The Weston Paper and Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 21, 1952

100 N.L.R.B. 276 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

276 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
office employees, are clerical in nature, we find that the dispatchers
are properly a part of a clerical unit to
We find that all office employees at the Employer's Kansas City,
Kansas, terminal, including dispatchers, payroll clerks, billing clerks,
and logbook clerks, but excluding confidential secretaries, terminal
manager, assistant manager, personnel manager, and all other super-
visors 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 Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
10 Cf. Seashore Transportation Company, 95 NLRB 1296 . See Modern Heat t Fuel
Company, 89 NLRB 1345.
THE WESTON PAPER AND MANUFACTURING Co. (TERRE HAUTE DIvI-
SION)1 and UNITED PAPERWORKERS or AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER.
Case No. 35-RC-706. July 21,195
Decision and Direction of Election
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Robert Volger, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings 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 [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Murdock].
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
employees of the Employer.
3. International Brotherhood of Paper Makers, AFL, and its locals,
Vigo Local 613-B-Mill No. 2 and Vigo Local 613-A-Mill No. 1,
herein called the Intervenor, urges its contract with the Employer as
a bar to this proceeding. Its first contract, effective from April 21,
1951, to April 21, 1952, was annually renewable subject to 60 days'
written notice to terminate or to change before April 21, 1952. The
Intervenor gave such timely notice of a desire to revise the contract
on February 15, 1952, and thereby prevented its automatic renewal.
1 The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing.
100 NLRB No. 51.
THE WESTON PAPER AND MANUFACTURING CO . 277
On April-21, 1952, the Employer and the Intervenor executed a new
contract. In the meantime, on March 20, the Petitioner filed the
instant petition.
As automatic renewal of the 1951 contract was forestalled by notice
according to its terms and as the petition was filed before the 1952
contract was signed, we find no merit in the Intervenor's contract bar
contention.2 Accordingly, we find that 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 :
In its petition, the Petitioner proposed a production and mainte-
nance unit limited to the Employer's Terre Haute, Indiana, South
Mill No. 2. The Employer and the Intervenor contend that only a
unit covering both the mills of the Employer in Terre Haute is appro-
priate. At the hearing the Petitioner stated, as an alternative unit
position, that it would agree to the two-mill unit if the Board should
find the smaller unit inappropriate.
The Employer is engaged in the manufacture of corrugated paper
materials . At Terre Haute, Indiana, it operates two mills, called
South Mill No. 2 and North Mill No. 1. These mills, forming the
Terre Haute division, are 3 or 4 miles apart .3 Both mills are in direct
charge of a single production manager; they have no separate super-
intendents, the supervisors in each mill reporting directly to the pro-
duction manager. A central personnel office and a single billing office
serves both mills. There have been transfers of materials as well as
interchange of employees between the mills.
North Mill'No. 1 functions as a marginal operation and is used for
overflow orders which the newer South Mill No. 2 cannot accept. On
November 1, 1951, Mill No. 1 was partially closed for modernization
and repair. Some of its maintenance and other employees were left
there, while approximately 25 to 30 of the production employees were
transferred to Mill No. 2, and the others apparently laid off. The
transfer of employees was designated as temporary, but their return
is entirely speculative, being dependent upon receipt of new orders
for Mill No. 1. At the time of the hearing, 61/2 months after the mill
had been closed, no reopening date had been set.
From 1945 to 1951, two AFL Federal Labor Unions represented the
employees of each mill and executed separate annual contracts substan-
tially identical, except for different pay rates and vacation plans for
each mill. The unions usually met together to discuss problems and
2 Reedley Ice Company , 85 NLRB 1205
s The Employer also has a corrugated paper mill at St. Mary's , Ohio, forming its
augiaize division.
278 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
demands before commencing negotiations with the Employer. Early
in 1951, the Intervenor succeeded the two Federal Labor Unions and,
from that time on, with its locals, has bargained with the Employer
on a single multiplant unit basis. This joint bargaining resulted, on
May 4,1951, in a single contract in which the Employer recognized the
Intervenor and its locals as the exclusive bargaining representative of
all production 'and maintenance employees at both mills. Except for
some differences in wage rates, vacation schedules, and seniority, aris-
ing from the particular conditions in each mill, the turns of the con-
tract were equally applicable to both mills. Grievances of all employ-
ees were processed by a joint grievance committee. On April 21, 1952,
the Intervenor, its locals, and Employer executed a second like con-
tract covering the employees in both mills.
Upon the record as a whole, and considering particularly the geo-
graphical proximity of the mills, their common supervision and per-
sonnel and billing offices, the interchange of materials and employees
between locations, the prolonged employment of North Mill employees
at the South Mill, the marginal character of the North Mill operation,
the recent pattern of bargaining on a single two-mill basis, and the
willingness of the Petitioner to accept such a unit 4 we are satisfied that
the employees in both mills enjoy a sufficient community of interest as
to make appropriate a unit of two mills rather than of one.5
There remains for consideration the unit placement and eligibility
of temporary strawstackers, Unlike the Employer, the Petitioner
would include them and deems them eligible to vote. The Intervenor
leaves this question to the Board.
In addition to its regular labor force, the Employer hires a maxi-
mum of 70 college students as temporary strawstackers during the
summer months of July and August. Traditionally, they have been
covered by the terms of the collective bargaining contracts, which pro-
vide that temporary strawstackers may join the Union after 30 days
and must join it after 59 days. In these circumstances, we find that
such employees are properly a part of the unit and we shall therefore
include them. However, as only about 2 percent is retained beyond
the 60-day period as permanent employees, we find that temporary
strawstackers do not have such a reasonable expectancy of permanent
employment as to justify their participation in the selection of a bar-
gaining representative. We hold, therefore, that they are ineligible
to vote in the election directed herein .6
At the hearing, the Petitioner' s representative stated that the Petitioner did not seek
a single two-mill unit because "the North Mill is down , has been out of operation and the
employees are not working and we are not able to contact said employees."
We have been administratively satisfied that the Petitioner's showing of interest it
sufficient to warrant an election in the larger unit found appropriate herein.
0 Rast Coast Fisheries, Inc., 97 NLRB 1261 ; Kelsey Hayes Wheel Company, 85 NLRB 666.
WMTIN MACHINE. WORKS 279
Accordingly, we find that all production and maintenance em-
ployees at the Employer's South Mill No. 2 and North Mill No. 1,
Terre Haute, Indiana, including truck drivers and temporary straw-
stackers, but excluding inspectors, watchmen, storekeepers, office jani-
tor, office clerical employees, and all guards, professional employees,
and 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 Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
WHITIN MACHINE WORKS and UNITED STEELWORKERS or AMERICA,
CIO. Case No. 1-CA-939. July 21, 1962
Decision and Order
On December 28, 1951, Trial Examiner David London issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of
the Act, 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. The Trial Examiner also found that
the Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor prac-
tices. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate
Report and a supporting brief.'
The Board 2 has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in
this case, and hereby adopts the Trial Examiner 's findings , conclu-
sions, and recommendations.'
Order
Upon the entire record in this case and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations
' The Respondent's request for oral argument is hereby denied, as the record and brief
adequately present the issues and positions of the parties.
'Pursuant to the provisions of Section 8 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Mem-
bers Houston and Murdock).
2 The Trial Examiner 's recommendation of dismissal of the allegations of the complaint
with . respect to Cahill 's discharge, as well as his recommendation of a limited cease and
desist order, are hereby adopted in the absence of exceptions by the General Counsel.
100 NLRB No. 52.