International Paper Co.

In the Matter of INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY, EMPLOYER and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF PULP, SULPHITE AND PAPER MILL WORKERS, AFL, PETITIONER Case No. 21-RC-891.-Decided January 12,1950 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before Eugene M. Purver, 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 National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated it powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Reynolds and Murdock] .2 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 involved claim to represent certain employees 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 unit : The Petitioner seeks a single over-all unit of employees at the Em- ployer's Vernon, California, plant. Both the Employer and the Intervenor contend that the unit sought is inappropriate because of the interrelationship between the Vernon plant and Owens-Illinois Glass Company,3 and because of the history of collective bargaining on a dual-employer basis. 1 Glass Bottle Blowers Association of the United States, Local No. 146, AFL , was permitted to intervene upon the basis of contractual interest. 2 The Petitioner's requests for oral argument and for permission to file a reply brief are hereby denied. 8 Herein called the "Owens Company." 88 NLRB No. 21. 71 72 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The Employer, a New York corporation with its principal office in New York City, is engaged in the production of corrugated shipping boxes. It purchased its Vernon plant on December 1, 1947., from the Owens Company, which manufactures glass bottles. The Vernon plant, which formerly constituted the corrugated department of the Owens Company, consists of two buildings, located upon the site of the Owens Company facility. The Employer is committed to supply the Owens Company with shipping boxes, but sells the greater portion of its production to other customers.4 Although there are certain fac- tors showing a degree of integration between the Vernon plant and the Owens Company,-' the Vernon plant is -a separate corporate entity, over which the Employer has exclusive management and control. The Employer hires, supervises, and pays all the employees of the Vernon plant. There is no interchange of employees between such plant and the Owens Company. The job classifications and wage scales at the Vernon plant are different from those of the Owens Company. Also, seniority, group insurance, and pension plans of the two companies are separate and distinct. The Vernon plant is solely responsible for the determination of its own labor relations policies .s Irrespective of the question of functional integration, the Employer and the Intervenor contend that the continuous contractual relation- ship, existing since 1936 and covering in one unit the employees sought herein together with the employees of the Owens Company, should not be disturbed. They make the further contention that the issues involved herein are res judicata. During the time that the Vernon plant was a part of the Owens Company, its employees were covered in bargaining agreements exe- cuted by that Company. When the. Employer purchased the plant in 1947, it assumed for such employees the then existing contract be- tween the Owens Company and the Intervenor, which contract ex- 'During the past year, one-third of the Employer's production was sold to the Owens Company, and two-thirds to other customers. E The Owens Company occupies four office spaces in one of the Vernon plant buildings. Officials of the Vernon plant and of the Owens Company meet together each week, pursuant to the Employer's commitment to furnish the Owens Company with shipping boxes. An employee of the Owens Company interviews prospective employees for both that Company and the Vernon plant, but such employee has no authority to hire for the Employer. The Owens Company supplies the Vernon plant with gas and electricity, for which the Owens Company is reimbursed. Watchmen service for both companies is performed by an em- ployee of the Owens Company, for which service the Owens Company is reimbursed. A common cafeteria is utilized by the employees of both companies, the cost being shared upon a prorata basis. The club room at the Owens Company is available to the employees of the Vernon plant. In the past, employees of both companies have attended social parties together. 6 Although the superintendent of the Vernon plant testified as to having discussed with the Owens Company, on two occasions, matters concerning a holiday period and vacation pay for Vernon plant employees, the resident manager of the Vernon plant stated that he alone, in consultation with the Employer's New York office, is responsible for the deter- mination of labor relations policies at the Vernon plant. INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY 73 pired on September 30, 1949.7 On June 18, 1948, the Petitioner filed a prior representation petition," claiming the employees it now seeks. The parties therein were the same as the present ones. The Inter- venor moved for dismissal of that petition upon the ground of con- tract bar, which motion was granted. As such petition was dismissed for reasons not here involved, the contention that our previous decision is dispositive of the issues presented herein is without merit .9 With regard to the question of functional integration, the Em- ployer and the Intervenor rely upon the Clarksburg Paper Company cases.1° While the Clarksburg cases are similar in some respects to the present one, they are distinguishable, in that in those cases there was evidence of more highly integrated operations and unified control of labor policies. However, in the present instance, in view of the bar- gaining history since the Employer purchased the Vernon plant and of the Employer's express desire to continue to bargain on a dual- employer basis, we are of the opinion that either a single-employer or a dual-employer unit may be appropriate. Accordingly, we shall make no unit determination at this time, but shall be governed in part by the wishes of the employees themselves. We hereby direct an election among all manufacturing, maintenance, and shipping employees at the Employer's Vernon, California, plant, excluding office and clerical employees, guards, professional employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act. If a majority of the employees voting cast their ballots for the Petitioner, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to constitute a separate unit. DIRECTION OF ELECTION As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the pur- poses of collective bargaining with the Employer, an election by.secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than 60 days from the date of this Direction, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Region in which this case was heard, and subject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62 of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, among the employees in the unit found appropriate in paragraph numbered 4, above, who were employed during the payroll period immediately preceding the date of this Direction of Election, including employees who did not work during said payroll period because they were ill or on vacation or tem- porarily laid of£, but excluding those employees who have since quit I The parties agree that no question of contract bar is involved herein. 8 International Paper Company, 80 NLRB 751. 9In our previous decision, we expressly found it unnecessary to pass upon the appropri- ateness of the unit sought. =8 64 NLRB 1319; 80 NLRB 197. 74 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD or been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or reinstated prior to the date of the election, and also excluding employees on strike who are not entitled to reinstatement, to determine whether they desire to be represented, for purposes of collective bargaining, by International Brotherhood of Pulp, Sulphite and Paper Mill workers, AFL, or by Glass Bottle Blowers Association of the United States and Canada, Local No. 146, AFL, or by neither. CHAIRMAN HERZOG, dissenting : I regret that I cannot agree with my colleagues that a two-employer unit may be appropriate. The companies are entirely separate, there is no common administration of labor policy, the products are differ- ent, and the skills of the employees disclose no similarity. Whatever earlier two-plant bargaining history there may have been when the Owens Company owned both, loses significance, I believe, because of the 1947 sale of the Vernon plant to the present wholly new Employer. I do not regard the mere assumption of the Owens contract by the purchaser for the remainder of its term as valid "bargaining history" on which a unit determination should be based. I would find appro- priate the single-company unit sought by the Petitioner.