International Paper Co.

t' " • INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY 295 of the Employer, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Sec- tion- 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, and we shall therefore dismiss the petition. -Order Upon the basis of the entire record in this case, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the petition filed in the instant matter be, and it hereby is, dismissed. INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY ( SOUTHERN KRAFT DIVISION) avd LODGE 1365, 1036, AND 1106, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MA- CHINISTS, PETITIONER. Cases Nos. 15-RC-443, 15-RC-473, and 15-RC-475. September 21,1951 Supplemental Decision and Order On July 12, 1951, the Board issued a Decision and Direction of Elections 1 in the above cases, setting up separate voting groups for ,certain employees of the Employer at its Camden, Arkansas, Spring- hill, Louisiana, and Panama City, Florida, plants, respectively. In all these voting groups, lead men, working foremen, and helpers were included; office clericals technical, and professional employees, guards, and supervisors were excluded. At the Camden, Arkansas, plant, the Board directed separate elections among (a) all millwrights; (b) all welders; (c) all machinists, including blacksmiths; (d) all pipefitters; and (e) all other production and maintenance employees, including -oilers, knife grinders, and auto mechanics. At the Springhill, Lou- isiana, plant, the Board directed separate elections among (f) all millwrights; (g) all welders; (h) all boilermakers; (i) all steelwork- ers; (j) all toolroom employees, including machinists and blacksmiths; .(k) all sheet metal workers; (1) all pipefitters; and (m) all other •production and maintenance employees, including auto and Diesel mechanics, crane operators, knife grinders, roll grinders, well-men, -and oilers. At the Panama City, Florida, plant, the Board directed separate elections among (n) all millwrights; (o) all steelworkers; -(p) all toolroom men, including machinists and blacksmiths; (q) all sheet metalworkers; (r) all welders; (s) all carpenters; (t) all pipe- -fitters; and (u) all other production and maintenance employees, including metermen, auto mechanics, crane operators, mechanics, paper :mill turbine operators, the molder, and firemen. 195 NLRB No. 15. '96 NLRB No. -36. 296 DECISIONS", O'F: NATIONAL - LABOR- RELATIONS BOARD Thereafter the Petitioner and the Pipefitters (United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting In- dustry of the United States and Canada, Local Nos. 229, 610 and 706) filed requests for reconsideration. In each of its three petitions in this consolidated proceeding, the Petitioner sought a single separate unit of a heterogeneous multicraft character at, the Employer's Camden, Springhill, and -Panama City plants, respectively, including in its proposed units craftsmen' and other less skilled employees whom it claimed to represent. The Pipe- fitters intervened to protect its interest among the pipefitters at each of the three plants.2 The Joint Intervenors (International Brother- hood of Paper Makers, A. F. L.; International Brotherhood of Pulp,. Sulphite, and Papermill Workers, AFL; and International Brother- hood of Electrical Workers, AFL) proposed a single multiplant unit of production and maintenance employees at all the plants in the Employer's Southern Kraft Division, for which the Employer con- tended, or, in the alternative, as the Board concluded, separate units of production and maintenance employees at each of the three plants wherein partial units were sought by the Petitioner.3 The record does not indicate that employees in the three plants herein concerned have peculiar common interests not shared with like employees at the six other plants of the Employer's Southern Kraft Division.4 All parties, except the Pipefitters, agreed to the general similarity of operations at the Employer's Georgetown, Camden,. Springhill, and Panama City plants. The Pipefitters does not point out, however, nor does the instant record disclose, any basic differ- ences in the operations of the plants sufficient to warrant any special 2 In 1949 the Pipefitters was certified by the Board as exclusive bargaining representative of pipefitters at the Employer 's Camden plant , International Paper Company (Southern Kraft Division ), 87 NLRB 49 On March 9 and 12, 1951 , respectively , the Pipefitters filed separate petitions for pipefitters at the Employer 's Springhill and Panama City plants On March 27 , 1951 , the Pipefitteis filed a separate petition for pipefitters at the Employer 's Moss Point. Mississippi , plant International Paper Company (Southern Kraft Division ), 96 NLRB 306 . 3 The Joint Intervenors allege that all parties to this proceeding favored multiplant bargaining They take exceptions to the Board 's statement that, In the alternative to a division -wide unit of production and maintenance employees , the Joint Intervenors pre- ferred single-plant units to craft and residual units on a single -plant basis. Although neither the Petitioner nor any other party denied that bargaining on a multiplant basis might, for some reasons , he desirable , the only petitions before the Board limited the units sought to the several individual plants named . In the absence of controlling bargaining history on a broader basis , or facts tending to show that bargaining limited to a single grant is not appropriate , the Board provided for elections among the craft groups -sought at each plant named in the petitions and among residual voting groups . Any party which does not desire to participate in any of 'the elections so provided may withdraw its name from the ballot 4 For this reason , and in the absence of conclusive bargaining history, we reject the contention of the Joint Intervenors that multicraft bargaining on less than a division=wide basis is appropriate . Although the Petitioner did not deny that multiplant bargaining might be feasible , the only petitions before the Board are limited to specific and separate plants named INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY 297 unit consideration applicable to any one, and not all, of the plants named. The Petitioner's request for reconsideration of the Board's denial of its req i st for a multicraft unit raises no matters not previously-con- sidered by the Board in its decision herein, as well as in the Board's decision in the earlier case involving the Georgetown plant of the Employer's Southern Kraft Division .5 We find nothing in the Peti- tioner's request which warrants disturbing those decisions. The Pipefitters' motion to reconsider in substance attacks the failure of the Board to include within the pipefitters' unit the welders regu- larly assigned to work with pipefitters. A proper disposition of this ,contention requires the Board to set out in general terms what we 1 egard as the proper unit placement for welders. It is now well established, of course, that-except for the special case of craft nucleus departmental units 6-the initial prerequisite for the establishment or severance of what is alleged to be a craft unit is the existence and use of true craft skills by the particular employees involved. Welding can be a, true craft when it involves nonrepetitive work performed by individuals who on the basis of training or experi- ence possess and utilize a high degree of craft skills. But welding can also involve repetitive, routine work performed by individuals who either do not possess or are not required to utilize any true craft skills. Therefore in the case of welders, as in the case of any group asserted to be craft, the Board will neither establish a separate craft group nor include welders in any other pure craft units unless the work involved calls for the exercise of craft skills and the employees involved possess such skills. Where the welders involved in a particular case are true craftsmen, the question remains as to whether they should be established in a separate craft group or included with some other craft. By the very nature of their work, welders frequently work in close association with other crafts in the performance of a particular maintenance job. Where; in a given plant, all of the welders are regularly assigned to work with particular crafts, we believe that the common working conditions and general community of interests thereby engendered requires that the welders-if they are to be segregated from the gen- era] production and maintenance employees at all-should be in- cluded in the craft units of the particular crafts to which they are permanently assigned. On the other hand where craft welders com- prise a pool of employees who are not regularly assigned to work with-any particular craft, but work throughout the plant with what- ever group may need their services, we believe that the basic com- International Paper Company ( Southern Kraft Division ), 94 NLRB 483. Seeger Refrigerator Company , 95 NLRB No. 158, and cases cited therein. 298 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD munity of interests engendered by their common craft skills, mili- tates in favor of establishing the welders in separate craft units. A. third situation frequently encountered is where some welders are'regu- larly assigned to particular crafts but a substantial number act, as in the second situation, as a roving, pool. We believe that- in such a situation a more logical and cohesive grouping of the employees for collective bargaining results from establishing all the welders in a single craft unit rather than segregating those who may be assigned tc a particular craft.' These principles were followed by the Board in its determination as to the unit placement of welders in the previous cases involving the Employer here, including the instant case. Thus, for example, in the Georgetown case, the record showed that the pattern followed that of the third situation referred to above, that is, the welders are all skilled and although certain of them are regularly assigned to par- ticular crafts, a substantial number work by assignment out of a common welders' pool. In the instant case there is no direct evidence that particular welders are regularly assigned to any specific crafts. In both cases the principles enunciated above required, as the Board found, that the welders be established in separate voting groups for the purpose-of-expressing their desires as to craft severance. We see no reason to depart from that determination. Order IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the requests and motion for reconsid- eration filed herein by the Petitioner and United Association of Jour- neymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local Nos. 229, 810, and 706 be, and they hereby are, denied. MEMBER HOUSTON, dissenting in part : I dissent from that portion of the Supplemental Decision which denies the Pipefitters' request for modification of the pipefitters' unit ' In reaching this result we have not, as our dissenting colleague suggests, ignored the fact that welders who work with particular crafts share a certain community of interest with these other craftsmen resulting from their close association with such employees. We have weighed that factor against the equally cogent consideration that in this situa- tion-where some welders are regularly assigned to work with particular crafts, but others are not-collective bargaining with respect to the terms and conditions of welders'; employ- ment is certain to be encumbered if some welders are bargained for as part of other craft units while other welders are bargained for in a welders unit. The result we have reached. in our opinion, best meets the basic test which the statute imposes on this Board in its unit determinations ; it assures to "employees the fullest freedom in exercising the rights guaranteed by this Act." Nor should it offend our dissenting colleague that the principles we have enunciated here with respect to the unit placement of welders takes cognizance of the "administrative set-up of the employer." We have always assumed it obvious that the manner in which a particu- lar employer has organized his plant and utilizes the skills of his labor force has a direct bearing on the community of interest among various groups of employees in the planVand is thus an important consideration in any unit determination. INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY 299 findings to include therein the welders regularly assigned to work with pipefitters. My colleagues, while recognizing the propriety of placing crafts- man welders, as are the pipefitter welder, in the same unit with- some other craft with which they work, condition such unit place- ment upon whether or not the Employer follows a uniform practice of assigning its welders to the particular crafts with which they work. When such uniformity exists, my colleagues would, apparently,. establish units of the type desired by the Pipefitters, but where the pattern varies," all craft welders would be grouped into one separate unit of welders.9 This is tantamount to saying that, where welders are involved, we shall wnqualiledly defer, in our unit determination, to the administrative setup of the employer, at the risk of disturbing- existing bargaining patterns and of disregarding such controlling cri- teria as common working conditions and the general community of in- terests which derive from working in close association with others. In my opinion, such an approach reverses fundamental principles gov- erning the grouping of employees for bargaining purposes. It results in the anomaly in these cases of including in the pipefitters units, helpers who are regularly assigned to work with the pipefitters, while at the same time excluding the welders, who are likewise regu- larly assigned to the pipefitters. And more specifically in the case of the Camden plant of the Employer, it effects a reversal of a Board finding less than 2 years ago in which welders regularly assigned to the pipefitters were distinguished from other welders with whom they were part of a larger bargaining unit and were included in the same unit with the pipefitters and their helpers 10 Significantly, too, the request for inclusion of the welders with the pipefitters is concurred in by Lodge 1365, International Association of, Machinists, the Petitioner herein, and the Employer and the Joint Intervenors do not specifically oppose such inclusion. For all these reasons, and particularly because I am persuaded that welders who work closely with a particular craft are within the same circle of interests: with those whom they serve and that the policy of fostering the practice and procedure of collective bargaining will be furthered by including employees so closely identified, I would reverse my position on welders in this case and in other recent cases"' and • In the instant cases other welders are part of a roving pool. Strangely, my colleagues do not object to welders being divided for bargaining purposes when they are uniformly assigned to particular crafts with which they work, but conclude that collective bargaining with respect to the terms and conditions of welders will be "encumbered"' If they are divided for bargaining purposes where the pattern of employer assignment of welders varies. 10lnternhtibifai Paper Company- (Southern Kraft Division ), 87 NLRB 49. "International Paper Company ( Southern Kraft Division ), 94 NLRB 483. Interna= tional Paper Company (Southern Kraft Division), 94 NLRB 500. Hudson Pulped Paper Company, 94 NLRB 1018. '300 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD would include in all relevant craft units those welders who spend more than 50 percent of their time serving that craft. I would, therefore, .grant the Pipefitters ' motion for reconsideration in these cases. I would also, in the interests of uniformity , modify the remaining craft unit findings to conform therewith. CHAIRMAN HERZOG took no part in the consideration of the above :Supplemental Decision and Order. TIN PROCESSING CORPORATION and OIL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, CIO, PETITIONER TIN PROCESSING CORPORATION and LOCAL No. 973, UNITED BROTHER- HOOD OF CARPENTERS & JOINERS OF AMERICA, AFL, PETITIONER TIN PROCESSING CORPORATION and LOCAL No. 347, INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, AFL, PETITIONER TIN PROCESSING CORPORATION and LOCAL No. 132, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF BOILERMAKERS, IRON SHIP BUILDERS AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, AFL, PETITIONER TIN PROCESSING CORPORATION and LOCAL No. 144, SHEET METAL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION, AFL, PETITIONER. Cases Nos. 39-RC-314, 39-RC 315, 39-RC-316, 39-RC-317, 39-RC320. September 21,1951 Decision, Direction of Elections, and Order Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before Clifford W. Potter, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hear- ing 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 its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Reynolds]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged ill commerce within the meaning of the Act. 1 Long after the time for filing briefs had expired, two intervenors , IBEW and Machinists, which had not filed briefs , one intervenor, Pipefitters, which had filed a brief , and the parent AFL, not a party to the present proceeding, filed a joint request - for oval aggxnt before the Board. In these circumstances , the request is denied , particularly as, in our opinion, the issues are sufficiently developed in the record and the brief in this p;pcccOing. See Meier & Frank Company, 86 NLRB 517. 96 NLRB No. 39.