Calcasieu Paper Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 11, 1947

73 N.L.R.B. 344 (N.L.R.B. 1947)

In the Matter of CALCASIEU PAPER COMPANY, INC., EMPLOYER and
UNITED PAPERWORKERS OF AMERICA, C. I. 0., PETITIONER
Cace No. 15-B-1993.-Decided April 11, 1947
Mitchell and Donahoo, by Mr. Theo. Hamilton, of Jacksonville,
Fla., and Mr. T. W. Halloman, of Alexandria, La., for the Employer.
Messrs. Fred C. Pieper and Robert Clark, of New Orleans, La., and
Mr. R. C. Branch, of Oakdale, La., for the Petitioner.
Mr. Godfrey J. Ruddick, of Bogalusa, La., Mr. Mark Fisher, of
Birmingham, Ala., and Mr. S. A. Phillips, of Jonesboro, La., for the
Intervenors.
Mr. Edmund J. Fly?in, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Elizabeth,
Louisiana, on December 12, 1946,,before Jerome A. Reiner, hearing
officer. At the hearing the Employer moved to dismiss the petition
on the ground, among others, that the evidence did not show that a
question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation
of employees. The hearing officer referred the motion to the Board
for ruling. For reasons hereinafter discussed, the motion is hereby
denied.
The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.'
Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations
Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Calcasieu Paper Company, Inc., a Louisiana corporation, is engaged
in the manufacture and sale of paper products in Elizabeth, Louisiana.
1 The Employer objected to the ruling of the bearing officer permitting intervention of
one of the Intervenors upon oral request therefor made at the hearing Not only was this
ruling in accordance with Sec . 203 51 (a) and ( b) of the Board ' s Rules and Regulations
(Series 4), but the record shows that the Employer was, in fact, apprised of the Inter-
venors' interest in the proceeding more than 2 months before the hearing date. In any
73 N. L. R. B., No. 65.
344
CALCASIEU PAPER COMPANY, INC. 345
During the 6-month period ending November 30, 1946, the Employer
purchased raw materials valued at $100,000, of which more than 10
percent was shipped from points outside the State of Louisiana. Dur-
ing the same period, the products sold by the Employer exceeded
$100,000 in value, of which more than 90 percent was shipped outside
the State.
The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
H. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress
of Industrial Organizations, claiming to represent employees of the
Employer.
International Brotherhood of Pulp, Sulphite and Paper Mill Work-
ers, and International Brotherhood of Paper Makers, herein called
the Intervenors, are labor organizations affiliated with the American
Federation of Labor, claiming to represent employees of the Em-
ployer.2
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Employer refuses to recognize the Petitioner as the exclusive
bargaining representative of employees of the Employer alleging as
reason therefor that the Petitioner does not represent a majority of
its employees. The Employer further claims that a question concern-
ing representation does not exist in the absence of a showing of ma-
jority representation made at the hearing. In this connection the
Employer objected to the hearing officer's refusal to admit evidence of
the Petitioner's showing of interest. For the reasons stated in Matter
of 0. D. Jennings cf Company,' we find no merit in the Employer's
contentions.
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Employer, within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The parties are in general agreement that the unit should comprise
all production and maintenance employees including truck drivers,
event, we find that the Employer was not prejudiced by reason of the hearing officer's
ruling See Matter of Byron Jackson Company, 66 N L R B 1312. Nor do we find any
pielndice in the Regional Director's failure to reply to the Employer's request for a copy
of the notions to intervene and supporting grounds
2 We find no merit in the Employer's contention that the Petitioner and the Inter-
venors are not labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. See
Matter of Midland National Bank of Minneapolis , 68 N. L . R B 580, 581.
3 68 N L. R. B 516
346 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
watchmen, and the head machinist, but excluding woods department
employees, office and clerical workers, and supervisory personnel. The
Intervenor would also include power plant engineers, recovery room
foremen, and pulp cook foremen, all of whom the Petitioner and Em-
ployer would exclude.
Power Plant Engineers: Although all parties agree that power
plant employees should be included in the production and mainte-
nance unit, the Petitioner and Employer would exclude the 3 power
plant engineers on the ground that they are supervisory personnel.
The power plant, which like other mill operations is on a continuous
day and night schedule, engages 15 employees, 4 of whom (an engi-
neer, an oiler, and a fireman and his helper) are on duty at all times.
The engineers maintain the steam engines, make all minor repairs
necessary to insure the maintenance of proper steam pressures, and
start and shut down the engines. All 15 employees including the 3
engineers are under the supervision of 1 master mechanic who is di-
rectly responsible for the operation of the power plant. During the
night shifts when the master mechanic normally is not on duty, the
engineer is the senior employee present in the power plant. In this
role the engineer, whenever there is need for deviation from normal
operations, directs the work of the other 3 employees and makes sub-
sequent oral reports thereon to the master mechanic. This directory
capacity, however, has entailed no control over the tenure of employ-
ment of other employees. Thus the record discloses that the engineers
have neither the power to hire or discharge, nor the authority to rec-
ommend it; that it is, not considered their function to recommend pro-
motions or transfers; and that there have been no instances in which
the engineers have effected or have effectively recommended changes
in the status of other employees. Accordingly we are of the opinion
that the engineers are not supervisors within our usual definition of
that term.,
The Employer further contends that, in any event, the engineers'
different employment conditions dissociate their collective bargaining
interests from those of other production and maintenance employees.
The differences urged, however, are not substantial. Nor does the
engineers' work require highly specialized technical skills ; for the
oiler capably replaces the engineer whenever the latter is ill or other-
wise ufavailable, and a fireman is promoted on the basis of seniority
alone to an engineering job whenever a vacancy exists. Upon the
foregoing and the entire record we find that the engineers may prop-
erly be included in the unit hereinafter found appropriate.'
4 Matter of Armour and Company, 68 N. L R B 425, 427.
5 Matter of The French Oil Mill Machinery Company, 65 N. L R B. 164, 166 ; Matter
of Endicott Johnson Corporation , 67 N. L R. B. 1342 , 1347; Matter of Hall Level & Manu-
facturing Works, 72 N. L. R. B. 165.
CALCASIEU PAPER COMPANY, INC. 347
Recovery Room Foremen and Pulp Cook Foremen: Although the
Intervenors admit the supervisory nature of these classifications, they
nevertheless urge the inclusion of these employees in the unit with
the rank and file employees on the ground that it is customary to do
so in the paper and pulp industry. However, the record in the present
case does not establish the existence of such a practice in the industry
so as to warrant their inclusion on that ground. We shall, accord-
ingly, exclude these admittedly supervisory employees from the unit.'
We find that all production and maintenance employees of the Em-
ployer's Elizabeth, Louisiana, mill, including truck drivers, watch-
men, the head machinist, and power plant engineers, but excluding
woods department employees, office and clerical workers, recovery
room foremen, pulp cook foremen, and all other supervisory employ-
ees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or other-
wise effect changes in the status of employees or effectively recom-
mend such action, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.7
DIRECTION OF ELECTION 8
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
purposes of collective bargaining with Calcasieu Paper Company, Inc.,
Elizabeth, Louisiana, an election by secret ballot shall be conducted
as early as possible, but not later than thirty (30) days from the date
of this Direction, under the direction and supervision of the Regional
Director for the Fifteenth Region, acting in this matter as agent for
the National Labor Relations Board, and subject to Sections 203.55
and 203.56, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regula-
tions-Series 4, among the employees in the unit found appropriate
in Section IV, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period
immediately preceding the date of this Direction, including em-
ployees who did not work during said pay-roll period because they
were ill or on vacation or temporarily laid off, and including em-
ployees in the armed forces of the United States who present them-
selves in person at the polls, but excluding those employees who have
since quit or been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or
reinstated prior to the date of the election, to determine whether they
6 Matter of The Texas company, 67 N L R B 452, 454.
'We find no merit in the Employer's objection to placing the intervening unions on the
ballot jointly, a practice which we have customarily followed There is no basis for the
contention that discord between the two unions may force the Employ ci to deal separately
with each union. For it these unions prevail in the election, the Employer may insist on
bargaining with them as the joint representative of the single unit herernbefoie found
appropriate Matter of The B, oion Paper Mill Company, Inc, 58 N L R B 283, 287, Mat-
ter of Fairmont Creamery Company, 61 N. L. R. B. 1311, 1313 , Matter of National Carbide
Corporation, 67 N L R. B. 757, 760
8 Any participant in the election herein may, upon its prompt request to and approval
thereof by the Regional Director, have its name removed from the ballot.
348 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LA$OR RELATIONS BOARD
desire to be represented by United Paperworkers of America, C. I. 0.,
or by International Brotherhood of Pulp, Sulphite and Paper Mill
Workers, AFL, and International Brotherhood of Paper Makers,
A. F. L., for the purposes of collective bargaining, or by neither.
CHAIRMAN HERZOG took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Election.