Field Paper Box Co.

22 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD remains a part of the existing unit presently represented by Inter- national Molders and Foundry Workers Union of North America, Local 316, AFL-CIO, at Michigan City, Indiana, plant of Weil- McLain Company.] Field Paper Box Co. and Printing Specialties & Paper Products Union No. 415, affiliated with International Printing Pressmen & Assistants Union of North America, AFL-CIO, Petitioner Box Finishers, Inc. and Printing Specialties & Paper Products Union No. 415, affiliated with International Printing Pressmen & Assistants Union of North America, AFL-CIO,' Petitioner. Cases Nos. 13-RC-7379 and 13-RC-7398. Febiuary 6, 1961 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION* Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before Rush F. Hall, 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 these cases to a three- member panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Fanning and Kimball]. Upon the entire record in these cases, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain employees 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. Field Paper Box Co., an Illinois corporation, is engaged in the manufacture of paper boxes at its plant at 1740 North Pulaski Road, Chicago, Illinois. Box Finishers, Inc., an Illinois corporation, has a plant at 4455 West Fullerton Avenue, Chicago, Illinois, for the finishing of paper boxes. The Petitioner appears to have taken the position at the hearing that it now seeks a single production and maintenance unit comprising both plants, but it would continue to ' The name of the Petitioner appears as amended at the hearing. *On February 23, 1961, the Board approved a stipulation of the parties in which they asserted that it was, and is, the intention of all parties to this proceeding to exclude, not include, plant clericals from the voting unit at both plants of the Employer herein in- volved . In view of the above action, it becomes unnecessary for the Regional Director, before proceeding with the election , to determine that the Petitioner has an adequate showing of interest in the larger unit originally found appropriate. 130 NLRB No. 7. FIELD PAPER BOX CO. 23 include plant clericals at Field and exclude them at Finishers z The Employer contends that separate single-plant units are solely appro- priate and refused to agree to the Petitioner's exclusion of plant clericals. Eli Field and his wife own both corporations and the former is president and treasurer of both. The Field family constitutes a majority of the board of directors of both and they have a common labor relations policy. As they have common ownership and control and a common labor relations policy, we find that they constitute a single employer. V.I.P. Radio, Inc., 128 NLRB 113. There is no history of collective bargaining at either plant and no union seeks to represent employees at each plant separately. The plants are separated by a distance of approximately 2 miles, each has separate supervision, there has been no employee interchange, and 90 percent of Finishers' business is with companies other than Field. However, when Field established Finishers it did so by permanent transfer of 15 employees, apparently constituting all of Finishers' employees, and these employees retained their seniority, vacation, and insurance benefits which they had acquired at Field, the wage rates of the two plants are similar, and all of the finishing work required by Field is performed by Finishers. We find, therefore, in all the circumstances, particularly as no union seeks to represent either plant separately, and as both plants have common conditions of employment, ownership, and control, that a single unit comprising both plants is appropriate. George H. Braun, d/b/a Alamo-Brawn Beef Company, et al., 128 NLRB 32. See Virginia-Carolina Chem- ical Corporation, 128 NLRB 446. As the parties have not agreed basically to exclude all plant cleri- cals as a class, we shall follow our customary practice of including them in the production and maintenance unit. Raybestos Manhat- tan, Inc., 115 NLRB 1036. Accordingly, we find that the following employees constitute a unit appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act : All production and maintenance employees, including plant clerical 'employees, at the Chicago plants of the Employer, excluding office clerical employees, professional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. The unit found appropriate is larger than that sought by the Peti- tioner because of our inclusion of plant clerical employees in both plants and it is not clear whether the Petitioner has an adequate 2 Originally the Petitioner filed a petition In Case No. 13-RC-7379 for all production and maintenance employees, including plant clericals, of Field at 1740 North Pulaski Road, Chicago , Illinois , and thereafter filed a similar petition In Case No . 13-RC-7398 covering employees of Finishers at 4455 West Fullerton Avenue, Chicago, Illinois , but excluding plant clericals 24 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD showing of interest. Accordingly, we instruct the Regional Director not to proceed with the election herein directed until he shall have first determined that the Petitioner has made an adequate showing of interest among the employees in the appropriate unit who are eligible to vote in the election 3 [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] 8 Foremost Dairies, Inc., 118 NLRB 1424, 1428, footnote 7. Squirt-Nesbitt Bottling Corp. and Bakery Sales Drivers Union, Local No. 344. Case No. 13-CA-33993. February 7, 1961 DECISION AND ORDER On June 14, 1960, Trial Examiner John P. von Rohr issued his In- termediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Inter- mediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the General Counsel and Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and briefs in support thereof, and Respondent filed a reply brief. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its power in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Rodgers and Jenkins]. 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, with the exceptions and modifications noted below. We agree with the Trial Examiner that the individual distributor- ship contracts entered into by the Respondent with its driver-salesmen did not alter the employee status of these drivers or convert them into independent contractors. We also find that Respondent violated Sec- tion 8 (a) (5) and (1) of the Act, as concluded by the Trial Examiner, by refusing to bargain with the Union, the certified bargaining repre- sentative of its driver-salesmen, as to those driver-salesmen who signed distributorship contracts and by entering into individual contracts with such employees.' ' Elmer Johnson, secretary-treasurer of the Union, was not present at the meeting be- tween Respondent and union representatives held on August 12, 1959, as the Intermediate Report finds .1 In view of our disposition herein, we find it unnecessary to pass upon whether, as found by the Trial Examiner, Respondent also violated the Act by cooperating with and encouraging the employees to accept the distributorship plan or would even have violated the Act had the individual contract effectively changed the status of the driver-salesmen to that of independent contractor. 130 NLRB No. 9.