Crossett Lumber Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 11, 1952

98 N.L.R.B. 542 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

542 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
their fellow crew members. Thus, it would appear that they do not
responsibly direct employees, nor do they possess any other indicia of
supervisory status. Accordingly, we find that they are not super-
visors within the meaning of the Act and shall include them in the
unit.
Staking chief : Symonds is classified by the Employer as staking
chief. , With the aid of one or two employees, he determines and marks
the locality of the poles to be erected for the new lines. The record
does not indicate that he has the authority effectively to recommend
the discharge, or the hiring of employees, nor does it indicate that he
responsibly directs the employees with whom he works. Although
he is responsible for getting the job tickets and determining the loca-
tion of new poles to be erected, the record reveals that he receives daily
instructions on the subject from the line superintendent. Further-
more, not only has he never been informed that he has any super-
visory authority, but the improbability that he would receive such
authority is indicated by the fact that he has less experience than one
of the men working with him. Accordingly, we believe that Symonds,
is not a supervisor within the meaning of the Act and, shall, therefore,
include him in the unit.
We find that all construction, maintenance, and material handler
employees of the Employer at its Ironton, Lutesville, Ellington, and
Fredricktown, Missouri, branches, including Thompson, Heitman,
England, Cog,7 Graham, Price, Keith, Szabo, Arnold, and Symonds,
but excluding guards and supervisors within the meaning of the Act,
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
4 The parties stipulated that Cox was not a supervisor within the meaning of the Act.
CROSSETT PAPER MILLS , DIVISION OF CROSSETT LUMBER COMPANY and
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS , AFL, PETITIONER.
Case No. 15-RC-614. March 11, 1952
Decision and Direction of Elections
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Charles A. Kyle, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
98 NLRB No. 87.
CROSSETT PAPER MILLS 543
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 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 employees
of the Employer.
3. The Employer and International Brotherhood of Paper Makers,
Locals 369 and 369-A, AFL, herein jointly called the Intervenor,
contend that a current collective bargaining contract between the
Intervenor and the Employer constitutes a bar to the instant petition.
The Petitioner contends that the contract is not a bar because it was
signed after the Employer had received notice of the Petitioner's
claim for representation.
Since 1938 the Intervenor' has been in contractual relationship
with the Employer with respect to the Employer's employees on a
plant-wide unit basis. The most recent contract was executed by the
parties on July 30, 1950, effective July 1, 1950, for a period of 1 year
until June 30, 1951, and from year to year thereafter unless terminated
in accordance with its terms. The 1950 contract also provided that
if either party desired to change any of its provisions, it had to give
the other party written notice thereof at least 60 days in advance of
any anniversary date.
On April 23, 1951, Local 369 notified the Employer of its desire to
reopen the 1950 agreement. On July 5, 1951, both Local 369 and
Local 369-A notified the Employer that due to the unsettled conditions
in the paper industry they desired to extend the 1950 agreement, then
in effect, to August 15, 1951, with the understanding that any changes
would be retroactive to July 1, 1951. The Employer did not reply in
writing to this letter but states that it extended the then existing
contract "verbally." The parties did not meet until September 19,
1951. They explain that 'the delay in negotiations was occasioned
by the fact that the regulations of the Wage Stabilization Board-
specifically, those which affected wage increases-were in "a-state
of flux."
On September 19 and 20, 1951, the parties engaged in bargaining
conferences, and on the following morning, the Employer, with the
assistance of Local 369's president, prepared a memorandum of what
had transpired at the bargaining conferences. This memorandum was
not signed by the parties, nor does it appear from the record that the
1 Until several years ago , International Brotherhood of Paper Makers , AFL, and its
Local 369 , negotiated and executed these contracts; thereafter Local 369-A joined them
In the negotiations and contracts.
544 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Employer signed any accompanying document. Thereafter, Local
369 held a special meeting on September 21, 1951, at which the memo-
randum was approved; the minutes of the special meeting were
adopted at a regular meeting of Local 369 on September 27, 1951.
On September 28, 1951, Local 369-A likewise approved the memo-
randum of agreement. On September 29, 1951, Local 369 wrote the
Employer advising it of its approval. On September 23, 1951, the
Employer put into effect all the provisions of the memorandum of
agreement except certain wage items which had to be approved by
the Wage Stabilization Board. On October 10, 1951, the parties
affixed their signatures to a formal agreement which embodied sub-
stantially all of the terms of the earlier memorandum 2
In the meantime , however, the Petitioner, on October 5, 1951, noti-
fied the Employer in writing that it sought to represent the Employer's
maintenance and repair department. On October 15, 1951, the Peti-
tioner followed its claim of October 5 by the filing of the instant
petition.
The Employer and the intervenor contend that the contract, al-
though it was not signed until October 10, 1951, was nonetheless
final and binding on September 21, 1951, and therefore a bar to a
present determination of representatives because before October 5,
1951, the date of the Petitioner's written claim, (1) the parties had
reduced their understanding to writing; (2) the Intervenor had given
the Employer formal notification of its approval; and (3) the Em-
ployer, except for relatively minor matters, had actually put the
agreement into effect. The Employer and Intervenor also call atten-
tion to a long-standing practice of the parties in which prior agree-
ments had been put into effect without waiting for the formality of
signatures.
However, the Board has consistently held that a collective bargain-
ing agreement which has not been reduced to writing and signed by
the contracting parties before the receipt of a valid, rival claim to
representation is not a bar to a petition filed within 10 days of the
receipt of the claim.3 The Board has applied this rule to instances
2 The delay from September 21, 1951, to October 10, 1951 , in preparing and signing the
agreement in final form is attributed by the parties principally to the fact that one of the
Intervenor 's representatives , Lambert , was busy elsewhere and could not be in Crossett
any earlier.
3 Safeway Stores , Inc., 90 NLRB No. 295 ; The New Haves Pulp & Board Company,
83 NLRB 268; Association of Motion Picture Producers , Inc, 87 NLRB 657; Bicor, Inc.,
46 NLRB 1035.
The Intervenor relies on Bemis Bro. Bag Co, 97 NLRB 1. In that case , however, the
parties had affixed their initials to an earlier draft , and because the Board agreed that
"signatures may be made to a contract in abbreviated form, as by the use of initials," held
that it constituted a bar. Such was not the case here , however, as it clearly appears that
the memorndum of agreement was not signed in any form , abbreviated or otherwise.
CROSSETT PAPER MILLS 545
where the employees had already approved the agreement and the
Employer had already put its terms into effect'
Accordingly, we find that the 1951 agreement is not a bar to the
present proceeding.5
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 appropriate unit :
The Petitioner in its original petition sought a unit consisting of
all employees in the Employer's maintenance and repair department.
At the hearing, the Petitioner made an alternative request for 13 or
14 separate units in the event the Board rejects the unit described
in the petition. The Employer and Intervenor contend that only a
plant-wide unit is appropriate. The Intervenor contends further-
that the maintenance department unit originally petitioned for is
inappropriate, under Board decisions, in view of the plant-wide bar-
gaining history since 1938, and that the Petitioner's alternative re-
quest for separate units, which it made toward the end of the hearing,
contravenes the Board's established procedure in representation
proceedings in that it amounted, in substance, "to the filing of 14 new
petitions."
Crossett Paper Mills is engaged in the manufacture of kraft paper.
It is operated on a 7-day basis, 24 hours a day, with production em-
ployees working on rotating shifts and maintenance employees, for
the most part, on straight day work, 5 days a week. The plant is
divided into five departments : pulp, paper, power, maintenance, and
technical services. Each department is headed by a superintendent
who reports to the production manager of the plant; the latter reports
to the division manager. The maintenance department is headed by
a master mechanic, who has under him an assistant master mechanic;
they supervise only employees in the maintenance department.
Included in the maintenance department are electricians, electric
motor oilers, and electrician helpers; 6 instrumentmen and helpers;
machinists and helpers; millwrights and helpers, including paper
and pulp mill operating millwrights and paper and pulp mill oilers;
welders; painters, and helpers; pipefitters and helpers; carpenters and
helpers; blacksmiths and helpers; brick masons and insulators and
their helpers; a spare gang; crane operators and crane operator oilers;
tool checker; and a gardener and utility man.
* National Chair Company, 74 NLRB 1014.
5 The parties do not contend that the 1950 agreement constituted a bar. Moreover, it is
clear from the facts that this agreement was not in effect on October 5, 1951.
9 Electricians , electric motor oilers, and electrician helpers are not listed in the contract
as being part of the maintenance department. However, the testimony at the hearing
established that they are in that department
546 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Electricians. electric motor oilers, and helpers are headquartered at
an electricians' shop but work throughout the plant performing main-
tenance and construction work. All are supervised by chief elec-
tricians and by electricians' foremen. The electric motor oilers and
helpers work with the electricians, and are regularly assigned with
them; there is an established line of progression from helper to oiler
to electrician. Instrumentmen repair and dismantle the various auto-
matic steam, water, gas, and air controls, and are under the separate
supervision of an instrument foreman. There are machinists and
machinists' helpers who perform machinist and shop work, are head-
quartered in a machine shop, and are supervised by a machine shop
foreman. They are required to do precision work and must have their
own precision tools. The master mechanic testified that it takes about
4 years to become a first-class machinist. The blacksmiths and their
helpers work out of a blacksmiths' shop and are under the supervision
of the general labor foreman. They do principally thin sheet work.
The parties stipulated that the blacksmiths are skilled craftsmen.
With respect to the millwrights, welders, pipefitters, painters, car-
penters, and brick masons, the parties, in lieu of evidence detailing
their duties and other related working conditions, similarly stipulated
those classifications consist of skilled craftsmen. There was no dis-
pute that the instrumentmen and electricians' and machinists' groups,
concerning which specific testimony was given, likewise consist of
skilled craftsmen. The parties also agreed employees in all the above
classifications earning the top rate are generally considered first-class
journeymen of their particular crafts.
In addition to these groups, the maintenance department also in-
cludes a "spare gang," under a foreman' and leadmen, which is, in
effect, a gang of extra helpers for all crafts. These employees assist
the various crafts, when necessary. The normal progression is from
the spare gang to helper in a particular craft, and eventually to a first-
class craftsman. They also perform skilled work such as heavy rig-
ging and handle steel or evaporator tubing, and, when so engaged, are
under a spare gang leadman and receive a higher rate of pay, or cross-
rate, equal to that of machinists or millwrights. According to the
current contract, the time a spare gang employee works as a helper to
a craft is credited toward his advancement as helper in that craft.
There is also a classification of crane operators who work at various
places in the plant, and are listed in the contract as being in the main-
tenance department. The record shows that crane operators work at
times in the woodyard under the jurisdiction of the woody and foreman
who is not under the maintenance department; there are cranemen who
operate electric cranes in the plant and work with the spare gang and
CROSSETT PAPER MILLS 5.47
take orders from the spare gang leadmen or millwright. Crane
operators also run cranes in the paper machine room at which time
they work with the machine tender who checks to see if the work is
being done properly. However, the master mechanic, head of the
maintenance department, testified that the crane operators remain on
the payroll in his department, and are subject to his ultimate super-
vision as to discharge, termination, or reprimand. The line of pro-
gression is from spare gang to crane oiler, and from crane oiler to crane
operator. It takes about 18 months to qualify as a first-class crane
operator.
There are also several miscellaneous classifications in the main-
tenance department: A tool checker who is under the general labor
foreman, exercises no craft skills, and does not progress to a craft
status; and a gardener and utility man who is directly under the
master mechanic, does odd jobs requiring no special skills, and is sim-
ilarly not in the line of craft progression. In the storeroom are truck
drivers, issue clerks, salvage men and salvage mechanics who,
unlike the others, are supervised by the storekeeper and purchasing
agent, and not by the master mechanic; they perform work that
-requires little or no skill or craft knowledge.
It is clear from the foregoing that the maintenance department
-unit, as originally sought by the Petitioner, is primarily a multicraft
unit, consisting of skilled craftsmen, and including also semiskilled
and unskilled employees. Although the Board has in the past per-
mitted the formation of similar units in the absence of a prior collec-
tive bargaining history,7 it has been Board policy to refuse to establish
such multicraft units in the face of a substantial history of collective
bargaining on a plant-wide basis." As there has been such bargaining
history since 1938 in the instant case, we are of the opinion that the
maintenance department unit originally described in the petition is
inappropriate.
However, the Petitioner, before the close of the hearing in this case,
stated as its alternative request that the Board direct an election in
13 or 14 separate units. The Intervenor contends that to entertain
such request at this time would be contrary to established Board
procedure. We do not agree. We believe it is in the interest of
.sound administration of the Act to avoid a multiplicity of proceed-
ings, and, as the facts with respect to the separate, units alternatively
sought by the Petitioner are already before us, and an adequate.
record established in the hearing already held,8 it would promote
'Armstrong Cork Company, 80 NLRB 1328.,
8 United States Time Corporation , 86 NLRB 724, 728.
9 It is not contended that the Intervenor was denied an opportunity to litigate any issues
raised by the amendment of'the petition . See Wm. F. Crome & Co, 80 NLRB 986.
548 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,
the policies of the Act to consider such request on the merits, and
make a determination accordingly 10
We are administratively advised that the Petitioner has failed to
make an adequate showing in three of the separate units sought, i. e.,
brick masons, truck drivers and other miscellaneous maintenance
department and storeroom categories, and powerhouse employees.
Accordingly, we shall, apart from any other considerations, reject the
Petitioner's requests for separate units for those groups of employees,
and dismiss the petition as to those groups.
We shall now consider on the merits the Petitioner's alternative
request for separate units based upon craft considerations.
The record shows that although on occasion various crafts work
with several of the production workers, as on "clean-out" and other
operations, and machine operators occasionally assist them in main-
tenance work on production machinery, the various craft groups
remain under the supervision of their own craft foremen and under
the ultimate supervision of the master mechanic. A seniority system
is in effect for the craft employees under consideration by which, if
one leaves his particular craft for another, he is required to begin at
the bottom of the seniority list of the new craft. If, at times, craft
lines are crossed, grievances are filed and time paid to members of the
craft who were not assigned work properly under their jurisdiction.
With respect to the contention that the integrated nature of the opera-
tions involved here serve to prevent the establishment of separate
craft groups, the Board has rejected a similar contention with respect
to papermaking operations like the ones in the present case." More-
over, on the basis of the record in this case, we find that the main-
tenance functions are not so closely identified with routine, repeti-
tive production functions or that such a degree of integration exists
that it has tended "to develop specialists rather than workmen in the
craft tradition." 12 Accordingly, we find, under the particular facts
of this case, that severance along craft lines may properly be per-
mitted in accordance with established Board precedent.
It is clear from the facts set forth above, and the record as a whole,
that the electricians, instrumentmen, painters, pipefitters, carpenters,
10 Nor can it be contended that the amended petition should be regarded as a new petition
and barred by the previously executed contract . See The Rauland Corporation, 97 NLRB
1333 ; Carbide and Carbon Chemicals Corporation , 88 NLRB 437, footnote 8.
U International Paper Company, Southern Kraft Division, 94 NLRB 483
The Intervenor in its brief cites 0. B. Andrews Company, 96 NLRB 150 and International
Paper Company, Tonawanda Plant, 97 NLRB 764 Neither case, however , is apposite
here. In 0. B . Andrews Company, the hoard found that the employees sought to be
severed were "Jacks-of-all -trades" who were not restricted to their own craft. In Inter-
national Paper Company , Tonawanda Plant, the Board held that a unit limited to the
employees at one plant could not be severed from a unit which had been bargained for
Dn a multiemployer basis.
. International Paper Company, Southern Kraft Division , supra.
CROSSETT PAPER MILLS 549
millwrights, welders, machinists, and blacksmiths, respectively, pos-
sess the traditional skills of their craft, and are entitled to separate
representation, if they so desire.13
We shall now turn to the remaining groups for which the Petitioner
has made a sufficient showing:
Crane operators and crane oilers: Although, as already indicated,
the crane operators and oilers are part of the maintenance department
and under the ultimate supervision of the master mechanic, and require
some skill to qualify as first-class operators in their field, the record in
this case does not establish that they are such a skilled or homogeneous
group as to warrant a departure from the Boards determinations
in the past where, under similar circumstances and substantially simi-
lar duties, it has held that such employees are not craftsmen.14 We
shall therefore dismiss the petition as to them.
Spare gang: The record establishes that this is a group of
employees with little or no skill who constitute a "pool" for all of the
crafts in the maintenance department and who, at times, under a
leadman of their own, do steel or rigging work. However, it does
not appear that they work regularly with any particular craft or
that they exercise the degree of skill which the Board has considered
sufficient to sever on a craft basis. We shall therefore dismiss the
petition as to them.
Questions have also arisen with respect to the placement of motor
oilers and paper and pulp mill oilers. As the electric motor oiler is
one classification above the electricians' helper and eventually pro-
gresses to become a journeyman electrician, we are of the opinion that
the electricians' motor oiler may properly be included in the electri-
cians' voting group. Similarly, we believe that the pulp and paper
mill oilers who work regularly with the operating millwrights, and
progress from oiler to millwright in acquiring craft status, appro-
priately belong in the millwrights' voting group.
The petitioner would either include the welders in the millwrights'
voting group or in a separate voting group. The welders have no
welder foreman but work under the millwright foreman. They do
only welding work. As it does not appear from the record that the
welders are regularly assigned to, and work exclusively with, the mill-
wrights, we shall place them in a separate voting group.15
In accordance with the above determination's, we shall direct sepa-
rate elections among the following groups of employees at the
13 See Merck & Co., Inc., 88 NLRB 975.
14 Southern Paperboard Corporation, 80 NLRB 1456.
15 See International Paper Company (Southern Kraft Dlvisi on), 96 NLRB 295
( Supplemental Decision and Order).
998666-vol . 98-53-36
550 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Employer's Crossett , Arkansas, plant, excluding therefrom guards
and supervisors :
1. All instrumentmen.
2. All electricians , electrician motor oilers , and electricians ' helpers.
3. All millwrights , including pulp and paper operating millwrights,
paper and pulp mill oilers, and millwrights ' helpers.
4. All welders and welders ' helpers.
5. All painters and painters ' helpers.
6. All pipefitters and pipefitters ' helpers.
7. All carpenters and carpenters ' helpers.
8. All blacksmiths and blacksmiths ' helpers.
9. All machinists and machinists ' helpers.
If a majority of the employees in any of the voting groups described
in paragraph numbered 4 indicate , by voting for the Petitioner, their
desire to be represented in a separate unit, the Board finds such unit
to be appropriate , and the Regional Director conducting the elections
directed herein is instructed to issue a certification of representatives
to the Petitioner for each such unit . If the majority of the employees
in any of the voting groups vote for the Intervenor , they will be taken
to have indicated their desire to continue to be included in the existing
production and maintenance unit, and the Regional Director shall
issue a certificate of results of elections to that effect.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication in this
volume.]
DOLORES, INC. and TEXTILE WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO and UNITED
PAPERWORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO and DOLORES ASSOCIATED EM-
PLOYEES. Case No. 32-CA-16/. March 12, 1952
Decision and Order
On August 8, 1951, Trial Examiner John H. Eadie issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
lespondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Inter-
mediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the General Counsel
and the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and
supporting briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this proceeding to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and
Members Houston and Murdock].
98 NLRB No. 94.