The Mengel Co.

58 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD THE MENGEL COMPANY and UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA, AFL, Petitioner. Case No. 9-RC-1831. April 13, 1953 DECISION AND ORDER Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act,` a hearing was held before William G. Wilkerson, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. 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 Murdock]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:' 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the mean- ing of the Act. 2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent em- ployees of the Employer. 3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the representation of employees of the Employer within the mean- ing of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, for the following reasons: The Petitioner and the Employer propose a unit consisting of all production and maintenance employees at two of the Em- ployer's Louisville, Kentucky, plants. The Intervenor, Inter- national Woodworkers of America, CIO, and its Local S-51 contend that this unit'is inappropriate. The Employer is' engaged in manufacturing and selling furniture, plywood, doors, veneers, 'and other wood products`` as well as fibre containers; it maintains plants throughout the United States. Several of these plants are situated in Louisville, Kentucky. Two plants, known as the Fourth Street and 12th Street plants, comprise the furniture division, and two other plants, called branches 2 and 10, form the plywood division. Another plant in the Louisville area is part of the Employer's-corru- gated box division, now represented by an independent union. Finally, there is a plant and warehousing operation in the same area, maintained as a joint venture with the U.S. Plywood Com- pany, where the employees are not represented by any labor organization. This proceeding involves only the 4 furniture and plywood division plants, the Petitioner requesting only the plywood plants, and the Intervenor insisting only upon a 4-plant unit. The two plywood plants and the Fourth Street plant are physically located in the same immediate vicinity, the latter separated from the plywood plants by a railroad track. The 12th Street plant is about 2-1 miles° distant. The executive offices of the Employer's entire Louisville operations are located in two buildings at the Fourth Street plant. ' - IThe Petitioner's request for oral argument is hereby denied, as the record and the Petitioner's brief adequately present the issues and positions of the parties. 104 NLRB No 4. THE MENGEL COMPANY 59 Each of these 2 divisions is headed by a vice president in charge of operations; 1, manufactures a branded type of furni- ture nationally advertised and sold to retailers, and the other produces plywood, doors, veneers, and other wood products. Only a small percentage of the plywood and veneer produced in the plywood division is used by the furniture division plants. Generally, all the employees are engaged in woodworking, and in large measure the same type of machines are found in both divisions. Although there is some difference in the special skills required in the 2 divisions, as between the 2 plywood plants this disparity is greater than appears between furniture and plywood. Each division has its own sales department, pay- roll, personnel officer, and employment office. However, there is 1 labor relations director for the entire company. Employees are rarely interchanged between divisions; the only instances occur under the application of the seniority clause of the Em- ployer's contract with the Intervenor. Facilities shared by the employees of the 2 divisions appear to be limited to a common cafeteria located at the 12th Street plant. For many years all the employees here involved have formed a single bargaining unit. In 1941, the Employer recognized the Petitioner as bargaining agent in the 4-plant unit. In 1948, in a Board proceeding, the Employer urged separation of the Z divi- sions into 2 units, but, as both the Petitioner and the Intervenor insisted upon continuance of the historic unit, the Board re- jected the Employer's contention.' The Intervenor won the resultant election and was certified. And in 1950, the Employer joined both Unions in a stipulation for certification upon a con- sent election for the 4-plant unit; again the Intervenor was certified. Throughout all these years there have been succes- sive single collective -bargaining contracts covering all 4 plants. On this record we., see no reason for departing from the Board's earlier decision on the same issue. Those factors which showed the appropriateness of the 4-plant unit in 1948, when only the Employer attacked it, are equally present now that the Petitioner, having been ousted in the 1948 election as bargaining representative, would also dismember the estab- lished unit. If anything, the additional 5 years of successful bargaining on the same unit basis makes the bargaining history more persuasive than it was in 1948, at the time of the earlier decision. In support of their present position, the Employer and the Petitioner point to certain management and operational changes which were made since 1948. It is true, as they assert, that hiring for each division is now more independent, that the amount of plywood going from the plywood to the furniture division has decreased, and that the plywood divisionno longer receives power and steam from the powerhouse of the furni- ture,division. These facts, however, are insufficient to offset the. community of interest among the employees of all 4 plants shown by the proximity of the plants in the same area, the basic similarity of the woodworking skills at the various locations, the similarity in the employees' working conditions 2 The Mengel Company, 78 NLRB 880. 60 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD and other benefits, and the Employer's ultimate centralized control over labor relations. On these facts, and in view of the long history of collective bargaining on the 4-plant unit basis, we believe that the existing multi divisionpattern should be left undisturbed. 3 Accordingly, as the unit requested by the Petitioner is inappropriate, we shall dismiss the petition. ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed. 3Murray Corporation of America--Ecorse Plant, 101 NLRB 313. EIGEL JENSEN AND THOMAS N. RAMSAY, COPARTNERS, d/b/a ARTCRAFT ENGINEERING & MANUFACTURING CO. and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, DIS- TRICT LODGE NO. 94, LOCAL NO. 311. Case No. 21-CA- 1339. April 14, 1953 DECISION AND ORDER On February 17, 1953, Trial Examiner Herman Marx issued his Intermediate Report in the above - entitled proceeding , finding that the Respondent had not engaged in and was not engaging in the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and recommending that the complaint herein be dismissed, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter , the General Counsel and the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and supporting briefs. The Board' has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Ex- aminer at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.2 The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions , and recommendations of the Trial Examiner. ORDER Upon the entire record in this case and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the com- t 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 Styles and Peterson]. ZThe Trial Examiner erroneously sustained the Respondent 's objection to receipt in evidence of the written statement of witness Allstead at the hearing. The statement should have been admitted as evidence of a past recorded recollection. Wigmore on Evidence, Third Edition, "Past Recollection Recorded," sections 734-737; 744-747. However, as the statement was contradictory on its face, we find that the General Counsel's position was not prejudiced by this action. 104 NLRB No. 14.