Oswego Falls Corp.

314 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD we shall exclude them from the unit. Accordingly, the Em- ployer's request to reopen the record is denied. Accordingly, we find that all selling and nonselling employees at the Employer ' s main store , farm store , and service station on Stockton Street, Trenton, New Jersey, as well as the em= ployees in the Employer's warehouse on Laylor Street in that city, including regular part-time selling and nonselling em- ployees, but excluding confidential employees, seasonal em- ployees, executives, division managers, department heads, and all other supervisors as defined in 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.] OSWEGO FALLS CORPORATION and UNITED PAPER WORKERS OF AMERICA , CIO, Petitioner . Case No. 17- RC-1505. April 22, 1953 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before William J. Cassidy, 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 meaning of the Act. 2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain employees of the Employer. 3. 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 Petitioner requests a unit limited to the production and maintenance employees of the Employer ' s Kansas City, Kansas , plant. The Employer and the Intervenor , International Brotherhood of Pulp , Sulphite , and Paper Mill Workers of U. S. and Canada, Local Union No. 510 , AFL, contend that because of a bargaining history on a broader basis,'' these employees may only be represented together with employees at the Employer ' s Fulton, New York, plant. 'I"= The Employer' s main plant is at Fulton , where it operates a pulp mill, a paper mill, and a conversion plant for the manufacture of paper food containers and enclosures. At its branch plant in Kansas City, as well as at certain other plants not here involved , it makes only paper food containers. The Fulton and Kansas City plants are 1,200 miles apart and have separate managers , but there is a single production 104 NLRB No 45 OSWEGO FALLS CORPORATION 315 supervisor, located at Fulton, in charge of all labor relations and contract negotiations. Fulton has more than twice as many employees as Kansas City and many job categories at Fulton do not exist at Kansas City, because the latter has no pulp or paper mill. There is little or no interchange between the two locations. In 1941, the Intervenor's Local 54 was certified as bargain- ing agent at the Fulton plant. Its Local 510 was certified in 1944 in the Kansas City plant. From the time of their respec- tive certifications and until 1951, these Locals conducted sepa- rate negotiations and executed separate agreements with the Employer for each plant. In 1951, for the first time, these parties made a single contract of 2 years' duration, covering both plants. For this purpose the negotiating committee of the Kansas City Local traveled to Fulton. In the agreement, the Employer recognized the Intervenor, the Fulton Local, and the Kansas City Local "as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent" for both plants, but members of the negotiating committee of each Local signed the contract as the "authorized representatives" of their own Local. The basic wage rates are similar but not identical, and are set forth in separate supplements for each plant. Grievances are handled at the plant level until the final step - prior to submission to arbitration . Seniority rules differ for employees under the jurisdiction of the two Locals. For purposes of vacations, holidays, and pension rights, seniority is companywide, but in case of layoffs, only employment at the single plant is counted. Negotiations looking to renewal of the 1951 contract were started in the fall of 1952. Because the parties deemed it impractical to have the Kansas City committee travel to Fulton, the Kansas City Local, assisted by the Intervenor's international representative , bargained with the Employer's labor relations director at Kansas City. Here, a series of conferences were held and only matters pertaining to the Kansas City plant were discussed. Settlement was reached in December and the resultant agreement was ratified by the membership of the Kansas City Local, with the understanding that a single two-plant contract would be executed only after similar negotiations were concluded at Fulton. Further negoti- ations have been suspended because of the instant petition. There is little evidence to justify a joinder of these 2 plants into a single bargaining unit based on integration of company operations, or on personal contact and inter- course between the groups of employees. Indeed, as the record shows, the distance between the 2 locations has completely isolated each group from the other over the years. The request for a 2-plant unit rests almost entirely on the fact that a single 2-plant contract was executed in 1951. In view of the long history of bargaining in single-plant units based on Board certifications, this single 2-plant contract cannot now be a determinative factor.' The 1951 contract falls I Jacksonville Linen Service, 89 NLRB 1354; Lever Brothers Company, 74 NLRB 628. 316 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD short of showing an intention by the parties to establish a multiplant unit, for the 2 Locals were still recognized as parties, the local committees signed as separate groups, and the contract contained separate provisions for each plant. I The equivocal character of this short-lived and ambiguous multiplant bargaining history is also shown by the fact that later negotiations were conducted separately for the Kansas City plant. On the entire record, therefore, we conclude that the 1951 contract is insufficient reason to disturb the long existing single-plant units. Accordingly, we find that all production and maintenance employees employed at the Employer's Kansas City plant, including clerks, timekeepers, and mill clerks, but excluding office clerical employees, guards, professional employees, and 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.3 [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] 2Cf. Hy-Grade Food Products Corporation, 85 NLRB 841. 3 The composition of the unit is in accord with the Petitioner's request. As set forth in the Employer 's last contract with the Intervenor, and as described by the Intervenor at the hearing, the unit would also exclude clerks, timekeepers , and mill clerks. As this apparent disagree- ment was not explored during the hearing, it may be that the parties have agreed to include these fringe categories. In any event, as the Petitioner desires to represent them , and as there is now a question concerning representation to be resolved in the overall unit , we have in- cluded them. The Waterous Company, 92 NLRB 76. THE POST PRINTING & PUBLISHING COMPANY and DEN_ VER NEWSPAPER GUILD, LOCAL NO. 74, CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 30-RC-874. April 22, 1953 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before Clyde F. Waers, 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 National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Members Houston, Murdock, and Styles]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds: 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the mean- ing of the National Labor Relations Act. 2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain employees of the Employer. 3. A 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. 4. The Petitioner seeks to include full-time and regular part-time copyholders in its existing unit consisting of "all 104 NLRB No. 46.