Crown Zellerbach Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 30, 1964

147 N.L.R.B. 1223 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

CROWN ZELLERBACH CORPORATION 1223'
Crown Zellerbach Corporation and United Papermakers and.
Paperworkers , AFL-CIO. Case No. 15-RC-?862. June 30, 1964-
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor-
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Hearing Officer Loren P.
Jones. 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 this case to a three-
member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Leedom and
Jenkins].
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 organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. In its petition, its arguments at the hearing, and its brief, Peti
tioner consistently states that it desires certification under the Act
as the exclusive bargaining representative for a unit of production
and maintenance employees at the Employer's Bogalusa, Louisiana,.
mill. It asserts that a 1939 Board-conducted consent election that
was won by a predecessor of the Petitioner was never validly con--
suinmated by a formal certification, or, alternatively, that even if the
1939 election victory resulted in a certification, such certification has
been rendered obsolete by virtue of the post-1939 bargaining history.
Petitioner seeks certification as representative of an existing unit
of the Employer's employees without an election. In connection there-
with, Petitioner seeks to have resolved the alleged supervisory status.
of four individuals whom the Employer would exclude from the unit
as supervisors. Petitioner's request for certification is apparently
based upon its misapprehension of the rule announced in Brotherhood
of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen,l a case which it urges should-
govern here. That case does not stand for the proposition, as both
Petitioner and Employer seem to suggest, that the Board will, with-
out conducting an election, certify or recertify a union as an incident
to clarifying the unit; it holds only that we will, on proper motion,
undertake to clarify an uncertified unit.
Accordingly, as no basis exists for certifying Petitioner on the rec-
ord, as neither party desires an election in the requested unit, and as
the Employer has asserted a willingness to continue recognizing the
1145 NLRB 521.
147 NLRB No. 155.
1224 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Petitioner as majority representative of the employees in the unit,
we find that there is no question concerning representation presented
herein and we shall, therefore, dismiss the petition.2
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
CHAIRMAN MCCtLLOCH, dissenting :
My colleagues have chosen to dispose of this case on a technicality,
and even the technicality is of dubious validity. Despite the form in
which the instant petition is cast, the record leaves no doubt that the
only purpose of this proceeding is to have us clarify an issue between
the parties as to the unit placement of four employees.
In Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen, supra, a
petition for certification was filed by the employer, there was no ques-
tion of the representative status of the union, "neither party actually
desir[ed] an election," and it was apparent that the sole question in
the case was the relationship of four employees to the unit. We de-
cided there to consider the petition as a motion for clarification of an
uncertified unit, and to make the desired clarification.
Here, on strikingly similar facts, my colleagues choose to dismiss
the petition, finding that a question concerning representation does
not exist. They do not, however, disavow the rule of Locomotive
Firemen. That case is now said to stand for the proposition that "we
will, on proper motion, undertake to clarify an uncertified unit." A
motion considered to be proper in Locomotive-Firemen, i.e., a petition
for certification, is evidently not proper in this case.
The essence of this case is the status of four employees. To treat
the petition here as if it were really a petition for certification is to
blink away the palpable facts and embrace an adherence to form not
notably present in Locomotive Firemen. I would entertain the peti-
tion and treat it as a motion for clarification.
I would further find that the four contested shift foremen-stock
preparation are supervisors within the meaning of the Act, a finding
with which-if I interpret the majority decision correctly-my col-
leagues would probably concur, if they were to reach the question.
The stock preparation process at the Employer's plant comprises at
least three separate operations : the board mill, the attrition mill, and
the sulphate mill. The board mill and the sulphate mill each con-
tain a beater room. Prior to January 1963, the principal employee in
each beater room was the beater engineer, a skilled worker who ordered
and directed the work of other employees in the respective rooms.
The authority of the beater engineer to supervise appears to have been
generally limited to the conduct of the immediate operational process
2 While we do not disagree with the position of our dissenting colleague that the four
individuals referred to above are supervisors , we do not reach that question , inasmuch as
we dismiss the petition for the reasons stated herein.
CROWN ZELLERBACH CORPORATION 1225
in which he and his crew were engaged. The direct supervisor of each
beater engineer and the employees under him was the tour boss, whose
supervisory assignment included not only a particular beater room,.
but other sections of the plant as well.
In July 1962, the position of assistant production superintendent-
stock preparation was created and given the responsibility for supervi-
sion of all stock preparation activities, and an employee was assigned
to this position. Tour bosses were thereupon relieved of authority
over the stock preparation process. Six months later, three of the
four employees serving as beater engineers on the four shifts in the
board mill beater room, together with one beater engineer from the
sulphate mill beater room, were assigned to the positions, also newly
created, of shift foremen-stock preparation. The remaining board.
mill beater engineer was demoted, and the classification of beater en-
gineer in that department was eliminated. The job of beater engineer-
in the sulphate mill beater room, however, was retained, and four em-
ployees still serve in that capacity in the sulphate mill, one on each.
shift.
Each shift foreman-stock preparation has been delegated authority
over the board mill beater room, the sulphate mill beater room, and the-
attrition mill. On 1 shift, he directs the activities of 14 employees
(twice as many as the board mill beater engineer directed), and on the
other 2 daily shifts, he is in charge of 13 employees. Uncontradicted
testimony at the hearing establishes not only that he exercises a sub-
stantial amount of discretion in responsibly directing the work of the-
employees under him, but also that he is authorized to make personnel
and managerial decisions of the character normally associated with su-
pervisory status. He may, for example, suspend employees for rule-
infractions, call for additional men as the work requires, accept and
adjust first-step grievances, correct wage errors, grant leave, authorize
overtime, initiate discharges, order machine repairs, and transfer em-
ployees temporarily between shifts. Most, if not all, of this authority
formerly reposed in the tour bosses, who would grant the beater en-
gineers permission to take the above actions or would personally ac-
complish them. The shift foremen are paid about $50 a month more
than the sulphate room beater engineers, their wages are a fixed
monthly amount, they attend weekly meetings of supervisors, and they
are not credited with overtime. They perform very little manual
labor.
It is undoubtedly true that the duties of the shift foremen include
the work formerly performed by the board mill beater engineer. But
the record also demonstrates that the shift foremen are vested with the
sort of additional duties, powers, and perquisites that are character-
istic of supervisory personnel. Expecially significant is the fact that
the tour bosses have been divested of their authority over the 13 or 14
1226 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employees involved. Since there is only one assistant production
superintendent-stock preparation, who is present during only one shift
a day, a supervisory vacuum would result if no one exercised supervi-
sory authority over these employees on the other shifts. The record
does not establish that any employees other than the shift foremen
possess sufficient authority to fill this vacuum.
In view of the above considerations, the record clearly supports a
finding that the shift foremen-stock preparation are supervisors with-
in the meaning of the Act and should therefore be excluded from the
bargaining unit .3
8 West Virginia Pulp and Paper Company, 140 NLRB 951 ; West Virginia Pulp and
Paper Company, 96 NLRB 8Th ; cf. United States Gypsum Company, 116 NLRB 656,
659-660.
Standard Oil Company and Truck Drivers & Helpers Local
Union No. 728, affiliated with the International Brotherhood
of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of
America, Petitioner. Case No. 10-RC-5800. June 30, 1964
DECISION ON REVIEW
On March 4, 1964, the Regional Director for the 'Tenth Region
issued a Decision and Direction of Election in the above-entitled
proceeding, finding appropriate a separate unit of truckdrivers at
the Employer's Doraville, Georgia, bulk fuel terminal. Thereafter,
the Employer, in accordance with Section 102.67 of the Board's Rules
and Regulations, as amended, filed with the Board a timely request
for review of such Decision and Direction of Election on the ground
that the unit is inappropriate under officially reported Board precedent
and prejudicially affected the rights of the Employer and its em-
ployees. On March 30,1964, the Board, by telegraphic Order, granted
the request for review and stayed the scheduled election.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel [Members Leedom, Brown, and Jenkins].
The Board has considered the entire record in the case with respect
to the Regional Director's determination under review and makes the
following findings :
The Petitioner requests a separate unit of truckdrivers at the Em-
ployer's Doraville, Georgia, plant, excluding all other employees. In
the alternative, it is willing to represent any other unit found to be
appropriate. The Employer contends that only a unit composed of all
employees at the terminal is appropriate.
147 NLRB No. 156.