Crossett Lumber Co.

542 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD their fellow crew members. Thus, it would appear that they do not responsibly direct employees, nor do they possess any other indicia of supervisory status. Accordingly, we find that they are not super- visors within the meaning of the Act and shall include them in the unit. Staking chief : Symonds is classified by the Employer as staking chief. , With the aid of one or two employees, he determines and marks the locality of the poles to be erected for the new lines. The record does not indicate that he has the authority effectively to recommend the discharge, or the hiring of employees, nor does it indicate that he responsibly directs the employees with whom he works. Although he is responsible for getting the job tickets and determining the loca- tion of new poles to be erected, the record reveals that he receives daily instructions on the subject from the line superintendent. Further- more, not only has he never been informed that he has any super- visory authority, but the improbability that he would receive such authority is indicated by the fact that he has less experience than one of the men working with him. Accordingly, we believe that Symonds, is not a supervisor within the meaning of the Act and, shall, therefore, include him in the unit. We find that all construction, maintenance, and material handler employees of the Employer at its Ironton, Lutesville, Ellington, and Fredricktown, Missouri, branches, including Thompson, Heitman, England, Cog,7 Graham, Price, Keith, Szabo, Arnold, and Symonds, but excluding guards and supervisors within the meaning of the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this volume.] 4 The parties stipulated that Cox was not a supervisor within the meaning of the Act. CROSSETT PAPER MILLS, DIVISION OF CROSSETT LUMBER COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS , AFL, PETITIONER. Case No. 15-RC-614. March 11, 1952 Decision and Direction of Elections Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Charles A. Kyle, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. 98 NLRB No. 87. CROSSETT PAPER MILLS 543 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston,and Styles]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent employees of the Employer. 3. The Employer and International Brotherhood of Paper Makers, Locals 369 and 369-A, AFL, herein jointly called the Intervenor, contend that a current collective bargaining contract between the Intervenor and the Employer constitutes a bar to the instant petition. The Petitioner contends that the contract is not a bar because it was signed after the Employer had received notice of the Petitioner's claim for representation. Since 1938 the Intervenor' has been in contractual relationship with the Employer with respect to the Employer's employees on a plant-wide unit basis. The most recent contract was executed by the parties on July 30, 1950, effective July 1, 1950, for a period of 1 year until June 30, 1951, and from year to year thereafter unless terminated in accordance with its terms. The 1950 contract also provided that if either party desired to change any of its provisions, it had to give the other party written notice thereof at least 60 days in advance of any anniversary date. On April 23, 1951, Local 369 notified the Employer of its desire to reopen the 1950 agreement. On July 5, 1951, both Local 369 and Local 369-A notified the Employer that due to the unsettled conditions in the paper industry they desired to extend the 1950 agreement, then in effect, to August 15, 1951, with the understanding that any changes would be retroactive to July 1, 1951. The Employer did not reply in writing to this letter but states that it extended the then existing contract "verbally." The parties did not meet until September 19, 1951. They explain that 'the delay in negotiations was occasioned by the fact that the regulations of the Wage Stabilization Board- specifically, those which affected wage increases-were in "a-state of flux." On September 19 and 20, 1951, the parties engaged in bargaining conferences, and on the following morning, the Employer, with the assistance of Local 369's president, prepared a memorandum of what had transpired at the bargaining conferences. This memorandum was not signed by the parties, nor does it appear from the record that the 1 Until several years ago , International Brotherhood of Paper Makers , AFL, and its Local 369, negotiated and executed these contracts; thereafter Local 369-A joined them In the negotiations and contracts. 544 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Employer signed any accompanying document. Thereafter, Local 369 held a special meeting on September 21, 1951, at which the memo- randum was approved; the minutes of the special meeting were adopted at a regular meeting of Local 369 on September 27, 1951. On September 28, 1951, Local 369-A likewise approved the memo- randum of agreement. On September 29, 1951, Local 369 wrote the Employer advising it of its approval. On September 23, 1951, the Employer put into effect all the provisions of the memorandum of agreement except certain wage items which had to be approved by the Wage Stabilization Board. On October 10, 1951, the parties affixed their signatures to a formal agreement which embodied sub- stantially all of the terms of the earlier memorandum 2 In the meantime, however, the Petitioner, on October 5, 1951, noti- fied the Employer in writing that it sought to represent the Employer's maintenance and repair department. On October 15, 1951, the Peti- tioner followed its claim of October 5 by the filing of the instant petition. The Employer and the intervenor contend that the contract, al- though it was not signed until October 10, 1951, was nonetheless final and binding on September 21, 1951, and therefore a bar to a present determination of representatives because before October 5, 1951, the date of the Petitioner's written claim, (1) the parties had reduced their understanding to writing; (2) the Intervenor had given the Employer formal notification of its approval; and (3) the Em- ployer, except for relatively minor matters, had actually put the agreement into effect. The Employer and Intervenor also call atten- tion to a long-standing practice of the parties in which prior agree- ments had been put into effect without waiting for the formality of signatures. However, the Board has consistently held that a collective bargain- ing agreement which has not been reduced to writing and signed by the contracting parties before the receipt of a valid, rival claim to representation is not a bar to a petition filed within 10 days of the receipt of the claim.3 The Board has applied this rule to instances 2 The delay from September 21, 1951, to October 10, 1951 , in preparing and signing the agreement in final form is attributed by the parties principally to the fact that one of the Intervenor's representatives , Lambert, was busy elsewhere and could not be in Crossett any earlier. 3 Safeway Stores, Inc., 90 NLRB No. 295 ; The New Haves Pulp & Board Company, 83 NLRB 268; Association of Motion Picture Producers, Inc, 87 NLRB 657; Bicor, Inc., 46 NLRB 1035. The Intervenor relies on Bemis Bro. Bag Co, 97 NLRB 1. In that case , however, the parties had affixed their initials to an earlier draft , and because the Board agreed that "signatures may be made to a contract in abbreviated form, as by the use of initials," held that it constituted a bar. Such was not the case here , however, as it clearly appears that the memorndum of agreement was not signed in any form , abbreviated or otherwise. CROSSETT PAPER MILLS 545 where the employees had already approved the agreement and the Employer had already put its terms into effect' Accordingly, we find that the 1951 agreement is not a bar to the present proceeding.5 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. 4. The appropriate unit : The Petitioner in its original petition sought a unit consisting of all employees in the Employer's maintenance and repair department. At the hearing, the Petitioner made an alternative request for 13 or 14 separate units in the event the Board rejects the unit described in the petition. The Employer and Intervenor contend that only a plant-wide unit is appropriate. The Intervenor contends further- that the maintenance department unit originally petitioned for is inappropriate, under Board decisions, in view of the plant-wide bar- gaining history since 1938, and that the Petitioner's alternative re- quest for separate units, which it made toward the end of the hearing, contravenes the Board's established procedure in representation proceedings in that it amounted, in substance, "to the filing of 14 new petitions." Crossett Paper Mills is engaged in the manufacture of kraft paper. It is operated on a 7-day basis, 24 hours a day, with production em- ployees working on rotating shifts and maintenance employees, for the most part, on straight day work, 5 days a week. The plant is divided into five departments : pulp, paper, power, maintenance, and technical services. Each department is headed by a superintendent who reports to the production manager of the plant; the latter reports to the division manager. The maintenance department is headed by a master mechanic, who has under him an assistant master mechanic; they supervise only employees in the maintenance department. Included in the maintenance department are electricians, electric motor oilers, and electrician helpers; 6 instrumentmen and helpers; machinists and helpers; millwrights and helpers, including paper and pulp mill operating millwrights and paper and pulp mill oilers; welders; painters, and helpers; pipefitters and helpers; carpenters and helpers; blacksmiths and helpers; brick masons and insulators and their helpers; a spare gang; crane operators and crane operator oilers; tool checker; and a gardener and utility man. * National Chair Company, 74 NLRB 1014. 5 The parties do not contend that the 1950 agreement constituted a bar. Moreover, it is clear from the facts that this agreement was not in effect on October 5, 1951. 9 Electricians , electric motor oilers, and electrician helpers are not listed in the contract as being part of the maintenance department. However, the testimony at the hearing established that they are in that department 546 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Electricians. electric motor oilers, and helpers are headquartered at an electricians' shop but work throughout the plant performing main- tenance and construction work. All are supervised by chief elec- tricians and by electricians' foremen. The electric motor oilers and helpers work with the electricians, and are regularly assigned with them; there is an established line of progression from helper to oiler to electrician. Instrumentmen repair and dismantle the various auto- matic steam, water, gas, and air controls, and are under the separate supervision of an instrument foreman. There are machinists and machinists' helpers who perform machinist and shop work, are head- quartered in a machine shop, and are supervised by a machine shop foreman. They are required to do precision work and must have their own precision tools. The master mechanic testified that it takes about 4 years to become a first-class machinist. The blacksmiths and their helpers work out of a blacksmiths' shop and are under the supervision of the general labor foreman. They do principally thin sheet work. The parties stipulated that the blacksmiths are skilled craftsmen. With respect to the millwrights, welders, pipefitters, painters, car- penters, and brick masons, the parties, in lieu of evidence detailing their duties and other related working conditions, similarly stipulated those classifications consist of skilled craftsmen. There was no dis- pute that the instrumentmen and electricians' and machinists' groups, concerning which specific testimony was given, likewise consist of skilled craftsmen. The parties also agreed employees in all the above classifications earning the top rate are generally considered first-class journeymen of their particular crafts. In addition to these groups, the maintenance department also in- cludes a "spare gang," under a foreman' and leadmen, which is, in effect, a gang of extra helpers for all crafts. These employees assist the various crafts, when necessary. The normal progression is from the spare gang to helper in a particular craft, and eventually to a first- class craftsman. They also perform skilled work such as heavy rig- ging and handle steel or evaporator tubing, and, when so engaged, are under a spare gang leadman and receive a higher rate of pay, or cross- rate, equal to that of machinists or millwrights. According to the current contract, the time a spare gang employee works as a helper to a craft is credited toward his advancement as helper in that craft. There is also a classification of crane operators who work at various places in the plant, and are listed in the contract as being in the main- tenance department. The record shows that crane operators work at times in the woodyard under the jurisdiction of the woody and foreman who is not under the maintenance department; there are cranemen who operate electric cranes in the plant and work with the spare gang and CROSSETT PAPER MILLS 5.47 take orders from the spare gang leadmen or millwright. Crane operators also run cranes in the paper machine room at which time they work with the machine tender who checks to see if the work is being done properly. However, the master mechanic, head of the maintenance department, testified that the crane operators remain on the payroll in his department, and are subject to his ultimate super- vision as to discharge, termination, or reprimand. The line of pro- gression is from spare gang to crane oiler, and from crane oiler to crane operator. It takes about 18 months to qualify as a first-class crane operator. There are also several miscellaneous classifications in the main- tenance department: A tool checker who is under the general labor foreman, exercises no craft skills, and does not progress to a craft status; and a gardener and utility man who is directly under the master mechanic, does odd jobs requiring no special skills, and is sim- ilarly not in the line of craft progression. In the storeroom are truck drivers, issue clerks, salvage men and salvage mechanics who, unlike the others, are supervised by the storekeeper and purchasing agent, and not by the master mechanic; they perform work that -requires little or no skill or craft knowledge. It is clear from the foregoing that the maintenance department -unit, as originally sought by the Petitioner, is primarily a multicraft unit, consisting of skilled craftsmen, and including also semiskilled and unskilled employees. Although the Board has in the past per- mitted the formation of similar units in the absence of a prior collec- tive bargaining history,7 it has been Board policy to refuse to establish such multicraft units in the face of a substantial history of collective bargaining on a plant-wide basis." As there has been such bargaining history since 1938 in the instant case, we are of the opinion that the maintenance department unit originally described in the petition is inappropriate. However, the Petitioner, before the close of the hearing in this case, stated as its alternative request that the Board direct an election in 13 or 14 separate units. The Intervenor contends that to entertain such request at this time would be contrary to established Board procedure. We do not agree. We believe it is in the interest of .sound administration of the Act to avoid a multiplicity of proceed- ings, and, as the facts with respect to the separate, units alternatively sought by the Petitioner are already before us, and an adequate. record established in the hearing already held,8 it would promote 'Armstrong Cork Company, 80 NLRB 1328., 8 United States Time Corporation, 86 NLRB 724, 728. 9 It is not contended that the Intervenor was denied an opportunity to litigate any issues raised by the amendment of'the petition. See Wm. F. Crome & Co, 80 NLRB 986. 548 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, the policies of the Act to consider such request on the merits, and make a determination accordingly 10 We are administratively advised that the Petitioner has failed to make an adequate showing in three of the separate units sought, i. e., brick masons, truck drivers and other miscellaneous maintenance department and storeroom categories, and powerhouse employees. Accordingly, we shall, apart from any other considerations, reject the Petitioner's requests for separate units for those groups of employees, and dismiss the petition as to those groups. We shall now consider on the merits the Petitioner's alternative request for separate units based upon craft considerations. The record shows that although on occasion various crafts work with several of the production workers, as on "clean-out" and other operations, and machine operators occasionally assist them in main- tenance work on production machinery, the various craft groups remain under the supervision of their own craft foremen and under the ultimate supervision of the master mechanic. A seniority system is in effect for the craft employees under consideration by which, if one leaves his particular craft for another, he is required to begin at the bottom of the seniority list of the new craft. If, at times, craft lines are crossed, grievances are filed and time paid to members of the craft who were not assigned work properly under their jurisdiction. With respect to the contention that the integrated nature of the opera- tions involved here serve to prevent the establishment of separate craft groups, the Board has rejected a similar contention with respect to papermaking operations like the ones in the present case." More- over, on the basis of the record in this case, we find that the main- tenance functions are not so closely identified with routine, repeti- tive production functions or that such a degree of integration exists that it has tended "to develop specialists rather than workmen in the craft tradition." 12 Accordingly, we find, under the particular facts of this case, that severance along craft lines may properly be per- mitted in accordance with established Board precedent. It is clear from the facts set forth above, and the record as a whole, that the electricians, instrumentmen, painters, pipefitters, carpenters, 10 Nor can it be contended that the amended petition should be regarded as a new petition and barred by the previously executed contract . See The Rauland Corporation, 97 NLRB 1333 ; Carbide and Carbon Chemicals Corporation , 88 NLRB 437, footnote 8. U International Paper Company, Southern Kraft Division, 94 NLRB 483 The Intervenor in its brief cites 0. B. Andrews Company, 96 NLRB 150 and International Paper Company, Tonawanda Plant, 97 NLRB 764 Neither case, however , is apposite here. In 0. B. Andrews Company, the hoard found that the employees sought to be severed were "Jacks-of-all-trades" who were not restricted to their own craft. In Inter- national Paper Company, Tonawanda Plant, the Board held that a unit limited to the employees at one plant could not be severed from a unit which had been bargained for Dn a multiemployer basis. . International Paper Company, Southern Kraft Division, supra. CROSSETT PAPER MILLS 549 millwrights, welders, machinists, and blacksmiths, respectively, pos- sess the traditional skills of their craft, and are entitled to separate representation, if they so desire.13 We shall now turn to the remaining groups for which the Petitioner has made a sufficient showing: Crane operators and crane oilers: Although, as already indicated, the crane operators and oilers are part of the maintenance department and under the ultimate supervision of the master mechanic, and require some skill to qualify as first-class operators in their field, the record in this case does not establish that they are such a skilled or homogeneous group as to warrant a departure from the Boards determinations in the past where, under similar circumstances and substantially simi- lar duties, it has held that such employees are not craftsmen.14 We shall therefore dismiss the petition as to them. Spare gang: The record establishes that this is a group of employees with little or no skill who constitute a "pool" for all of the crafts in the maintenance department and who, at times, under a leadman of their own, do steel or rigging work. However, it does not appear that they work regularly with any particular craft or that they exercise the degree of skill which the Board has considered sufficient to sever on a craft basis. We shall therefore dismiss the petition as to them. Questions have also arisen with respect to the placement of motor oilers and paper and pulp mill oilers. As the electric motor oiler is one classification above the electricians' helper and eventually pro- gresses to become a journeyman electrician, we are of the opinion that the electricians' motor oiler may properly be included in the electri- cians' voting group. Similarly, we believe that the pulp and paper mill oilers who work regularly with the operating millwrights, and progress from oiler to millwright in acquiring craft status, appro- priately belong in the millwrights' voting group. The petitioner would either include the welders in the millwrights' voting group or in a separate voting group. The welders have no welder foreman but work under the millwright foreman. They do only welding work. As it does not appear from the record that the welders are regularly assigned to, and work exclusively with, the mill- wrights, we shall place them in a separate voting group.15 In accordance with the above determination's, we shall direct sepa- rate elections among the following groups of employees at the 13 See Merck & Co., Inc., 88 NLRB 975. 14 Southern Paperboard Corporation, 80 NLRB 1456. 15 See International Paper Company (Southern Kraft Dlvisi on), 96 NLRB 295 ( Supplemental Decision and Order). 998666-vol. 98-53-36 550 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Employer's Crossett, Arkansas, plant, excluding therefrom guards and supervisors : 1. All instrumentmen. 2. All electricians, electrician motor oilers , and electricians' helpers. 3. All millwrights , including pulp and paper operating millwrights, paper and pulp mill oilers, and millwrights ' helpers. 4. All welders and welders' helpers. 5. All painters and painters ' helpers. 6. All pipefitters and pipefitters' helpers. 7. All carpenters and carpenters' helpers. 8. All blacksmiths and blacksmiths' helpers. 9. All machinists and machinists' helpers. If a majority of the employees in any of the voting groups described in paragraph numbered 4 indicate, by voting for the Petitioner, their desire to be represented in a separate unit, the Board finds such unit to be appropriate, and the Regional Director conducting the elections directed herein is instructed to issue a certification of representatives to the Petitioner for each such unit . If the majority of the employees in any of the voting groups vote for the Intervenor , they will be taken to have indicated their desire to continue to be included in the existing production and maintenance unit, and the Regional Director shall issue a certificate of results of elections to that effect. [Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication in this volume.] DOLORES, INC. and TEXTILE WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO and UNITED PAPERWORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO and DOLORES ASSOCIATED EM- PLOYEES. Case No. 32-CA-16/. March 12, 1952 Decision and Order On August 8, 1951, Trial Examiner John H. Eadie issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the lespondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Inter- mediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the General Counsel and the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and supporting briefs. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this proceeding to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Murdock]. 98 NLRB No. 94.