National Container Corp., Inc.

In the Matter of NATIONAL CONTAINER CORPORATION, INC., SOU7IIERN CONTAINER DIVISION, EMPLOYER and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, LODGE No. 731, PETITIONER Case No. 10-R-2654.-Decided January 1^?, 1945 Messrs. Harry W. Reinstine and Herbert Pain teen, of Jacksonville, Fla., for the Employer. Mr. Paul Chipman, of Atlanta, Ga., and Mr. D. W. Milian, of Jack- sonville, Fla., for the Petitioner. Mr. George W. Brooks, of Washington, D. C., and Mr. Homer L. Humble, of Prichard, Ala., for the Intervenor. DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly.filed, hearing in this case was held at Jack- sonville, Florida, on June 5, 1947, before W. G. Stuart Sherman, hear- ing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirnmed. At the hearing the Intervenor moved to dismiss the petition on various grounds. The hearing officer referred this motion to the Board. For the specific rea- sons stated hereinafter, the motion is hereby denied. Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations Board makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I. TILE BUSINESS OF THE P âIPLOTLR National Container Corporation, Inc., a Delaware corporation, is engaged in the manufacture of Draft paper containers. It operates various plants throughout the United States, including a plant in Jack- sonville, Florida, known as the Southern Container Division, which is solely involved in this proceeding. The Employer annually pur- chases for use at this plant raw materials valued at over $1,000,000 of which more than 25 percent represents shipments from points out- side the State of Florida. During a similar period the Employer man- 75 N. L.R B, No. 92 770 NATIONAL CONTAINER CORPORATION, INC. 77r- ufactures products at this plant valued at over $1,000,000 of which more than 75 percent represents shipments to points outside the State. The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce- within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. II. TilE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED The Petitioner is an unaffiliated labor organization claiming to, represent employees of the Employer. The International Brotherhood of Pulp, Sulphite and Paper Mill- workers, herein called Intervenor, is a labor organization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, claiming to represent em-- ployees of the Employer. III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION The Employer refuses to recognize the Petitioner as the exclusive bargaining representative of employees of the Employer until the Petitioner has been-certified by the Board in-an appropriate unit.' 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. ,S- IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT; THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVE The Petitioner seeks a unit of machine shop employees at the Em- ployer's Southern Container Division. The requested unit would, include machinists, millwrights, welders, maintenance men, mainte- nance helpers, and the machine shop foreman. The Intervenor con- tends that, in view of the past history of collective bargaining, and of other factors detailed below, the existing contract unit of all produc- tion and maintenance employees, including the machine shop em- ployees here involved, is the appropriate unit. The Employer, although not activel' contesting the Petitioner's unit request, indicates a preference for the unit urged by the Intervenor. The Employer employs, at its Southern Container Division plant, approximately 425 production and maintenance employees. Of these, approximately 47 are assigned to its Maintenance Department. This department, headed by a maintenance superintendent, is divided into two separately supervised groups, viz, the construction group con- sisting'of carpenters, maintenance helpers and laborers, and the ma- chine shop group consisting of the classifications mentioned above. 'Although, as appears hereinafter, the Intervenor and the Employer are euirently in_ contractual relationship, such relationship is not urged as a bar to this proceeding 760072-4S-vol 75-50 772 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The machine shop, located in a section of the plant building sepa- rated from the rest of the plant by walled partitions, contains drills, presses, milling and welding machines, and other equipment and tools usually found in a machine shop operated by skilled personnel. The machine shop employees perform all equipment construction and maintenance work in the plant. Thus, the machinists make parts for various machines, using micrometers, calipers, level protractors, and other instruments and tools of their trade. The, millwrights set up machinery, repair and replace worn parts and generally maintain machinery in the plant, using milling machines and similar equipment. Welders work on machinery equipment with the aid of welding ma- chines. And the maintenance men keep all machines repaired and in good working condition, while the maintenance helpers assist the others when needed. The record shows that it takes a machinist 4 years to become properly qualified to do his work and 4 years fora mill- wright to qualify in his field, and while there is no apprenticeship training system at this plant, maintenance men as well as maintenance helpers 2 are upgraded to machinists when they become qualified by experience. The record also reveals that there is no interchange be- tween employees in the machine shop and employees in other depart- ments, and that, while machine shop employees do go into the plant when it is necessary to work on machines, they remain under the supervision of the machine shop foreman during their stay in the plant. Furthermore, production employees do not come into the machine shop; construction employees enter the machine shop about once a year for a short period in order to build benches and tables, during which time they remain under the supervision of their own construction foreman. Accordingly, in view of the special skills and the predominantly craft characteristics of the machine shop employees, their physical segregation, their lack of interchange with other employees of the Employer, and their separate supervision, we are persuaded that they comprise a cohesive and well-defined group clearly distinguishable from the remaining production and maintenance employees and that their establishment as a separate collective bargaining group is feasible. The Intervenor, in arguing against setting up the machine shop employees in a separate unit, points to the history of collective bar- gainilig for all production and maintenance employees on a.plant- wide basis. The record indicates that the Employer, in 1941, recog- nized the Intervenor as the exclusive bargaining representative of all 2 Although both the construction group and the machine shop group have employees classified as maintenance helpers, it is clear that then work is confined to their respective groups. NATIONAL CONTAINER CORPORATION, INC. 773 production and maintenance employees, including the employees here involved, and entered into a bargaining agreement covering these employees. The original agreement was thereafter extended and was still in effect at the time of the hearing. It appears further that the machine shop employees received benefits by virtue of this bargaining relationship. In November 1945, however, they withdrew from the Intervenor and since that time have endeavored to maintain their separate identity by ceasing to. pay dues to the Intervenor and becom- ing members of the, Petitioner; by filing a petition with the Board for certification on May 31, 1946; 3 by refraining from participating in the activities of the Intervenor; and by processing their grievances di- rectly with the Employer. In the latter connection, although the Employer contends that it dealt with these employees as individuals, it appears that these employees were acting as a committee of the Peti- tioner and that they did settle several grievances by obtaining wage increases for several of their members, eliminating Sunday work, gaining the privilege of smoking on duty in the machine shop and causing suppers to be furnished by the Employer when working over- time. In our opinion, the aforesaid bargaining history does not preclude an election among the machine shop employees at this time. While no consideration was ever given by the contracting parties to the establishment at this plant of a separate bargaining unit of these employees, it is apparent that bargaining in the industry involved has been conducted through similar machine shop groups.' Indeed, the record shows that at the nearby Craft Pulp and Paper Division plant of the Employer, the Petitioner is the recognized exclusive bargaining representative in a unit of machine shop employees. Under all the circumstances, we therefore conclude that, despite the bargaining history on a more comprehensive basis, the Employer's machine shop employees may, if they so desire, constitute a separate unit. We come now to the remaining issues in the case, viz, whether the machine shop foreman 5 should be included in the voting group and whether the holding of an election is feasible at this time. As to the machine shop foreman, the Petitioner would include him in the unit because he spends from. 75 to 80 percent of his time actually working with tools. The record shows, however, that this employee 8 Case No 10-R-1922. The petition was dismissed by the Regional Director on the ground that "Purthei pioceedings do not seem warranted" and the dismissal was sustained by the Board. * We are unable to agree with the position of the Employer that bargaining practices in regular paper plants have no value as a precedent inasmuch as we are here concerned with a corrugated paper box plant The record does not support the Employer's contention that, in its operations and type of skills and machinery used, the latter plant differs materially from other types of plants in the industry. 5 Ralph Dean. 774 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD supervises the employees of the machine shop and has the authority to make recommendations with respect to their hire and- discharge. Ave shall therefore exclude the foreman from the unit as a supervisor. With respect to the time for holding an election, the Employer took the position at the hearing, that an election, if conducted, would dis- rupt industrial relations at the plant because of a contemplated re- duction in force on a plant-wide seniority basis. The Employer esti- mated, in this connection, that reduction would be effected by the end of 1947, at which time the machine shop would be considerably reduced in size. Although a reduction such as this one, which does not involve material changes in the appropriate unit, or new or materially different operations or processes, is not a ground for deferring an election," we find that it cannot, in any event, prevent a current determination of representatives. The year 1947 has already elapsed. Furthermore, we are administratively advised that a reduction in force has already occurred. From all this it would appear that the employee comple- ment in the machine shop is now more or less stabili zed. Accordingly, we shall direct that an election by secret ballot be held among all machine shop employees of the Employer at its Southern Container Division, including machinists, millwrights, welders, maintenance men and maintenance helpers but excluding the machine shop foreman and all other supervisors. At this time we shall make no final determination of the appropriate unit. Such determination will depend, in part, upon the results of the election. If the employees participating in the election select the Petitioner they will be taken to have indicated their desire to constitute a separate unit. If they select the Intervenor they will be taken to have indicated their desire to remain a part of the existing production and maintenance unit. DIRECTION OF ELECTION' As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining with National Container Corpora- tion, Inc., Southern Cpntainer Division, Jacksonville, Florida, an elec- tion 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 Regional Director for the Tenth Re- gion, and subject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62 of National Labor Re- lations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 5, among the employees in "Matter of Blue Star Airlines, 73 N L. R B. 663, Matter of American Sheet Metal Works, 69 N L R 13. 467, Matter of Edison General Electric Appliance Co, Inc, 63 N L R B 968; and Matter of Reliable Nut Company, 63 N L. R B 357. Any participant in the election heiein may, upon its prompt request to, and approval theieof by, the Regional Dnector, have its name removed from the ballot. NATIONAL CONTAINER CORPORATION, INC. 775 the voting group described 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 said pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation or temporarily laid off, but excluding those employees 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 they desire to be represented by Inter- national Association of Machinists, Lodge No. 731, or by International Brotherhood of Pulp, Sulphite and Paper Millworkers, A. F. of L., for the purposes of collective bargaining, or by neither. CHAiRNMAN HERZOG took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Direction of Election.