Miller Container Corp.

MILLER CONTAINER CORPORATION 509 Miller Container Corporation and International Brotherhood of Pulp, Sulphite & Paper Mill Workers, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 5-RC-1783. February 20, 1956 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 T. W. Kennedy, hear- ing 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 Employer is engaged in the manufacture of corrugated boxes in the State of Virginia. It commenceddoperations on June 20, 1955. From that date to the date of the hearing, it shipped directly out of the State of Virginia, goods valued at $18,000. On the basis of this figure projected over a 1-year period, the Employer's direct out-of-State shipments well exceed $50,000 annually. We find, there- fore, that the Employer is engaged in commerce and that it will effec- tuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction.' 2. The labor organization 2 involved claims to represent certain employees of the Employer. 3. The Employer contends that the petition should be dismissed on the grounds that its plant is allegedly in an unsettled condition. Although there has been some turnover of employees because of the Employer's dissatisfaction with the aptitudes of many employees, it appears that the plant is functionally complete, that the employees currently employed are permanent employees, and that these em- ployees represent all employee classifications. The Employer cur- rently employs approximately 30 employees, but has expectations of increasing its work force to about 50 employees. This possibility of an increase in employees is, however, speculative. On these facts we find, contrary to the Employer's contention, that the petition was timely filed and that a question affecting commerce exists concerning the representation of certain employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. i Jonesboro Grain Drying Cooperative , 110 NLRB 481 ; American Television Inc., 111 NLRB 164 2 The United Paperworkeis , AFL-CIO, moved to intervene subsequent to the date of the hearing As its showing of interest , it submitted 14 authorization cards which were not acceptable because they were undated or dated subsequent to the hearing Thereafter, it submitted five additional cards bearing dates prior to the hearing Of these cards, three were signed by employees who had signed the cards which were originally submitted Two of the five cards were signed by employees who subsequently admitted in sworn affi- davits that the cards , although dated prior to the hearing , were, in fact , signed after the hearing Such cards , of course , are not valid in determining an intervenor 's showing of interest. Moreover , the submission of falsely dated cards is a practice the Board can neither approve nor condone Under all the circumstances of this case , the Board finds that United Paperworkeis , AFL-CIO, has not submitted an adequate showing of interest. ' to wiirrant intervention , The motion to intervene is accordingly denied. 115 NLRB No. 72. 510 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 4. The parties agree as to the appropriateness of the following unit of employees which we find constitutes an appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act: All production and maintenance employees employed at the Employer's Roanoke, Virginia, plant, including truckdrivers, but excluding office clerical employees, head maintenance man, guards, and all supervisors as defined in the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] MEMBER RODGERS took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Direction of Election. Montgomery Ward & Company, Incorporated ' and Mail Order, Retail Department Store, and Warehouse Employees Local Union No. 149, AFL-CIO,2 Petitioner. Case No. 18-IBC-2662. February 20,1956 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before L. C. Howg, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from preju- dicial error and are hereby affirmed.' 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 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 a unit of all the Employer's maintenance employees in St. Paul, Minnesota, including the five engineers in the boilerroom. The Intervenor, which was the con- tractual representative of the foregoing unit from 1942 to 1954, now desires to represent the engineers alone. Both the Employer and the Petitioner contend that only the unit sought by the Petitioner is appro- priate. In view of the history of collective bargaining and estab- lished Board precedent, we find that a maintenance unit is appropriate. 1 The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing 3 The AFL and CIO having merged after the hearing in the case, we are amending the identification of the affiliation of the Unions. 3 The International Union of Operating Engineers , Local No. 36, AFL-CIO, was per- mitted to intervene on the basis of its showing of interest. 115 NLRB No. 81.