Otsego Falls Paper Mill, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 8, 1946

69 N.L.R.B. 1322 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

In the Matter of OTSEGO FALLS PAPER MILL, INCORPORATED, EMPLOYER
and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF FIREMEN AND OILERS, LOCAL
99, A. F. L., PETITIONER
Case No. 7-R-2247.-Decided August 8,1946
Mr. Roman J. Suess, of Otsego, Mich., for the Employer.
Mr. John R. Harris, of Kalamazoo, Mich., for the Petitioner.
Messrs. Robert Clark and Frank Grasso, both of Kalamazoo, Mich.,
for the CIO.
Mr. F. G. Dunn, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Kala-
mazoo, Michigan, on May 9, 1946, before Harry N. Casselman, Trial
Examiner. The Trial Examiner's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. United Paper
Workers of America, Local 1025, C. I. 0., herein called the CIO, was
permitted to intervene by the Trial Examiner. The CIO moved to
dismiss the Petition. Ruling on said motion was reserved for the
Board by the Trial Examiner. For reasons hereinafter stated, this
motion is hereby denied.
Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations
Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
The Otsego Falls Paper Mill, Inc., a Michigan corporation, has its
plant and principal offices at Otsego, Michigan, where it is engaged in
the producing and selling of 'paper board. The principal raw mate-
rials used in the production process are waste paper, asphalt, silicate,
' The CIO objected to the continuation of the representation proceeding while charges
of unfair labor practices were pending against the Employer . Inasmuch as the charges,
which were filed by the CIO in Case No. T-C-1584, were withdrawn on June 6, 1946, we
deem it unnecessary to consider this objection
69 N. L. R. B., No. 167.
1322
OTSEGO FALLS PAPER MILL, INCORPORATED 1323
wood pulp, pulpwood, and rolls of jute lined chip board. During the
fiscal year of 1945, the Employer purchased $344,877 worth of these
raw materials, of which all but the jute lined chip board was purchased
from sources outside the State of Michigan. During the same period,
the total sales of paper board by the Employer amounted to $1,024,322,
approximately 7 0 percent of which was sold to customers outside the
State of Michigan.
The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with the American
Federation of Labor, claiming to represent employees of the Employer.
United Paper Workers of America, Local 1025, herein called the
CIO, is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial
Organizations claiming to represent employees of the Employer.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Employer refuses to recognize the Petitioner as the exclusive
representative of employees of the Employer until the Petitioner has
been certified by the Board in an appropriate unit.
Pursuant to a consent election, the CIO was certified as the bargain-
ing representative of the production employees of the Employer and
thereupon entered into an exclusive collective bargaining contract with
the Employer on December 3, 1942, for a term of 1 year. A new con-
tract was negotiated in 1943 which by its terms automatically renewed
itself unless notice to renegotiate any of its terms was given by either
party within 30 days of the anniversary date. The contract was auto-
matically renewed in 1944. On November 3, 1945, the Company no-
tified the CIO of its intent to open negotiations for a new contract.
Negotiations were carried on sporadically until February when the
CIO filed notice of intention to strike with the War Labor Board. In
the meantime, the parties orally agreed to extend the provisions of
the old contract until such time as a new contract could be negotiated.
No negotiations were carried on during the 30-day waiting period;
however, on March 12 and March 17, 1946, the parties resumed nego-
tiations. While their meeting of March 17 was in progress, the Em-
ployer was notified by a representative of the Petitioner that it rep-
resented a majority of the production employees and requested recog-
nition. Following this notification and on the same date, the Em-
ployer and the CIO settled their remaining differences and entered
into a written agreement for a contract to be executed not later than
March 20, 1946, which covered all of the matters in dispute. How-
1324 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ever, this latter contract was never executed because of the representa-
tion claim of the Petitioner. The Petitioner filed its petition herein
on March 19, 1946.
The CIO contends that its 1943 contract, as orally extended, and
the agreement of March 17 constitute a bar to a determination of
representatives. We find no merit in this contention. As a result
of the notice on November 3, 1945, for recognition of the contract
by the Company, the automatic renewal clause became inoperative
and the 1943 contract therefore expired on December 3, 1945.2 Nor
can the oral agreement to extend the old contract until such time as
a new contract was negotiated operate as a bar to a present determina-
tion of representative.3 We deem it unnecessary to decide whether
the written agreement of March 17 to execute a contract embodying
the terms agreed upon constitutes, of itself, a complete collective bar-
gaining agreement such as would normally constitute a bar to a de-
termination of representatives, since, in any event, it was executed
after the Petitioner had presented the Employer its informal claim,
which claim was followed by the prompt filing of the petition herein
on March 19, 1946 4
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
We find, in substantial accord with the agreement of the parties,
that all employees of the Employer, excluding office employees, cleri-
cal employees, powerhouse and plant maintenance employees, truck
drivers, four employees employed by the Asphalted Felt and Paper
Company,5 foremen, supervisors, and all or any other supervisory
employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or
otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively recom-
mend such action, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
As part of the investigation 'to ascertain representatives for the
purposes of collective bargaining with Otsego Falls Paper Mill, In-
corporated, Otsego, Michigan, an election by secret ballot shall be
2 Matter of Boeckeler Associates and Chemprotin Products , 60 N. L. R . B. 1208.
8 Matter of Wisconsin Telephone Company, 65 N. L. R . B. 368.
' See Matter of General Electric X-Ray Corporation , 67 N. L. R. B. 997.
Gerald Thompson , Will Closs, Asel Deniston , and Lee Taylor . These employees work
on machines owned by the Asphalted Felt and Paper Company and installed in the plant
of the Employer pursuant to contract.
OTSEGO FALLS PAPER MILL, INCORPORATED 1325
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 Seventh 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 appropriate 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 employees in the armed forces of the United States who
present themselves in person at the polls, but excluding those em-
ployees 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 International Brotherhood
of Firemen and Oilers, Local 99, A. F. L., or by United Paper Workers
of America, Local 1025, C. I. 0., for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining, or by neither.