Mid-Continent Carton Corp.

MID-CONTINENT CARTON CORPORATION 423 Accordingly, as the units requested by Petitioner are limited either to individual employers or a segment of the employers in the appro- priate multiemployer unit, we find that unit or the units sought are too narrow in scope and therefore inappropriate for purposes of col- lective bargaining.8 [The Board dismissed the petition.] s It is unnecessary to resolve any question whether Petitioner indicated a sufficient showing of interest with respect to the alternative unit it requested consisting of all former employer members of the Institute. Moreover, we note that, apart from the instant Employers, the other 'former members of the Institute were not made parties herein and did not participate in the case Mid-Continent Carton Corporation and General Drivers, Ware- housemen & Helpers Local Union #89, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Ware- housemen and Helpers of America, Petitioner . Case No. 9-KC-4338. May 3, 1961 DECISION AND ORDER Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before a hearing officer of the National Labor Relations Board. 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 Rodgers, Leedom, and Fanning]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. 2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent employees of the Employer. 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 seeks to represent a unit of all employees at the Em- ployer's box plant. The Employer contends that it has adopted the terms of a contract between its predecessor company and Paper Work- ers Union of Kentucky I covering the employees sought, and that such contract is a bar to this proceeding. The Employer purchased the box plant involved herein from the Louisville Paper and Manufacturing Company, on April 1, 1960. 1 Although served with notice of hearing, the Paper Workers Union of Kentucky did not enter an appearance at the hearing 131 NLRB No. 60. 424 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The latter company operated two plants prior to the sale of its box plant to Employer, and had a contract with the Paper Workers Union of Kentucky covering all its employees. The contract was executed on January 1, 1959, for a 3-year term expiring December 31, 1961. Shortly after its purchase, on May 9, 1960, the Employer signed a written instrument with the Paper Workers Union in which it agreed to retain the employees in the existing work force at the box plant, and to adopt ". . . all of the terms, conditions, and obligations ..." pertaining to them in the contract between the union and the Louis- ville Paper Company. In these circumstances, we find that Employer entered into a new contract with the Intervenor for the box plant, in- corporating by reference all applicable terms and conditions, includ- ing the termination date, of the contract with the former owner. We further find that the term of their new agreement runs from May 9, 1960, to December 31, 1961. As the petition herein was filed on No- vember 28, 1960, more than 150 days before the terminal date of the new agreement, we find that the contract constitutes a bar and ac- cordingly, we shall dismiss the petition as untimely filed. Deluxe Metal Fwrnitwre Company, 121 NLRB 995, 999. [The Board dismissed the petition.] Southern Wires, Inc. and United Papermakers and Paper- workers. Case No. 12-CA-1497. May 4, 1961 DECISION AND ORDER On October 24, 1960, Trial Examiner Eugene E. Dixon issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Southern Wires, Inc., hereinafter called 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 Intermediate Report attached hereto. The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint, and recommended that these allegations be dismissed. Thereafter, Re- spondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief. Pursuant to the provision of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Members Rodgers, Leedom, and Fanning]. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter- 131 NLRB No. 59.