Crown Zellerbach Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 24, 1943

54 N.L.R.B. 25 (N.L.R.B. 1943)

In the Matter Of CROWN ZELLERBACH CORPORATION, SEATTLE CHARCOAL
DIVISION and UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF WELDORS , CUTTERS AND
HELPERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 9, AFFILIATED WITH C. U. A.
Case No. 19-B-1098.-Decided December 24, 1943
Mr. J. Paul Coie, of Seattle, Wash., for the Company.
Mr. Bay J. Evett, of Seattle, Wash., for the Weldors.
Mr. L. Presley Gill, of Seattle, Wash., for the Intervenors.
Mr. A. Sumner Lawrence, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon amended petition duly filed by United Brotherhood of Weld-
ors, Cutters and Helpers of America, Local 9, affiliated with the
C. U. A., herein called the Weldors, alleging that a question affecting
commerce had arisen concerning the representation. of employees of
Crown Zellerbach Corporation, Seattle Charcoal Division, Seattle,
Washington, herein called the Company, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board provided for an appropriate hearing upon due notice
before William A. Babcock, Jr., Trial Examiner. Said hearing was
held at Seattle, Washington, on November 11, 1943. The Company,
the Weldors, Machinists Union Local 79 chartered by the Interna-
tional Association of Machinists, affiliated with the A. F. of L., and
Lumber and Sawmill Workers Union Local X519, chartered by the
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, affiliated
with the A. F. of L., herein collectively called the Intervenors, ap-
peared, participated, and were afforded full opportunity to be heard,
to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence
bearing on the issues. The Trial Examiner's rulings made at the
hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. The
Intervenors' motions to dismiss are denied for reasons hereinafter
stated. All parties were afforded the opportunity to file briefs with
the Board.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
54 N. L. R. B., No. 5
25
T 'i`IbiONS '1F 'NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Crown Zellerbach Corporation, a Nevada corporation, has plants
and offices throughout the United States and is engaged in the general
business of pulp and paper manufacturing. The only plant involved
in this proceeding is the charcoal manufacturing plant located in
Seattle, Washington. The entire output of the plant is produced under
contracts with the War Department of the United States Government
and is delivered to the War Department within the State^of Washing-
ton. Substantial quantities of the products so manufactured and de-
livered are eventually shipped to points outside the State of Washing-
ton. The Company concedes that in the operation of this plant it is
engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor
Relations Act.
H. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
United Brotherhood of Weldors, Cutters and Helpers of America,
Local 9, is a labor organization affiliated with the Confederated Unions
of America, admitting to membership employees of the Company.
Machinists Union Local 79, chartered by the International Associa-
tion of Machinists, is a labor organization affiliated with the Ameri-
can Federation of Labor, admitting to membership employees of the
Company.
Lumber and Sawmill Workers Union Local 2519, chartered by the
Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, is a labor organi-
zation affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, admitting
to membership employees of the Company.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
On or about April 16, 1943, individual welders employed by the
Company orally informed the Company that they desired to be repre-
sented by the Weldors and would like to have the Company enter into
a collective bargaining agreement with the Weldors. They were in-
formed that, since the Company's contracts with the War Department
were temporary, the Company could not sign a contract with the
Weldors. These employees reported this conversation to the Weldors
which thereupon filed the present petition on April 19, 1943.
Prior to the filing of the petition, the Company also had conversa-
tions with representatives of the Intervenors with respect to collective
bargaining agreements, and by letters dated May 5, 1943, and August
2, 1943, respectively, offered to continue until October 1, 1943, certain
closed-shop contracts which had been executed by the Intervenors and
a concern known as the Carlisle Company, the predecessor of the
CEO`VN ZELLERBACH CORPORAT}' JN r+a,` i q R7
Company, with respect to the operation of the plane, evolved 1
These offers were accepted by the Intervenors.2 Ear.y it. May 1943,
representatives of the Weldors had conversations with representa-
tives of the Company in regard to recognition and collective bargain-
ing for welders employed by the Company.3 The Company declined
to recognize or bargain with the Weldors. The Company's position
in this respect was reaffirmed in a written communication to the Weld-
ors dated September 27, 1943, which communication was a reply to a
formal written demand for collective bargaining on the part of the
Weldors by letter dated September 24, 1943.
Both the Company and the Intervenors contend that the present pro-
ceeding is barred by reason of existing collective bargaining agree-
ments. In addition thereto, the Intervenors claim that the petition
should be dismissed upon the ground that the Weldors made no de-
mand for collective bargaining prior to the filing of its petition.
So far as the question of a bar arising from existing contracts is
concerned, the contract of the Sawmill Workers Union is clearly not a
bar since it has been in effect for more than 2 years 4 and is of indefi-
nite duration.5 The contract of the Machinists is equally ineffective
as a bar since the Weldors' claim to representation preceded the effec-
tive date for automatic renewal.6
The further contention of the Intervenors that the petition should
be dismissed because the Weldors made no formal demand upon the
Company for collective bargaining prior to the filing of its petition,
is equally without merit and has been previously presented to and
rejected by the Board.' We see no reason to depart from this posi-
1 The agreements in question purport to cover welders in addition to other employees of
the plant The agreement of the Sawmill Workers which is dated July 28, 1941 , runs for an
Indefinite period, subject to termination upon 60 days ' notice . The agreement of the Ma-
chinists was originally effective for 1 year from January 20 , 1942 , with provision for auto-
matic renewal in the absence of notice by either party 30 days prior to January 20, 1942.
2 Following October 1st , the general manager of the Company in oral conversations with
representatives of the Intervenors agreed to continue the existing agreements with such
unions indefinitely.
8 The welding employees of the Company were formerly employed by the Company 's pred-
ecessor , The Carlisle Company. In November of 1942 , the Welders requested the latter to
iecognize it as bargaining agent for welders, which request was followed in December 1942
by the filing of a petition for investigation and certification of representatives with respect
to welders (19-R-983). After hearing, the petition was subsequently withdrawn as the
result of the transfer to the Company of the plant herein involved.
4 The present extension by the Company is without change in the terms of the contract
as originally negotiated and is to all intents and purposes a continuation of the contract
between the Company's predecessor and the Sawmill Workers Union . Moreover, since such
extension was effected with notice of the Welders' claim to representation , the extended
contract is not a bar to the present proceeding . Matter of The Walgreen Company, 37
N. L. R B 764.
r. See Matter of Borman Sportswear , Inc., 44 N. L R B 742.
See Matter of City Welding & Machine Company , 46 N L R . B. 1357. Since the subse-
quent adoption and extension by the Company of the contract with the Company ' s prede-
cessor occurred after notice to the Company of the Weldors' claim to representation , it like-
wise is no bar to the present proceeding
° See Matter of The Colambus Iron Worl,s Company, 47 N. L R. B 430; Matter of The
Cilbei t & Bennett Manufacturing Company, 45 N. L. R. B. 1223 , and cases cited therein.
28 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ,
tion; it is sufficient that as of the date of the hearing the petitioning
union's status as bargaining representative is disputed and that recog-
nition depends upon certification by the Board.
A statement of a Field Examiner for the Board, introduced in evi-
dence at the hearing, indicates that the Weldors represents a sub-
stantial number of employees in the unit hereinafter found
appropriate." -
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Company within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT; THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
The Weldors contends that a unit composed of welders, cutters, and
helpers employed by the Company is appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining.9 The Company and the Intervenors both urge
that a separate unit of welders is not appropriate and maintain that
the welders should be included in the larger unit composed of main-
tenance and repair employees who are covered by the contract with
the Machinists. In support of their contention, the Company and the
Intervenors point to the history of collective bargaining and func-
tional considerations affecting the relation of welders with the ma-
chinists and other employees in the maintenance and repair group
hereinabove referred to.
With respect to the history of collective bargaining, it appears that
while the Machinists has in the past on occasion bargained on behalf
of the members of a sublocal known as Machinists Welders Union
Local 1351, which at one time included the welders employed by the
Company,1° the Machinists has not negotiated or dealt with the Com-
pany with respect to grievances for welders since the date when the
Company took over the operations of the plant herein involved. Since
that time and even prior thereto 11 the employees doing welding
The Field Examiner reported that the Weldors had submitted four designations dated
in September 1943, all of which bore the apparently genuine original signatures of persons
whose names are on a current pay roll of the Company containing the' names of four per-
sons within the claimed appropriate unit.
The Intervenors relying upon their contracts offered no proof of representation.
° while the unit proposed by the Weldors includes cutters and helpers, it appears that of
this group only welders are employed by the Company.
10 It appears that while the welders herein concerned were members of Machinists
Weldors Union Local 1351 , the local negotiated a wage adjustment for welders alone.
Thereafter, upon the withdrawal of the charter of Local 1351 as the result of attempts on
the part of the welders to establish a separate welders' international within the AFL, the
welders at the plant involved were given the opportunity to transfer to the Machinists.
However, none of the welders at the plant made such transfer then or at any subsequent
time.
11 The welders were apparently well organized by the petitioner as early as November
1942, at which time the petitioner requested the Company 's predecessor to recognize it as
bargaining representative for the welders herein concerned.
CROWN ZELLERBACH CORPORATION 29
appear to have been members of the Weldors. As such, they have
maintained an independent attitude and have refused to become identi-
fied with either the Machinists or the Lumber & Sawmill Workers
Union. Moreover, the record discloses that notwithstanding the ex-
istence of closed-shop contracts purporting to cover welders,11 the
latter have not in practice been recognized by the Company's pred-
ecessor as entitled to the benefits provided thereunder Y3 and have
on a number of occasions bargained as a group apart from the
Machinists 14
So far as functional considerations are concerned, the evidence
reveals that while welders have no separate craft foreman or super-
intendent all are under the jurisdiction of the machine shop foreman,
they do, nevertheless, have considerable latitude and are not closely
supervised in the performance of their work.15 Moreover, although
welders and machinists were formerly indistinguishable during the
period when the plant was under construction, welders and machinists
now perform separate work due to specialization of tasks as the result
of the expanded operations of the Company. 16 While some welding is
done alongside the benches of the machinists, welding is ordinarily
performed in a separate portion of the machine shop where screens
are provided to shield from the eyes of the machinists and other em-
ployees the light produced by the welding operation.
Tinder the circumstances, including the history of collective bar-
gaining, the fact that welders are engaged in specialized operations
and are to a large extent physically segregated from other employees,
we are of the opinion, and find, that the welders as a group could
properly function as a separate bargaining unit or as part of the
Machinists' group of maintenance and repair employees,l" and that
the desires of the affected employees should be the controlling con-
sideration.13 Accordingly, we shall direct that the question concern-
13 No attempt has been made to enforce the closed-shop provisions with respect to welders
under either contract for the reason , at least in the case o^ the Machinists, that the Ma-
chinists has been unable to supply welders to the Company.
13 The Company's predecessor, while granting retroactive back pay to the machinists in
accordance with the terms of the Machinists' contract, refused a similar request for retro-
active back pay for the welders upon the ground that the welders were not covered by such
contract.
11 In addition to conducting negotiations with respect to back pay, the welders as a
group have negotiated with the Company's predecessor, certain grievances relating solely
to welders.
' The machine shop foreman does not actively direct the welders but lays out and desig-
nates the work to be done by the welders. The machine shop foreman has, however, the
authority to require a welder to do over jobs not performed to his satisfaction.
10 The evidence reveals that while there are a number of machinists and welders who can
perform the work of both groups, they dislike to do work other than that of the group to
which they are attached. The welders involved in this proceeding perform welding work
exclusively.
31 See Matter of Curtiss-Wright Corporation, 41 N. L. R. B. 1367. Cf. Matter of Port
Houston Iron Works, 46 N. L. R. B. 155, and cases cited therein.
13 See Matter of Allied Chemical and Dye Corporation, 40 N. L. R. B. 1351 ; Matter of
Fort Pitt Malleable Iron Company, 48 N, L. R. B. 818.
30 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ing representation which has arisen be resolved by an election by secret
ballot among the welders who were employed by the Company during
the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of our Direction
of Election, subject to the limitations and additions set forth therein,
to determine whether they desire to be represented by the Weldors or
by the AFL,19 or neither. Upon the result of this election will depend
in part the determination of the appropriate unit. If a majority of
the welding employees select the Weldors as their representative, they
will constitute a separate unit; if a majority of them choose the AFL,
they will be considered as having rejected separate representation,
and having elected to become part of the larger unit composed of main-
tenance and repair employees who are covered by the contract with
the Machinists.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National Labor
Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act,
and pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of National Labor Relations
Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3, it is hereby
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representa-
tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Crown Zellerbach
Corporation, Seattle Charcoal Division, Seattle, Washington, an elec-
tion by secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not
later than thirty (30) days from the date of this Direction, under
the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Nine-
teenth Region, acting in this matter as agent for the National Labor
Relations Board and subject to Article III, Sections 10 and 11, of said
Rules and Regulations, among the welders employed by the Company
during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of this
Direction, including employees who did not work during said pay-roll
period because they were ill or on vacation or temporarily laid off, and
including employees in the armed forces of the United States who
present themselves in person at the polls, but excluding employees who
have since quit or been discharged for cause and have not been rehired
or reinstated prior to the date of the election, to determine whether
they desire to be represented by United Brotherhood of Weldors,
Cutters and Helpers of America, Local 9, affiliated with the C. U. A.,
,or by the AFL, for the purposes of collective bargaining, or by neither.
MR. GERARD D. REILLY took no part in the consideration of the above
-Decision and Direction of Election.
19 In the preceding case involving the Carlisle Company, the record of which was incor-
porated by motion into the present record, the Intervenors requested that they appear on
the ballot under thh single designation "AFL." In the absence of any indication that
'the Intervenors now desire a different designation, they will be so designated in accordance
with the request appearing in the record.