Scott Paper Co.

HOLLINGSWORTH & WHITNEY DIVISION 15 other laborers, and in the past a great majority of the employees so designated have become permanent employees . Furthermore, about 5 of these 7 employees have been previously employed by the Em- ployer as casual laborers. The full-time, continuous employment of these "casual" laborers, the lack of distinction between their work and that of other of the Employer's employees, and the reasonable likelihood ` that they will continue indefinitely in the employ of the Employer all clearly demonstrates that the employment of these la- borers is not "casual" as the Board uses that term .6 Their exclusion from the unit would clearly contravene Board' policy.7 Accordingly, we shall include them in the unit despite the stipulation of the parties to the contrary .8 For the foregoing reasons we find that the following employees of the Employer constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of col- lective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act: All production, maintenance and construction employees employed in the Employer's West Virginia pipeline operations, including gaugers,' engineers, assistant shop men, station foremen, deliverymen, linemen, laborers,9 telegraph operators, and the operator and iron tank gauger; but excluding office clerical employees, district foremen, construction foremen, the construction foreman and gauger, all assistant construc- tion foremen, and all supervisors as defined in the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] 0 American Factors, Limited , 109 NLRB 834, at 837-838; Rollo Transit Corporation, 110 NLRB 1623, at 1627. 7 See Fort Worth Stockyards, 109 NLRB 1452, at 1453; Imperial Rice Mills, Inc., 110 NLRB 612, at 613. 8 The Yale and Towne Manse!acturing Company, 112 NLRB 1268. 9 Included in this category are the laborers referred to by the parties as casual employees. Hollingsworth & Whitney Division of Scott Paper Company and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO,' Petitioner. Cases Nos.15-RC-1248,15-RC-1249, and 15-RC-1f50. January 6,1956 DECISION AND ORDER Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section. 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before Fred A. Lewis, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. ' As the APL and CIO merged subsequent to the hearing in these eases , we are taking notice thereof and amending the Petitioner's and Joint Intervenors ' (see footnote 3 below) names. 115 NLRB No. 6. 16 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Upon the entire record in these cases,2 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. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the represen- tation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, for the following reasons: The Petitioner seeks to sever from the established production and maintenance unit separate units of electricians, instrument men, and power department employees. The Petitioner and Joint Intervenors have for over 10 years jointly represented the production and maintenance employees at the Re- spondent's plant. - They have bargained jointly with the Employer and have entered into single contracts covering the plantwide unit. Notice to modify the parties' 1954-55 agreement was served by all three unions upon the Employer before the April 1, 1955, Mill-B date of that agreement. On April 20, 1955, the Petitioner filed its peti- tions herein. Nevertheless, on May 26 delegates from Petitioner's lo- cal in the Employer's plant joined with delegates from the Joint Intervenors' locals,4 as had been the, customary practice in past years, in drawing up general bargaining demands to present to the Em- ployer. Petitioner's delegates approved these demands. Thereafter on June 22 Petitioner's delegates, together with those of the Joint Intervenors' adopted a new procedure for ratifying their contracts with the Employer. On June 23, negotiations were held with the Employer and agreement was reached on the general demands. Pe- titioner's delegates participated in these negotiations and agreed with the results. Bargaining conferences were scheduled for the following day, at which special problems of employees in the various local unions were to be discussed. At the beginning of these confer- ences, Petitioner's international representative appeared . and an- nounced that Petitioner had no intention of signing any agreement at least until after a decision by this Board on the instant petitions. The scheduled conferences were not held, because the Employer and Joint Intervenors believed it would be futile to negotiate further for a contract which Petitioner would not sign. 2 The Joint Intervenors' request foi oral argument is denied as the record including the briefs fully presents the issues and the positions of the parties 3 The International Brotherhood of Pulp, Sulphite & P^apei Mill Workers, AFL-CIO, and the International Brotherhood of Paper Makers, AFL-CIO, have with the Petitioner been jointly recognized by the Employer as the representative of its-production and main- tenance employees Accordingly, they intervened as joint inteivenois on the basis of such recognition. 4 Each of the Joint Intervenors has two locals in the instant plant , Petitioner has one local ' INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY 17 The Joint Intervenors contend that the petitions should be dis- missed 5 on the ground, among others, that, through its participation as one of the joint representatives both in drawing up bargaining demands and actually bargaining with the Employer during the pend- ency of the petitions, the Petitioner waived its right to rely, or estopped itself from relying, on the instant petitions. We agree. The Petitioner has been bargaining with the Employer (together with the Joint Intervenors) for the existing plantwide unit, while at the same time seeking to sever part of that unit. In so bargaining for the overall unit, the Petitioner has, in our view, taken a position wholly inconsistent with its attempt to establish that a question con- cerning representation exists with respect to the employees it seeks to sever. We do not believe that it would effectuate the policies of the Act to permit the Petitioner to proceed with its petitions in view of this inconsistency. Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petitions. [The Board dismissed the petitions.] MEMBER BEAN took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Order. -The Employer also requested dismissal of the petitions , but for reasons which need not be consider ed bete in view of our decision in these cases International Paper Company and International Brotherhood' of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO,' Petitioner. Cases Nos. 15-RC- 1267, 15-RC-1268, and 15-RC-1269. January 6, 1956 DECISION AND ORDER Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the Na- tional Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before Fred A. Lewis, 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 these cases,2 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 em- ployees of the Employer.' 1 As the AFL and CIO merged subsequent to the hearing in these cases , we are taking notice thereof and amending the names of the unions involved in this pioceeding 2The Employer 's and Joint Intervenois' requests for oral argument are denied as the recoi d 'including briefs fully presents the issues and positions of the parties The International Brotherhood of Pulp , Sulphite , & Paper Mill Workers , AFL-CIO, and the International Brotherhood of Paper Makers , AFL-CIO , herein called the Joint Intervenats , intervened jointly on the basis of then current recognition in conjunction 115 NLRB No. T. 390609-56-vol 115-3