Miami Paper Board Mills, Inc.

MIAMI PAPER BOARD MILLS, INC. 167 school, although, even at that time, the cafeteria also served the general public. However, the last of these large military contracts expired in 1944. At present, Spartan has only a small Government contract, re- quiring it to feed 13 students, and that contract expired June 30, 1954.3 The Employer's revenue from Spartan under this contract is negligible. The Employer, in addition, receives some revenue from the comparatively small number of Spartan employees who patronize the cafeteria.4 However, most of its present revenue is derived from the general public. Although the Employer and Spartan have 2 officers and 1 director in common, the general operations of the Employer are handled by its own manager. It maintains separately its own bank account, and its own inventory, employment, and payroll records. The Employer leases the cafeteria from Spartan and pays rent to Spartan, which performs the usual maintenance work of a landlord. The Employer also reimburses Spartan for any services rendered on its behalf, such as preparation of payroll and checks, or labor relations consultation. There is no interchange of employees of Employer and Spartan. Nor is there any substantial integration of their separate business. In view of the foregoing and upon the entire record, we find that the Employer is not an integral part of Spartan and that, as the Employer's operations are substantially local in character, it would not effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction in this case." [The Board dismissed the petition.] MEMBER PETERSON took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Order. 8 Also attending aviation school are 18 officers and some foreign students who receive a 5-percent discount in their cafeteria meals. 6 Of Spartan's 1,500 employees , only 42 eat at the cafeteria regularly , while 311 eat there on occasion . The cafeteria accommodates 1,200. 5 Dan Dee Central Ohio Corporation, 106 NLRB 1303; Goodman's Inc., 101 NLRB 352; N. L. R. B. v. Shawnee Milling Company, d/b/a Pants Valley Milling Company, 184 F. 2d 57 (C. A . 10) ; see Local 1053, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, CIO , 107 NLRB 470. MIAMI PAPER BOARD MILLS , INC. AND SIMCO WASTE PAPER , INC. and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS , CHAUFFEURS, WARE- HOUSEMEN & HELPERS OF AMERICA, AFL, LOCAL UNION No. 390, PETITIONER. Case No. 10-RC-2607. July 13,1954 Decision and Direction of Election Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National La- bor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Allen Sinsheimer, Jr., 109 NLRB No. 31. 168 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 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 Petitioner seeks to represent in a single unit employees of Miami Paper Board Mills, Inc., hereinafter called Miami, and Simco Waste Paper, Inc., hereinafter called Simco, contending that these two companies, together with Miami Paper Board Mills Sales, Inc.,' hereinafter called Sales, constitute a single employer, and that the Board should assert jurisdiction in this case. The Employer contends that Miami and Simco are at least twice removed from interstate com- merce, and that it would not effectuate the policies of the Act for the Board to assert jurisdiction. Simco, Miami, and Sales are separate Florida corporations, located in Miami, Florida. Two of the three offices in each corporation are held by Lee Simpkins and his son, Samuel Simpkins 3 Simco buys and bundles waste paper, which is then sold to Miami exclusively.4 Miami, in turn, processes this waste paper, along with paper obtained from other sources, into flat cardboard which it then sells to Sales .5 This cardboard is not further processed by Sales, but is sold to other processors who convert the flat cardboard into finished cardboard boxes. During the past year, Sales sold cardboard valued at $1,000,000 locally. Approximately $274,000 of this amount represented sales to National Container Corporation and Empire Paper Box Company for shipment to their plants in Atlanta, Georgia 6 The record shows that Simco's 5 employees bale the waste paper in a building approximately 300 feet from the Miami plant, and that the bales are then processed in that plant by Miami's employees. There is no interchange between employees in the two groups. Each plant has a separate superintendent, but both superintendents have their offices in the Miami plant building and both plants have the same telephone listing. Simco's superintendent receives half his pay from Miami, and half from an unidentified "Export Sales Company." Upon the entire record in this case, including the centralized con- trol of all 3 companies by the same 2 individuals, and the integration 3 Miami Paper Board Sales, Inc., is not directly involved in this proceeding. It sells products manufactured by Miami Paper Board Mills, Inc., but has no production and maintenance employees of its own. 2In this contention , the Employer relies upon Brooks Wood Products, 107 NLRB 256. 3 The parties stipulated with respect to the relationship between the three companies. The Employers' attorney conceded that either Lee or Samuel Simpkins occupied the top position in each of the three companies. A During the past year Simco's sales to Miami amounted to $194,000 . No sales were made to any other customer. 5 During the past year Miami sold cardboard valued at approximately $800,000 to Sales. During the same period Miami purchased waste paper valued at $642,000 , of which $190,000 represented purchases from outside the State. 6 The Employer stipulated that both National Container and Empire Box are com- panies engaged in interstate commerce , and that both ship their entire cardboard pur- chases to their plants in Atlanta , Georgia. MIAMI PAPER BOARD MILLS, INC. 169 of their operations, we find that the 3 companies constitute a single integrated enterprise and are, for purposes of determining jurisdic- tion, a' single Employer.7 As the Employer sells cardboard valued at approximately $274,000 to National Container Corporation and Em- pire Box Company, which ship the cardboard in interstate commerce, we find, contrary to the Employer's contention, that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act, and that it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert judisdiction in this case." 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 Petitioner seeks to represent employees of both Miami and Simco in a single unit. The Employer contends that only separate units are appropriate. In view of the geographical proximity of Simco and Miami, and the centralized control, and high degree of integration of their operations, we find that the unit sought is appropriate .9 The parties agree that the appropriate unit should consist of all production and maintenance employees. However, the Petitioner would exclude, while the Employer leaves for the determination of the Board, the unit placement of the foreman at Simco, and the ship- ping clerk and senior mechanic at Miami. The foreman at Simco operates a weighing machine from 1 to 4 hours daily. The remainder of his time is spent directing four other employees in the baling operation. He checks the bales to be sure that the men are baling the paper properly, and to ascertain whether the proper grades of paper are being baled together. He is paid on an hourly basis, as are other employees, and receives approximately 10 percent more than the highest paid employee under him. In the superintendent's absence, he has authority to grant employees time off. However, he has no authority to hire or discharge, or effectively recom- mend a change in the status of, employees under him. We shall include him in the unit. The shipping clerk at Miami keeps records of shipments and directs a crew of three loaders. His principal function is to direct the load- ing of materials on cars or trucks. He is paid on an hourly basis, as are other employees, and receives approximately 10 percent more than the highest paid employee under him. He has authority to grant 7 Rushville Metal Products, Inc., 107 NLRB 1146, and cases cited therein. 8 Hollow Tree Lumber Company, 91 NLRB 635. 8 Southern Paperboard Corporation, 80 NLRB 1456 ; Glass Fibers, Inc., 93 NLRB 1289 ; Samuel A. Ellsberry Company, 95 NLRB 276. 170 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD employees time off. We find that his direction of the loaders is routine in nature. We shall include him in the unit.10 The senior mechanic at Miami directs a crew of 10 men. He is paid by salary and is the highest paid employee in the plant. He has in fact hired three employees. We shall exclude him from the unit as a supervisor. We find that all production and maintenance employees at the Miami Paper Board Mills, Inc., and Simco Waste Paper, Inc., Miami, Florida, including the shipping clerk and the baling foreman, but excluding office clerical employees, guards, the senior mechanic, and all other supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appro- priate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] 10 Southern Paperboard Corporation, 84 NLRB 822. FLETCHER-EICHMAN COMPANY and Ross GOLDEN, MARY HANSEN, ET AL., PETITIONER and LOCAL 743, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD or, TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, AFL. Case No. 13-UD-13. July 14,1954 Decision, Order, and Direction of Election On February 26, 1954, a petition was filed by Ross Golden, Mary Hansen, et al.,1 pursuant to Section 9 (e) (1) of the National Labor relations Act, to withdraw the union-shop authority of the Union. Thereafter, on March 26, 1954, the Regional Director for the Thir- teenth Region conducted an election among the warehouse and mainte- nance employees of the Employer to determine whether they desired to withdraw the authority of their bargaining representative to re- quire, under its agreement with the Employer, that membership in the Union be a condition of employment. Upon completion of the election, the Regional Director duly issued and served on the parties a tally of ballots, which showed that, of approximately 9 eligible voters, 7 voted in favor of and 2 voted against the above proposition, and no ballots were challenged. Thereafter, the Union filed timely objections to the election. On April 30, 1954, the Regional Director issued his report on objections finding merit in the Union's first objection and recommending that the election be set aside. He found no merit in the Employer's other ob- jections and recommended that they be overruled. The Union there- i Five other employees also signed the petition. 109 NLRB No. 24.