Gulf States Paper Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 30, 1946

70 N.L.R.B. 1030 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

In the Matter of GULF STATES PAPER CORPORATION, EMPLOYER and
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF PAPER MAKERS, LOCAL #518,
A. F. OF L., PETITIONER
Case No. 10-R-164-Ii.-Decided August 30, 1916
Mr. J. H. Cabaniss, of Birmingham, Ala., and Mr. J. W. Mustin,
of Tuscaloosa, Ala., for the Employer.
Mr. J. Griffin McKiernan, of Albany, N. Y., and Mr. Mark Fisher,
of Chattanooga, Tenn., for the Petitioner.
Mr. James Zett, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a, petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Tusca-
loosa, Alabama, on June 13, 1946, before M. A. Prowell, Trial Exam-
iner. The Trial Examiner's rulings made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations-
Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Gulf States Paper Corporation is a Delaware corporation author-
ized to do business in the State of Alabama and maintaining a plant
and place of business at Tuscaloosa , Alabama.
During the year 1945 , the Employer purchased raw materials con-
sisting of wood , chemicals and coal of a value in excess of $100,000,
of which raw materials approximately 25 percent was received from
points outside the State of Alabama . For the same period of time,
the Employer manufactured and produced at its Tuscaloosa, Ala-
bama, plant , approximately $200,000 worth of kraft paper and bags,
over 50 percent of which was shipped to points outside the State of
Alabama.
The Employer ' admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
70 N. L . R. B., No. 80.
1030
GULF STATES PAPER CORPORATION 1031
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with the American
Federation of Labor, claiming to represent employees of the Employer.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Employer refuses to recognize the Petitioner as the exclusive
bargaining representative of certain supervisory employees of the
Employer.
The Employer contends that supervisors are not employees within
the meaning of the Act. This contention. has been considered on
numerous occasions and we have held that a supervisor is an "em-
ployee" when he acts in his own interests regarding his own working
conditions.' We find that for the purposes of this proceeding, the
supervisors herein considered are employees within the meaning of
Section 2 (3) of the Act.2
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Employer, within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Petitioner seeks a unit of production and maintenance super-
visors of the Employer at its Tuscaloosa plant, in the bag factory,
and paper and pulp mill including the printshop foreman, the switch
engine foreman, the assistant chief chemist, and the four night super-
intendents, but excluding the superintendent of the bag factory. The
Employer, subject to its general contention that any unit of super-
visors is inappropriate, is in general agreement with the unit proposed
by the Petitioner, except that the Employer would include the super-
intendent of the bag factory, and would favor the exclusion of the
printshop foreman, the switch engine foreman, the assistant chief
chemist, and the four night superintendents.
' Matter of Packard Motor Car Company, 61 N. L. R. B . 4, and 64 N. L. R. B. 1212, and
cases cited thereii$ enf 'd August 12 , 1946 , 157 F. ( 2d) 80 (C. C A 6)
The Employer also contended that the Petitioner contracted away its right to represent
supervisory employees for the Employer By the terms of the 1943 contract covering non-
supervisory production and maintenance employees of the Employer , the Petitioner's In-
ternational organization and its Local 297 bound themselves not to admit supervisors to
membership In the 1945 contract between the same parties , however, only Local 297
bound itself to the above provision . Local 51$, the petitioning local herein , was not a
party to either the 1943 or 1945 contracts . In this state of the record , neither the Inter-
national nor the Petitioner can be bound by the agreement not to accept supervisors as
members. Nor does the provision in the 1945 contract that supervisors are expressly ex-
cluded from its coverage preclude a present determination of representatives of supervisory
employees of the Employer . See Matter of Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation , Vesta-Shan
nopsn Coal Division , 66 N. L. R. B. 386.
1032 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In support of its contention that any unit of supervisory employees
is inappropriate, the Employer argues that such a recognized bargain-
ing-unit would be contrary to the best interests of the rank-and-file
employees, the supervisory employees, and the Employer. In view of
recent decisions of the Board,3 this contention is rejected.
The Employer's supervisory hierarchy, above the levels of super-
vision contended for, include the president, three vice presidents and
the secretary-treasurer, comprising the Employer's Executive Com-
mittee, and the general superintendent, and assistant general
superintendent.
The unit contended for by the Petitioner includes production and
maintenance foremen and supervisors below the level of assistant gen-
eral superintendent. It is admitted that none of these supervisors are
executives or policy makers, although all attend weekly supervisors'
meetings at which plant problems, policies and related problems are
discussed 4 They inspect work for quantity and quality, determine
the procedure of work in their own department, and may suspend
or recommend the discharge of any employee under their supervision
for just and proper cause. The supervisors herein considered are all
entitled to the same benefit plans including unlimited sick leave and
the like. In our opinion they comprise a homogeneous group appro-
priate for bargaining purposes. -
It is the position of the Petitioner that the following supervisors
should be included within the proposed unit.
Print shop foreman: This foreman spends approximately 35 per-
-cent of his time supervising print shop employees who are covered
by the rank-and-file contract. The Employer prints its own official
stationery and advertising on its kraft paper and bags. The rubber
stamps and plates containing advertising information are produced
in the print shop. When the foreman is not supervising the work
in the print shop, he is engaged in arranging the lay-out for the Em-
ployer's monthly newspaper which is printed elsewhere, and in certain
miscellaneous duties apart from maintenance and production em-
ployees. In view of the fact that the print shop foreman spends con-
siderably less than 50 percent of his time in supervising production
and maintenance workers, he will be excluded from the appropriate
unit. -
Switch engine foreman: This foreman supervises 13 maintenance
employees in the switching, loading and unloading of railroad cars
that arrive at and leave the Employer's plant. This supervision oc-
8 Matter of L. A . Young Spring & Wire Corporation, 65 N. L . R. B. 298 ; Matter of The
B. F. Goodrich Company, 65 N. L. R. B. 294 ; Matter of Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation,
Vesta-Shannopin Coal Division, 66 N. L . R. B. 386 ; Matter of Packard Motor Car Company,
cited supra.
* These are "stag" meetings not attended by the forelady and assistant forelady in the
bag factory.
GULF STATES PAPER CORPORATION 1033
cupies approximately 80 percent of his time. In addition, this fore-
man is a deputized officer of the law, and time not spent by him in
supervising the Employer's railroad yard, is spent in supervising the
Employer's 8 watchmen and guards.5 Inasmuch as the major portion
of his time is devoted to supervising maintenance workers, we shall
include him in the proposed unit.
Assistant chief chemist: The assistant chief chemist is a profes-
sional graduate chemist, and runs chemical tests and analyses of
steam. He supervises no production and maintenance employees e
Accordingly, he will be excluded from the appropriate unit.
Night superintendents: 7 These supervisors, of whom there are four,
work in rotation : the night superintendent is a machine boss tender
by day, assigned by the assistant general superintendent to supervise
any one of a number of operations involved in the production of
paper; by night he is the superintendent in charge of production
throughout the entire paper and pulp mill with two foremen or sub-
foremen under his supervision. All his time is spent in the super-
vision of production and maintenance work and therefore he will be
included within the unit contended for.
Superintendent of the bag factory: The Petitioner would exclude,
and the Employer include, the superintendent of the bag factory. The
bag factory is in a building separate from the rest of the plant and is
supervised by the superintendent who has complete authority over all
its operations, This supervisor is independent of, and not responsible
to, the general superintendent whose authority is limited to the paper
and pulp mill and extends to the bag factory only in matters dealing
with the maintenance and upkeep of the bag factory building. Within
the field of authority and supervision assigned to each, the superin-
tendent of the bag factory and the general superintendent are on a
comparable level of supervision. Inasmuch as the parties agreed to
exclude the general superintendent, the superintendent of the bag fac-
tory will also be excluded.
We find that all production and maintenance foremen and super-
visors in the Employer's bag factory and paper and pulp mill at Tus-
caloosa, Alabama, including the switch engine foreman, night superin-
tendents and those listed in Appendix A,8 but excluding executives,
the general superintendent, assistant general superintendent, the su-
s Guards and watchmen are generally excluded from the rank and file units of production
and maintenance employees.
e The Petitioner's contention that the assistant chief chemist supervises production em-
ployees in the talloil department is without foundation . A vice president of the Employer
testified that the chief chemist supervises the only two production and maintenance workers
in the talloil department.
7 The assistant superintendent of the bag factory , whom both parties agreed should, be
included within the unit, is also a night superintendent.,
8 Appendix A includes the Employer 's supervisors whom both parties agreed should be
included in the unit.
1034 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
perintendent of the bag factory, print shop foreman, assistant chief
chemist and all those listed in Appendix B,9 constitute a unit appro-
priate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9 (b) of the Act.
We shall direct that the question concerning representation which
has arisen be resolved by an election by secret ballot, subject to the
limitations and additions set forth in the Direction.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
i
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
purposes of collective bargaining with Gulf States Paper Corporation,
Tuscaloosa, Alabama, an election 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 Tenth Region, acting in this matter as agent for the
National Labor Relations Board, and subject to Article III, Sections
10 and 11, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-
Series 3, as amended, among the employees in the unit found appro-
priate in Section IV, above, who were employed 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 em-
ployees in the armed forces of the United States who present them-
selves in person at the polls, but excluding those 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 or
not they desire to be represented by International Brotherhood of
Paper Makers, Local #518, AAF. of L., for the purposes of collective
bargaining.
MR. JAMES J. REYNOLDS, JR., took no part in the consideration of
the above Decision and Direction of Election.
APPENDIX A
W. C. Armstrong, assistant superintendent, bag factory
Hollis Atwood, forelady, bag factory
Lola Wilkinson, assistant forelady, bag factory
J. M. Ball, machine shop foreman
R. J. Hersh,, maintenance foreman
Russell Killian, pulp department
Robert Maxwell, general wood yard foreman
e Appendix B contains the names of the Employer's supervisors whom appear to be tech-
nical and clerical and whom both parties agreed, should be excluded from the unit.
GULF STATES PAPER CORPORATION
E. J. Boudreaux, power department
E. M. Curtis, chief electrician
R. H. Richardson, wrapping paper department
H. L. Zeanah, shipping department
APPENDIX B
L. P. Anders, wood department
W. C. Andrews, purchasing department
Sadie Hamilton, first aid department
Dale Brown, engineering department
Robert Fuller, chief chemist
L. Burton, planning department
P. J. Toups, head timekeeper
C. E. Chapman, timekeeping department
W. P. Thielands, plant engineer
Charles Phillips, assistant plant engineer
1035