA PULP AND PAPER COMPANY 873
they appear to share interests in common with other production and
maintenance employees, we shall include fire watchmen in the unit
hereinafter found appropriate.
The wood scaler: The Employer contends that the wood scaler
should be excluded from the unit upon the ground that his duties are
supervisory, clerical, and confidential. The scaler performs very little
manual labor. He measures the amount of wood delivered by the
Employer's suppliers and determines whether or not the wood meets
the Employer's specifications. Approximately one-third of his time
is spent in scaling or measuring wood and the balance in making tabu-
lations of the amount and varieties of wood delivered. Payments
to the Employer's suppliers are based upon the records which he
compiles. Although two other employees assist him from time to time
as extra wood scalers, it does not appear that he exercises any super-
visory authority with respect to these employees. Nor does he per-
form a supervisory function by informing the truck drivers to which
pile the wood should be taken for unloading. Insofar as the alleged
confidential aspects of his employment are concerned, it does not ap-
pear that the wood scaler has anything to do with the Employer's labor
relations. It is true, as the Employer contends, that the wood scaler
must be a thoroughly honest and trustworthy employee. However,
the Employer has not shown in what manner his inclusion in the unit
would conflict with the proper discharge of his duties. Because the
wood scaler's duties are not connected with the Employer's labor poli-
cies, we find that he is not a confidential employee and that, despite
the clerical aspect of some of his work, his interests and duties are
sufficiently allied with those of the other employees to warrant his
inclusion in the unit hereinafter found appropriates Accordingly,
we shall include the wood scaler in the unit.
Tour foreman: The Employer contends that 4 employees classified
as tour foremen should be excluded from the unit upon the ground
that they are supervisors within the meaning of the Act. They work
on rotating shifts and are directly responsible to the pulp mill super-
intendent. Each of the tour foremen has a crew of 23 or 24 men.
Moreover, when assigned to a shift working between 4: 30 p. m. and
8 a. m. a tour foreman has complete charge of and is responsible for
the operations of the pulp mill. As each of the tour foremen is solely
responsible for the production of the employees under him at times
when no other supervisors are present, we believe that tour foremen
must, of necessity, have the authority responsibly to direct employees
on their shifts.' Accordingly, we find that tour foremen are super-
visors and we shall exclude them from the unit.
3 Northern Redwood Lumber Company, 88 NLRB 272, 277; Veneer Products Inc, 81
NLRB 492, 494.
4 California Spray-Chemical Corp., 86 NLRB 453, 454-455. Southern Industries Com-
pany, 92 NLRB 998 (adjusters, shift foremen).
874 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Boss beatermen: Each of these four employees, who the Employer
contends should be excluded as supervisors, has a crew of 11 or 12
employees. Boss beatermen are directly responsible to the paper mill
superintendent and appear to be on a level with the boss machine
tenders, who the parties agree are- supervisors. Boss beatermen
are responsible for the successful operation of the beater room, which
includes the responsibility for the ingredients and colors put into-the
beaters. As part of their over-all responsibility, they make tempo-
•ary transfers of employees between machines to maintain a balanced
working force. Although they are qualified to do any work in the,
beater room, boss beatermen do very little manual labor and receive
a substantially higher rate of pay than do beatermen. Moreover,
the record indicates that boss beatermen work on rotating shifts and,
therefore, are all responsible for the production of the employees under
them at a time when no other supervisors are present. Upon the
basis of all the foregoing facts, we find that boss beatermen are super-
visors, and we shall exclude them from the unit .5
Bleach plant foreman: This employee, whom the Employer would
exclude upon the ground that he is a supervisor, is responsible for the
production of chemicals in the bleach, electrolytic, and chalk plants-
He is also responsible for the repairs made to the machinery in such
plants, and directs the work of a crew of 31 employees. Although
the bleach plant foreman is directly responsible to a superintendent
who works the same hours as the bleach plant foreman and has juris-
diction over the same employees and machinery, it appears that all
work orders are channeled through the bleach plant foreman, and
that the superintendent has very few direct contacts with the em-
ployees. Upon the basis of the foregoing, we find that the bleach
plant foreman responsibly directs the work of other employees.6 Ac-
cordingly, we find that the bleach plant foreman is a supervisor and
we shall exclude him from the unit.
Painter foreman: The Employer contends that the painter foreman
should be excluded from the unit upon the ground that he is also a
,supervisor. The painter foreman is in charge of a group of nine em-
ployees and is directly responsible to the superintendent of construc-
tion. The painter foreman, subject to the general direction of the
superintendent, requisitions materials, assigns painters, and deter-
mines in what manner the painting will be done. It also appears that'
he can effectively recommend changes in the grade classifications of
the painters under his charge. Accordingly, we find that he is a super-
b The Connecticut Electrical Manufacturing Co., 94 NLRB 1449; Southern Industries
Company, Supra ; California-Spray Chemical Corp., supra.
I Rodney Milling Company, 88 NLRB 177 , 178-179 ; Virginia Gear and Machine Corpo-
ration, 88 NLRB 58, 59.
JOHN H. BARR MARKETING COMPANY 875
visor within the meaning of the Act' and we shall exclude him from
the unit.
Labor construction foreman: The Employer likewise contends that
the labor construction foreman should be excluded from the unit
upon the ground that he is a supervisor. This individual is in charge
of a working force of 22 employees and is directly responsible to the
superintendent of construction. As part of his duties, the labor con-
struction foreman plans the work of the labor force and assigns the
employees in his charge to various jobs. The labor construction fore-
man does very little manual labor and has an assistant to aid him in
the direction of the employees in his group. Upon the basis of the
foregoing, we find that the labor construction foreman responsibly
directs the work of other employees." Accordingly, we find that he is
a supervisor and we shall exclude him from the unit.
We find that all production and maintenance employees at the Em-
ployer's Tyrone, Pennsylvania, plant, including fire watchmen and the
wood scaler, but excluding all office and clerical employees, profes-
sional employees, gate watchmen, guards, tour foremen, boss beater-
men, bleach plant foremen, the labor construction foreman, and all
other supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Sec-
tion 9 (b) of the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
4 Connecticut Electrical Manufacturiyg Co., supra; Todd Shipyards Corporation, 87
NLRB 627.
" Buckeye Rural Electric Cooperative , Inc., 88 NLRB 196, 197.
JOHN H. BARR MARKETING COMPANY and LOCAL INDUSTRIAL UNION
No. 78, CIO. Case No. 21-CA-993. October 17,1951
Decision and Order
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge filed January 2, 1951, and an amended charge filed
February 12, 1951, by Local Industrial Union No. 78, affiliated with
the Congress of Industrial Organizations, herein called the Union,
the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, by the
Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region (Los Angeles, Cali-
fornia), issued his complaint dated March 28, 1951, against John H.
Barr Marketing Company, herein called the Respondent, alleging
that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1),
96 NLRB No. 118.