International Paper Co.

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. 5 The Employer also requested dismissal of the petitions , but for reasons which need not be considered here 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 proceeding. 2 The Employer's and Joint Intervenors' requests for oral argument are denied as the record 'including briefs fully presents the issues and positions of the parties. s The International Brotherhood of Pulp, Sulphite , & Paper Mill Workers, AFL--CIO, and the International Brotherhood of Paper Makers , AFL-CIO, herein called the Joint Intervenors , intervened jointly on the basis of their current recognition in conjunction 115 NLRB No. 7. 390609-56-vol. 115-3 18 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 3. No 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, for the following reasons: The Petitioner and Joint Intervenors have for over 10 years jointly represented in one multiplant unit the production and maintenance employees in the Employer's Southern Kraft Division. Petitioner now seeks to sever from this broad unit separate multiplant units of electricians, instrument men, and power department employees.' The Petitioner and Joint Intervenors have bargained with the Employer as a single amalgamated labor organization and have entered into single contracts covering the production and mainte- nance employees. On February 11, 1955, notice to modify the then current agreement was timely filed by the joint bargainers' representa- tive.-' On- April 23 the annual meeting of the council of the joint union representatives met and adopted a 10-point bargaining program to be presented to the Employer. The Council was composed of inter- national representatives and local delegates of each of the joint bar- gaining unions. Petitioner's representatives and local delegates' participated in drawing up, and approved, the 10-point program. Negotiations commenced on April 27. The petitions now before the Board were filed on April 29. Nevertheless, Petitioner's representa- tives actively participated in the negotiations from that date till their conclusion. On May 5 final agreement, subject to employee ratifica- tion, was reached with the Employer. By May 23 the new contract was duly ratified and the Employer so notified. On June 1, the con- tract, pursuant to its terms, was placed in effect. The Petitioner did not notify the Employer that it did not wish to receive the benefits of the new agreement and all the employees it here seeks to sever received such benefits. Both the Employer and Joint Intervenors contend that the peti- tions should be dismissed, arguing in effect that Petitioner, because of its participation in the April-May negotiations, could not thereafter proceed with the petitions. We agree. The Petitioner, both before and after filing its petitions, actively engaged with the Joint Inter- with the Petitioner as the joint bargaining representative of the Employer's production and maintenance employees. The United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fit- ting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO, and International Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO, and certain of its lodges intervened to protect their interest in certain established units However , upon certain amendments of the unit descriptions being made, they withdrew. None of the ieferences hereafter to "intervenors" refers to these latter unions. + The Board has held that such multiplant units are alone appropriate in view of the past bargaining history on the divisionwide basis. International Paper Company, Southern Kraft Divisroon, 101 NLRB 759. G The contract term was from June 1, 1954, to June 1, 1955, and year to year there- after. BALFRE GEAR & MANUFACTURING COMPANY 19 venors in bargaining for the established production and maintenance unit. Thus, as one of the joint representatives, it has been bargaining with the Employer for the existing plantwide unit, while at the same time seeking to sever part of that unit. In view of this inconsistency in the Petitioner's actions, we find that no question concerning repre- sentation exists and shall dismiss the petitions for the reasons set forth in Hollingsworth c Whitney Division of Scott Paper Company.6 [The Board dismissed the petitions.] MEMBER BEAN took no part in the consideration of the above Deci- sion and Order. "115 NLRB 15. Balfre Gear & Manufacturing Company and Frank J. Mulzof, et al., Petitioner and District No. 8, International Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO. Case No. 13-UD-P2. January 6, 1956 DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF RESULTS OF ELECTION On September 1, 1955, Frank J. Mulzof and others filed a petition pursuant to Section 9 (e) (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, seeking to rescind the authority of District No. 8, International Asso- ciation of Machinists, AFL-CIO, herein called the Union, to enter into a union-shop agreement pursuant to Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. On September 28, 1955, the Regional Director for the Thir- teenth Region conducted an election among the employees in the contract unit. Upon the conclusion of the election, a tally of ballots was furnished the parties. The tally shows that of 44 eligible voters, 39 cast valid ballots, of which 34 were for rescinding the authority of the Union to require, under its agreement with the Employer, that membership in the Union be a condition of employment, 5 were against the above proposition. On September 30, 1955, the Union filed objections to the election. On October 27, 1955, the Regional Director issued his report on ob- jections, in which he recommended that the objections be overruled and that the Board certify the results of the election. The Union filed timely exceptions to the Regional Director's report. The Union contends : (1) The election was prematurely ordered by the Regional Director over the objections of the Union at a time when it was impossible to determine who was eligible to participate in the election; (2) the Employer refused to maintain its neutrality but, to the contrary, encouraged the Petitioner in contravention of its 115 NLRB No. 2.