San-Nap-Pak Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 30, 1947

73 N.L.R.B. 719 (N.L.R.B. 1947)

In the Matter of SAN-NAP-PAK Co., EMPLOYER and LOCAL #602,
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, A. F. or L.,
PETITIONER
Case No. 1-R--3517.-Decided April 30, 1947
Mr. William Tothill, of Wheelwright, Mass., for the Employer.
Mr. Richard H. Nolan, of New York City, and Mr. Charles G.
Pearden, of Springfield, Mass., for the Petitioner.
Mr. J. Griffin McKiernan, of Albany, N. Y., and Mr. Edward M.
Moore, of Holyoke, Mass., for the Intervenor.
Mr. Stanley R. Strauss , of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Worcester,
Massachusetts, on February 26, 1947, before Robert E. Greene, hearing
officer. The Intervenor moved to dismiss the petition on the ground
that the proceeding involves a jurisdictional dispute between two
affiliates of the American Federation of Labor. The hearing officer
referred this motion to the Board. Since it appears that the dispute
cannot be resolved effectively without resort to the administrative
processes of the Board, the motion is 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
San-Nap-Pak Co., a New York corporation with its principal office
in New York City, operates plants in Rockland, Delaware; Mount
Tom, Massachusetts; and Wheelwright, Massachusetts. The Wheel-
wright plant, where the Employer is engaged in the manufacture of
sanitary napkins and face tissues, is the only plant involved in these
proceedings. The Employer each day uses approximately 100 tons of
73 N. L. R. B., No 137.
719
739926-47-vol 73-47
720 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
sulphite pulp in its Wheelwright plant, of which approximately 50
percent is brought from outside Massachusetts. During the past
6-month period, the Employer shipped to points outside Massachusetts
80 percent of the products finished at the Wheelwright plant, the value
of which exceeded $100,000.
The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The Petitioner and International Brotherhood of Paper Makers,
Local 510, A. F. of L., herein called the Intervenor, are labor organi-
zations affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, claiming
to represent employees of the Employer.
III. THE QIIESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
On September 15, 1945, the Employer and the Intervenor entered
into an exclusive bargaining agreement for employees in the Em-
ployer's Wheelwright plant.' Employees in the job classifications
involved in this proceeding were included within the scope of the
contract. The agreement was effective for 1 year, and contained
a provision for automatic renewal from year to year unless notice of
termination or desire to modify its provisions was given by either
party 30 days prior to its expiration date. On August 1, 1946, the
Intervenor requested modification of the contract, and on and after
August 12, 1946, the Employer and the Intervenor met on various
occasions to discuss the proposed changes.
In Novembeis 1946, the Petitioner requested the Employer to recog-
nize it as the bargaining representative of employees in the Employer's
Wheelwright powerhouse. The Employer refused, and on December
20, 1946, the Petitioner filed the instant petition. Subsequently, on
February 21, 1947, the Employer and the Intervenor signed a new
contract, incorporating therein certain changes agreed upon during
their negotiations. The new contract was effective for 1 year, com-
mencing September 15, 1946.
The Employer contends that its contractual relations with the In-
tervenor constitutes a bar to the instant proceeding. The notice given
by the Intervenor on August 12, 1946, of a desire to effect modifi-
cations in the 1945 contract, and the negotiations between the Em-
ployer and the Intervenor subsequent thereto, prevented the auto-
'The Inteivenor herein originally filed a petition with the Regional Director, in Case
No 1-R-2511, on May 28, 1945 The Employer thereupon agreed to a consent election.
The petition was wrthdcawn, however, on June 18, 1945, and the election was not held.
The September 1945 contract followed. The Petitioner heiem was not a party to the
earlier proceeding.
SAN-NAP-PAK CO. 721
matic renewal of their 1945 contract. Accordingly, that contract can-
not operate as a bar to the present determination of representatives.'
Since the agreement executed on February 31, 1946, was signed after
the Employer had received notice of the Petitioner's representation
claim, and after the petition herein had been filed, the agreement can-
not operate as a bar to this proceeding.' We find, therefore, that the
contractual relations between the Employer and the Intervenor con-
stitute no bar to a present determination of representatives.
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Employer, within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT; THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
The Petitioner seeks a unit of powerhouse employees at the Em-
ployer's Wheelwright plant. The Intervenor contends that a sep-
arate unit for these employees is inappropriate because the power-
house employees in the past have been represented as a part of a
plant-wide unit. The Employer takes no position on this issue.
The powerhouse is a building separated from, but joined by a
passageway to, the building which houses the remainder of the
Wheelwright plant. It is a source of power not only for the Em-
ployer's operations, but also for the fire pump which serves the en-
tire town of Wheelwright. Four firemen, two engineers, and a chief
engineer comprise all the personnel in the powerhouse. The chief
engineer has complete charge of the power plant, the others work-
ing there falling within his control and direction. The engineers
are "stationary engineers," who operate boilers and develop steam.
Both the firemen and the engineers are licensed by the State of
Massachusetts. Like other employees in the plant, the powerhouse
employees, with the exception of the chief engineer, work on a ro-
tating shift basis. All of them, including the chief engineer, re-
ceive an hourly wage. Since their duties compel their presence in
the powerhouse throughout their working periods, powerhouse em-
ployees do not come into direct contact with employees engaged in
manufacturing operations. There is no interchange of employees
between the power plant and other departments of the Employer.
It appears, therefore, that the powerhouse employees form a func-
tionally coherent and homogeneous group, and that their establish-
ment as a separate bargaining unit is feasible.4
s Matter of The William Koehl Company, 65 N L. R. B 190.
Matter of American Norit Company , Inc, 66 N. L. R . B. 1308, and cases cited therein.
See Matter of Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company of Kansas, Inc., 65 N. L. R . B. 532 ;
Matter of Kearney & Treckei Corporation , 62 N. L R . B 1174.
722 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
As indicated above, the powerhouse employees have previously
been included within the provisions of plant-wide bargaining agree-
ments. The propriety of their inclusion, however, has never been
in issue before the Board,5 and on this record we do not regard such
inclusion as determinative.6 Under all the circumstances, we are of
the opinion that the powerhouse employees may either constitute a
separate bargaining unit or be included within the plant-wide unit.
Accordingly, we will defer our determination of the appropriate
unit pending the results of the election which we shall hereinafter
direct.
The Petitioner would include the chief engineer in the unit,
whereas the Employer and the Intervenor would exclude him on the
-ground that he is a supervisory employee. He has heretofore been
included in the plant-wide bargaining agreements. The evidence,
however, shows that the chief engineer has the power to make effec-
tive recommendations regarding the hire and discharge of other
powerhouse employees, and is a supervisory employee within the
Board's customary definition of that term.7 Under the circum-
stances, in spite of his prior inclusion in the plant-wide unit, we
shall, in accordance with our usual practice, exclude the chief en-
gineer from the voting group.
We shall direct that the., question concerning representation which
has arisen be resolved by an election by secret ballot among the
engineers and firemen in the Employer's Wheelwright powerhouse,
excluding the chief engineer, and subject to the limitations and addi-
tions set forth in the Direction.
In the event that the engineers and firemen select the Petitioner as
their collective bargaining representative, they will be taken to have
indicated a desire to constitute a separate appropriate unit. If, how-
ever, they select the Intervenor as their collective bargaining repre-
sentative, they will be taken to have indicated a desire to be bargained
for as part of the existing plant-wide unit.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION 8
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
purposes of collective bargaining with San-Nap-Pak Co., Wheel-
wright, Massachusetts, 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
5 See footnote 1, supra.
6 Matter of L. E Shunk Latex Products, Inc., 67 N. L. R. B. 552; Matter of General
Foods Corporation, 54 N. L R. B 596.
7 Matter of Douglas Aircraft Company, Inc., 50 N. L. R. B. 784.
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.
SAN-NAP-PAK CO. 723
Regional Director for the First Region, acting in this matter as
agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject to Sec-
tions 203.55 and 203.56, of National Labor Relations Board Rules
and Regulations-Series 4, among the employees in the voting group
described in Section IV, above, who were employed during the pay-
roll period immediately preceding the date of this Direction, includ-
ing employees who did not work during said pay-roll period because
they were ill or on vacation 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 those employees who
have since quit or been discharged for cause and have not been re-
hired or reinstated prior to the date of the election, to determine
whether they desire to be represented by Local #602, International
Union of Operating Engineers, A. F. of L., or by International
Brotherhood of Paper Makers, Local 510, 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.