The Rutledge Paper Products, Inc.

In the Matter of THE RUTLEDGE PAPER PRODUCTS, INC., EMPLOYER' and INTERNATIONAL BROTIHERIIOOD OF PULP, SULPIIITE AND PAPER MILL WORKERS OF THE U. S. & CANADA, AFL, PETITIONER Case No. 8-RC-923.-Decided October 3, 1950 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before Caroll L. Martin, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds: 1. The Employer, an Ohio corporation having its principal offices and plant at Mentor, Ohio, is engaged in the manufacture of paper cups, plates, and napkins. During the 12-month period ending June 30, 1950, the Employer purchased for use in its manufacturing proc- esses raw materials valued at $73,130.51., of which amount materials valued at $65 ,978.04 were shipped to the Employer directly from points outside the State of Ohio. During the same period , the Em- ployer's sales of its finished products were valued at $29,143.24, of which amount products valued at $22,596.99 were shipped directly to points outside the State. The Employer contends that its shipments in interstate commerce are de ininhais and that a labor dispute involving its employees would therefore have such a slight effect upon commerce that it would not effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction in this case. We disagree. It is true that the value of the annual shipments made by the Employer directly to points outside the State of Ohio is less than $25,000, and that the value of materials annually shipped directly to the Employer through interstate channels is less than $500,000-alternative minimum requirements established by the Board as standards to determine whether jurisdiction should be exercised on the basis of inflow or outflow .2 However, the Employer's inflow and outflow of materials , when considered in ratio to the respective minimum inflow and outflow requirements , are together equivalent ' The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing. 2 Stanislaus Implement and Hardware Company, Ltd ., 91 NLRB 618 (direct outflow) and Federal Dairy Co., Inc., 91 NLRB 638 (direct inflow). 91 NLRB No. 115. 625 626 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD .to the minimum requirement in either category. The Employer's direct outflow figure of $22,596.99 is approximately 90 percent of the minimum direct outflow requirement of $25,000. The $65,978.04 direct inflow figure of the Employer is approximately 15 percent of the minimum direct inflow requirement of $500,000. The total of the two percentages is thus in excess of "100 percent." Thus viewed, interference by a labor dispute with this Employer's interstate busi- ness would, in our opinion, exert an impact upon commerce as great as would be exerted in the case of companies having interstate ship- ments of the value of either of the minimum yardstick figures alluded to above. We find not only that the Employer is engaged in com- merce within the meaning of the Act, but that this Board should exercise jurisdiction herein. 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 parties agree and we find that the following employees of the Employer constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of col- lective baragining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act: All, production and maintenance employees of the Employer at its plant in Mentor, Ohio, excluding office and clerical employees, pro- fessional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. 5. The Employer contends that no election should be held at this time, alleging that its operations are still in the experimental stage and that its labor force is not yet stabilized. The record shows that the Mentor, Ohio, plant has been in operation for about 2 years and that, as of the date of hearing, the plant was manufacturing finished products in sufficient quantity to meet demand. Moreover, during the month of June 1950, the Employer lacked only two of attaining its anticipated full complement of employees. During that same month there was no evidence of exceptionally high turnover of em- ployees. Upon these facts, we perceive no cogent reason for postpon- ing the holding of an election. The Employer further contends that because an unfair labor prac- tice charge (Case No. 8-CA-401) has been filed against the Employer alleging violation of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3), no election should be held pending the disposition of such charge. However, the Pe- titioner has filed the usual waiver of any right to object to an election in the present proceeding based on any activities alleged in the charge. Under these circumstances, we do not believe that the pendency of such charge will, in the language of the Employer, "affect or impair THE RUTLEDGE PAPER PRODUCTS, INC. 627 the validity of any election which might be held." Accordingly, we find that the pending charge does not preclude an immediate election.3 Further, we direct that any person whose discharge is the subject of the charge filed in Case No. 8-CA-401 may vote, subject to the Re- gional Director's challenge and segregation of such ballot.' [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this volume.] ' See Universal Brass Darning Co., Inc., 90 NLRB 269. Ibid. O 917572-51-vol. 91---41