Peter J. Schweitzer, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 5, 1944

56 N.L.R.B. 1213 (N.L.R.B. 1944)

In the Matter of PETER J. SCHWEITZER, INC., and AMERICAN FEDER'-
TION OF LABOR
Case No. 4-R-1390.-Decided June 5,1944
Proskauer, Rose, Goetz & Mendelsohn, by Mr. Arthur E. Reyman"
and Mr. Roy Plaut, of New York City, for the Company.
Mr. Samuel R. Isard, of Newark, N. J., for the Union.
Mr. Joseph E. Gubbins, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION'
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon petition duly filed by American Federation of Labor, herein
called the- Union, alleging that a question affecting commerce had
arisen concerning the representation of employees of Peter J. Schweit-
zer, Inc., Spotswood, New Jersey, herein called the Company, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board provided for an appropriate hearing
upon due, notice before Eugene M. Purver, Trial Examiner, Said hear-
ing was held at New Brunswick, New Jersey, on April 28, 1944. The
Company and the Union appeared, participated, and were afforded
full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses,
and to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues. At the hearing,
the Company moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that the
unit sought by the Union was inappropriate., ' For reasons appearing
hereinafter, the motion is hereby denied. The Trial Examiner's rul-
ings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby
affirmed. All parties were afforded an opportunity to file briefs with
the Board.
^ The Company also moved the dismissal of the petition because of an alleged "jurisdic.
tional defect" which arose as a result of the Union' s application to amend the formal papers
in the proceeding by adding "International Brotherhood of Paper workers " to the name
However, the Union withdrew its application and, accordingly , we find it unnecessary to
rule on the Company' s motion.
56N L R B , No. 217.
587 7 84-45--vol 56-78 1213
1214 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes, the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Peter J. Schweitzer, Inc., a New York corporation, operates plants at
Elizabeth and Spotswood, New Jersey, where it is engaged in the busi-
ness of manufacturing paper products. During-the past year, the
Company purchased raw materials valued in excess of $100,000, of
which 90'percent was shipped to its New Jersey plants from points
outside the State of New Jersey. During the same period, the Com-
pany manufactured products valued in excess of $100,000; approxi-
mately 90 percent of which was shipped from said plants to points out-
side the State of New Jersey. '
The Company admits that it is engaged in- commerce within the
meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
'American Federation of Labor is a labor organization admitting
to'membership employees of the Company.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Company refuses to recognize the Union as the bargaining
representative of- certain of its employees, claiming that the unit
sought by the Union is inappropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining.
A statement made by the Trial Examiner,on the record indicates
that the Union represents, a substantial number of employees' in the
unit hereinafter found to be appropriate.2
We find that a question affecting commerce his arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Company, within the meaning
of Section 9 (c)' and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Union seeks a unit confined to the production and maintenance
employees of the Company's Spotswood plant, including' receiving
clerks, stockroom clerks, and shipping clerks, but excluding executives,
supervisory personnel, clerical and other office employees, chief -con-
trol chemists, research chemists, students, cooks, and chauffeurs.. How=
2 The Trial Examiner stated on the record that the Union submitted 90 authorization
cards bearing names of persons whose names are listed on a current pay roll of the Com-
pany ; there are approximately 183 employees in the unit alleged by the Union to be
appropriate
PETER - J. SCHWEITZER , -INC. 1215
ever, the Company contends that a unit limited- to the employees of
its Spotswood plant is inappropriate and it urges that the appropri-
ate unit is one comprised of its employees at both its Spotswood and
Elizabeth plants. There is also a dispute between the parties with
respect to watchmen. The Union would include them, whereas the
Company urges their exclusion on the ground that they are super-
visory and confidential employees:
At its Elizabeth plant the Company manufactures cigarette, car-
bon, and condenser paper, while at- its Spotswood plant it manufac-
tures only cigarette paper. Each of the plants constitutes a complete
manufacturing unit performing all necessary manufacturing opera-
tions from the receipt of, the raw materials to the shipment of the
finished products. The plants are approximately 28 miles apart and,
in general, each depends-on the area immediately adjacent to it for
its personnel. Although some clerical work for the Spotswood plant
is done at the Elizabeth plant, each has its own clerical force, prepares
and handles its own pay roll, and has its own employment office. In
general, there is no interchange of production employees, but' occa-
sionally maintenace employees of one plant do work at the other.
In support of its position, the Company directs attention to a prior
decision of the Board which involved the same parties and the same
broad issue regarding the appropriate unit, that is, whether' a com-
pany-wide or single plant unit is appropriate .3 In that case it was
revealed that the Union, which sought a unit of Elizabeth plant em-
ployees, at, that time had made no attempt to organize the, employees
of the Spotswood plant. The Board stated that "although a two-
plant unit would not be inappropriate, if organization had extended
to both plants, the. state of the employees' self-organization indicates
the present propriety of a imit limited to employees at the Elizabeth
plant." From this statement the Company argues that since it is now
apparent that self-organization lias been extended to the two plants,
it follows that, the appropriate unit in the instant proceeding should
be comprised of employees of both;
The Union lost the election conducted pursuant to our Direction of
Election in the previous proceeding among the employees of the
Elizabeth plant. Thereafter, the Union filed objections to the elec-
tion and a charge, both of which alleged that the Company had
engaged in unfair labor practices which had affected the' election.
The Board then issued an order directing that a hearing be held on
the objections and that the representation proceeding be consolidated
With the unfair labor practice, proceeding instituted by the filing of
the charge. The consolidated hearing disclosed, and the Board
found, that the Company had engaged in, unfair labor practices.
s Hatter of Pete, J Schweitzer, tmc, 51 N L R P 44
1216 DECISIONS , OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Consequently, the Board ordered, inter alia, that,the election be- set
aside:4 At present, the matter is pending before the United States
Court!,of Appeals for,, the ,District of Columbia upon petitions: for
review and enforcement.
By its unfair labor practices the Company impaired the !self-
organization of its Elizabeth plant' employees and thus it can be
fairly stated that at present the extent of effective organization among
its employees is restricted in scope to those engaged at its Spotswood
plant. It is these employees whom the Union now seeks to represent.
Even if the Company were immediately' to comply with the order
issued by the Board in the unfair labor practice proceeding, it. is
nevertheless clear that the lapse of a considerable period would' be
required in, order to dissipate the effects of the unfair labor practices
and to afford the Elizabeth plant employees an opportunity to reach
the stage of self-organization they had attained at the time of the
previous representation proceeding: To determine that a unit coin-
prised of the employees .at the Spotswood plant is- inappropriate is
to deprive such employees, for that period,.of the right to collective
bargaining. In view of these facts, we are of the opinion that at
this time, a unit composed solely of the employees of the Company's
Spotswood plant is appropriate- for the purposes, of collective
bargaining.
The record, shows that the Company, employs three watchmen who
are neither armed, uniformed, nor rhilitarized. They perform their
duties in a small building located at'the plant's-,entrance and they
are under the direct supervision of the plant manager. Their duties
consist of observing all persons and vehicles entering and' leaving the
plant and the employees' use of time clocks, and reporting irregular=ities-
and infractions of the Company's rules. The Company con-
tends that they have disciplinary authority and that the reports they
make to the plant manager are confidential in nature. - However, the
extent of their disciplinary authority is confined to maintaining order
in the plant and their reports consist solely of listing incidents of
improprieties committed by employees. We are of the opinion that
the watchmen do not possess the degree of disciplinary authority
usually vested in supervisory employees. Moreover, their alleged con-
fidential reports have no bearing on the Company's labor policy. We
shall, therefore, include them in the unit.,' ' ,
' We find that all production and maintenance employees of the Com-
pany's Spotswood plant, including receiving clerks, stockroom.clerks,
shipping clerks; and watchmen, lint excluding clerical and other office
6 Matter of Peter J Schwetitzer, Inc , 54 N L. R. B 813.
5 Matter of Pittsburgh Lainestone Corporation , 53 N. L. R. B. 810.
PETER J. SCHWEITZER , INC. - 1217
employees, chief control chemists, -research chemists, students, cooks,
chitiuffeurs, executives and all other supervisory employees with au-
thority to hire, promote,' discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect'
changes in the status of employees, or effectively recommend such
action,: eonstitute R unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining within .the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
V. THE DETERAIINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
The- Company ;, urges that the, Board permit absentee voting by
employees in'the -armed forces and the Union voices no objection to
this request . Since, as we fully stated in Matter of Mine Safety
Appliances Co., etc.,G it is administratively impracticable to provide'
for mail balloting of employees on military leave who are unable to
appear at the polls and a safeguard will be established for their in-
terests, only those employees in the armed forces of the United States
who present themselves in 'person at the polls will be permitted to
vote.
We shall directf4at'_ the gtiestion .:concerning representation 'whiclr
has arisen be resolved by an election by secret ballot among the em-
ployees in the appropriate unit who . were employed during the pay-
roll period immediately preceding the date of our Direction of Elec-
tion herein , subject to the limitations and additions set forth therein.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National
Labor Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Rela-
tions - Act, and pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of National Labor
Relations Board Rules ,and-Regulations-Series 3,-it is-hereby
DUUECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain repre-
sentatives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Peter J.
Schweitzer , Inc., Spotswood , New Jersey , 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 super-
vision of the Regional Director for the Fourth Region, acting in this
matter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject
to Article III, Sections 10 and 11, of said Rules and Regulations,
'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 , employees who did
not-work during saidpay-roll period-because they were ill or on vaca-
655N.L R B 1190
1218 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR' RELATIONS BOARD
tion or temporarily laid off, and- including employees in the armed
forces of the United States who present themselves in person at the
polls, but excluding any 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 or not they desire to be represented by
the American Federation' of Labor for the purposes of collective
bargaining.
CHAIRMAN MILUs took no ' part in the consideration of the' above
Decision and Direction of'Election.