Pollock Paper Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 30, 1952

100 N.L.R.B. 1306 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

1306 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Meetings of dance instructors at all four studios are held weekly at the
Washington studio. Attendance is compulsory and three unexcused
absences are cause for dismissal. Instructors in all four studios have
the same pay rates and enjoy the same employee benefits.
Although separate records are kept for the four studios, bookkeep-
ing is centralized at the Washington studio.
We find that the three corporations and Ethel Fistere constitute a
single employer within the meaning of the Act.' In view of the geo-
graphic proximity of the four studios, the interchange of studio per-
sonnel, the centralized, control, and the general uniformity of working
conditions, we further find that a unit of employees at the four studios
is appropriate.
We find that all dance instructors, including analysts, at the Em-
ployers' Washington, D. C., Arlington and Alexandria, Virginia, and
Silver Spring, Maryland, dance instruction studios, excluding inter-
viewers, trainee instructors,6 unit heads, department heads, assistant
managers, managers, owners, and any other 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.
5. The parties agree that regular part-time instructors should be
permitted to vote. They are in disagreement, however, as to instruc-
tors in training who also regularly work part time as paid instructors.
The Petitioner would deny them, the Employers would grant them,
the right to vote. In view of the fact that these individuals regularly
work substantial hours each week as paid instructors, we find that, like
other part-time instructors, they are eligible to vote.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
e Bolton & Hay, 100 NLRB 361 , and cases cited therein.
The parties agree to the exclusion of trainee instructors who are undergoing training,
but are not paid and are not considered employees of the Employers.
POLLOCK PAPER CORPORATION and DALLAS PRINTING SPECIALISTS AND
PAPER PRODUCTS UNION NO. 525, PETITIONER
POLLOCK PAPER CORPORATION and DALLAS PRINTING SPECIALISTS AND
PAPER PRODUCTS UNION No. 525, PETITIONER. Cases Nos. 16-RC-
1095 and 16-RC-1096. September 30, 1952
Decision and Direction of Elections
Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before
Edwin Youngblood, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings
100 NLRB No. 214.
POLLOCK PAPER CORPORATION 1307
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, Styles, and Peterson].
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-
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 appropriate units :
In Case No. 16-RC-1095, the Petitioner seeks a unit of all employees
in the waxing, finishing, and shipping departments of the Employer's
Dallas, Texas, plant.- The Employer, who is engaged in the pro-
duction of various paper products, contends that the unit should be
limited to the employees in the waxing department. This contention
is based upon a history of bargaining since about 1938 between the
Employer and International Brotherhood of Bookbinders, Local Un-
ion 67, herein called the Brotherhood. Although the Brotherhood
was served with notice, it did not appear at the hearing, and there is
no contract bar contention.
All the employees sought by the Petitioner work under the ultimate
supervision of the superintendent of the waxing department. The
employees in the finishing department are engaged in finishing waxed
paper products, and those in the shipping department are engaged in
packing and shipping these products. The finishing and shipping
employees work in the same area, which is contiguous to the area oc-
cupied by the waxing department employees. There is some inter-
change between the departments, although it is infrequent, and em-
ployees are at times transferred or promoted from one to another of
these three departments.
We find that these employees have sufficient mutual employment
interests to warrant their inclusion in a single unit, particularly as
there is no union at present seeking to continue the more limited pat-
tern of bargaining for which the Employer contends.
The Petitioner would include in the unit the shipping clerk and
the senior maintenance employee, whereas the Employer would ex-
clude both as supervisors. The shipping clerk has authority to hire
and discharge employees, and has done so. The senior maintenance
employee assigns work to and responsibly directs his helper, and
exercises independent judgment in doing so. We find that both the
' So far as the .record shows , other production divisions are separately represented.
1308 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
shipping clerk and the senior maintenance employee are supervisors
within the meaning of the Act, and we shall therefore exclude them
from the unit.
The Employer would exclude two female employees whom the
Petitioner would include. One operates a machine in the waxing
department, while the other is engaged as a package wrapper in the
shipping department. They do not work full time, but they work a
few days during practically every week of the year, and have done so
for about 7 years. We shall include these employees as regular part-
time employees engaged in the same type of duties as the other
employees in the unit 2
Accordingly, we find that all the employees in the waxing, finishing,
and shipping departments at the Employer's Dallas, Texas, plant,
excluding office and clerical employees, all other employees, the
shipping clerk, the senior maintenance man, and all other 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.
The Petitioner in Case No. 16-RC-1096 is seeking a unit of four
operating engineers.3 They work under a working foreman, who has
authority to hire and discharge. The work of these operating engi-
neers consists of the installation, repair, or maintenance of air-condi-
tioning or cooling equipment, low pressure steam boilers, and other
equipment throughout the Employer's plant. There is never any
interchange of the operating engineers with other employees of the
Employer.
We find, in view of the skilled nature of their work, which is per-
formed under separate supervision throughout the plant, that these
engineers are a distinct homogeneous group who may constitute a
separate appropriate unit.
The Employer objects to this unit on the ground that the community
of interest between the engineers and the employees in the unit found
appropriate in Case No. 16-RC-1095 would preclude their separate
representation for collective-bargaining purposes should the Petitioner
be successful in both elections. This contention furnishes no basis
for refusing to establish these engineers in an appropriate unit. The
Employer also contends that a union which represents production
employees cannot appropriately represent the operating engineers.
As the Petitioner is a labor organization willing to represent the
employees in an appropriate unit, it may do so provided only that
the employees designate it as their bargaining agent in the election
herein directed 4
2 Hannaford Bros Go, 78 NLRB 869.
8 So far as the record shows , other maintenance employees are separately represented-
4 Consolidated Western Steel Corporation, 93 NLRB 1199.
SOUTH PORTO RICO SUGAR CO. 1309
Accordingly, we find that all operating engineers at the Employer's
Dallas, Texas, plant, excluding office and clerical employees, all other
employees, the working foreman, and all other 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.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication in this
volume.]
SOUTH PORTO Rico SUGAR CO ., D/B/A CENTRAL GUANICA and SINDICATO
DE TRABAJADORES DE LA INDUS 'rRIA AZUCARERA DE GUANICA, CGT-
001, PETITIONER and SINDICATO DE TRABAJADORES DE LA •INDUSTRIA
AZUCARERA DE PUERTO RICO , AFFILIATED TO UPWA-CIO and AMAL-
GAMATED TRADE UNIONS COUNCIL, ILA-AFL and CONFEDERACION
GENERAL DE TRABAJADORES DE PUERTO Rico , PRESIDED BY THOMAS
MENDEZ MEJIAS, ALSO KNOWN AS ORGANIZACION OBRERA INSULAR.
Case No. f24-RC--37'1. September 30, 1952
Decision and Direction of Election
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before Robert J. Can-
nella, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hear-
ing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.,
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members
Styles and Peterson].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the National Labor Relations Act.
2. The labor organizations named below claim to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
3. The Petitioner, the presently recognized bargaining representa-
tive of employees of the Employer, seeks to be certified as their repre-
sentative for the year 1953. The Employer and the Confederation
contend that the current contract between the Employer and the
Petitioner constitutes a bar to this proceeding . The other labor or-
ganizations involved herein do not assert that the contract is a bar.
1 The hearing officer permtted Confederaciion General de Trabajadores do Puerto Rico,
presided by Thomas Mendez Mejias, also known as Organization Obrera Insular, herein-
after called the Confederacion, with which the petitioning local union is affiliated, to
intervene in this proceeding . Amalgamated Trade Unions Council, ILA-AFL, excepted.
We overrule the exception. A representative of the Confederacion , among others, signed
the current contract between the Petitioner and the Employer , on which the Confedera-
cion's intervention was predicated . We find such signature sufficient to show the Con-
federacion 's interest in this proceeding . Electric Products Company, 89 NLRB 218.
100 NLRB No. 205.