The Chatfield Paper Co.

In the Matter of TILE CHATFIELD PAPER COMPANY, EMPLOYER and UNITED RETAIL, WHOLESALE k, DEPARTMFNT STORE EiiI1'LOYEES OF AMERICA, LOCAL 282, CIO, PETITIONER Case No. 1-R-327I.Decided January 14, 1947 Mr. Arthur L. Corbin, Jr., of New Haven, Conn., for the Employer. 111r. Louis Feinmark,, of New Haven, Conn., for the Petitioner. Mr. Emil C. Farkas, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND DIRECTION Upon a petition duly filed, the National Labor Relations Board on September 12, 1946, conducted a prehearing election among em- ployees of the Employer in the alleged appropriate unit, to determine whether or not they desired to be represented by the Petitioner for the purposes of collective bargaining. At the close of the election a Tally of Ballots was furnished the parties. The Tally shows that, of the nine ballots cast, four were in the favor of the Petitioner, three were against the Petitioner, and two were challenged. The challenged ballots were sufficient in number to affect the results of the election. Thereafter, a hearing was held at New Haven, Connecticut, on October 1, 1946, before Sam G. Zack, 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 the case, the National Labor Relations Board makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF TILE EMPLOYER The Chatfield Paper Company, a Connecticut corporation, is en- gaged in the wholesale jobbing of paper and twine. The annual pur- chases made by the Employer exceed $100,000 in value, approximately 50 percent of which represents shipments from points outside the State of Connecticut. Its annual sales exceed $200,000, approximately 25 percent of which represents shipments to points outside the State. 72 N. L.R.B,No.16. 73 74 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, claiming to represent employees 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 has arisen concerning the representation of employees of the Employer, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT The Employer is a small company engaged in the wholesale job- bing of paper and twine. Its total facilities consist of a single struc- ture, with offices, shipping room and service store located on the main floor and with the remainder of the building, consisting of a basement and three upper floors, adapted for use as a warehouse, and operated as part of the shipping room. The service store is situated between the offices and the slipping room and is connected with the shipping room by a ramp so that stock which is sold in the store can be brought directly into the shipping room by means of small hand trucks. Most of the Employer's business, however, is conducted through orders which come into the office. The entire employee complement consists of approximately 22 em- ployees. Of these, only 9 have duties which are primarily concerned with the shipping room, service store and warehouse, the rest being executives, office clerks and outside salesmen. We are concerned herein with these 9 employees, of whom 5 spend virtually all their time working in and around the shipping room. Their duties consist of pulling stock from the bins located in various parts of the ware- house, carrying this stock to the shipping room and preparing it for shipment or delivery to customers. They also unload and carry mer- chandise from freight cars to the warehouse where it is kept for use in filling future orders. The remaining 4 employees, consisting of Crowther, Gustafson, Plagese, the truck driver, and Crisculolo, the truck driver's helper, spend some of their time in the shipping room but devote the major portion of their time to other work. The Petitioner seeks a unit of all shipping room employees of the Employer, including employee Crowther and the truck driver's helper, THE CHATFIELD PAPER COMPANY 75 but excluding the truck driver, employee Gustafson, and all super- visory employees. The Employer, however, contends that all nine employees, referred to above, perform the same type of work, for the most part, and that the appropriate unit, therefore, should include the truck driver and employee Gustafson, both of whom the Petitioner would exclude. The ballots of these two employees were challenged by tie Petitioner in the prehearing election on the alleged ground that they were not shipping room employees. The Employer argues fur- ther that there is no basis in the record for distinguishing between Plagese and his helper, Crisculolo, or between Gustafson and employee Crowther. Plagese and Gnsta fson: The record indicates that Plagese was hired as a truck driver with the understanding that he would be called upon to perform other work. Although it appears that he has, in the past, spent some time assisting in the shipping room and in unloading freight at the railroad siding, the major portion of his time has been devoted to driving the truck and making deliveries. We note in this connection that his helper, Crisculolo, whom the Petitioner would in- clude in the unit, spends most of his time on the truck and only helps in the shipping room when the truck is not used or the truck driver is ill. We are unable to perceive any basis for distinguishing between these two employees for unit purposes. With respect to Gustafson, whom the Petitioner would exclude as a clerical employee, the record reveals that his chief assignment consists of waiting on customers who come into the service store. His other duties involve checking invoices, opening mail and making a record of orders received through the mail. In addition, he is often required to go into the warehouse to pull stock which is not in the store and is needed to fill a customer's order. As a general rule he reports to work somewhat later than the other shipping room em- ployees and keeps his work clothing in the office. While the duties performed by Gustafson appear, to some extent, to differ from those performed by the other shipping room employees, we are persuaded that all these employees, including Gustafson, are engaged, essen- tially, in the same type of work, that is, the filling of orders for custo- mers. The added circumstance of customer contact, by Gustafson and his handling of invoices and mail orders, does not, in our opinion render him a clerical employee as we customarily define that term. Moreover, his work is in many significant respects indistinguishable from that of Crowther whom the Petitioner would include in its unit as a shipping room employee. Thus, while Crowther spends more time in the shipping room than Gustafson, both employees spend 50 percent or more of their time in the service store waiting on customers and performing related tasks. Accordingly, as in the case of the 76 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD truck driver and his helper, we conclude that no substantial basis exists for differentiating between Gustafson and Crowther for unit purposes. Upon the basis of the foregoing facts, the size and integrated nature of the Employer's operations, the close interrelation between all nine of the employees involved herein and the agreement of the parties to include the truck driver's helper and employee Crowther, we are of the opinion, as contended by the Employer, that all the above- mentioned employees constitute a homogeneous, identifiable and well integrated group which may function together for the purposes of collective bargaining, and we shall therefore include Gustafson, the service store employee, and Plagese, the truck driver, in the unit. We find that all shipping room employees of the Employer, in- cluding the service store employees,' the truck driver, and the truck driver's helper, but excluding all supervisory employees with authori- ty to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of the employees, or effectively recommend such action, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargain- ing within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. V. TIIE DETERMINATION OF REi'P,ESENTATIVES In accordance with our foregoing conclusions we hereby overrule the Petitioner's challenges to the ballots of Plagese and Gustafson. Since the results of the election held before the hearing may depend upon the counting of the challenged ballots declared valid, we shall direct that they be opened and counted. DIRECTION As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining with The Chatfield Paper Company, New Haven, Connecticut, the Regional Director for the First Region, shall, pursuant to the Rules and Regulations of the Board, within ten (10) days from the date of this Direction, open and count the challenged ballots of Louis Plagese and Rudolph Gustafson, and shall thereafter prepare and cause to be served upon the parties in this proceeding a Supplemental Tally of Ballots. 1 This includes Crowther and Gustafson.