Owens-Illinois, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsJun 23, 1975

218 N.L.R.B. 799 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

OWENS-ILLINOIS, INC. 799 Owens-Illinois, Inc., Forest Products Division Mill and L. V. Culpepper, Petitioner and Maintenance Local 646, United Paperworkers International Union, AFL-CIO Owens-Illinois, Inc., Forest Products Division Mill and United Maintenance Workers of Georgia, Independent, Petitioner. Cases 10-RD-482 and 10-RC-10163 June 23, 1975 DECISION AND ORDER BY MEMBERS FANNING, KENNEDY, AND PENELLO Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hearing in the above-named consolidated cases was held before Hearing Officer Stephen D. Hise. Following ' the hearing, and pursuant to Section 102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations , and by direction of the Regional Director for Region 10, these cases were transferred to the National Labor Relations Board for decision. The Employer, Petitioner United Maintenance Workers of Georgia, Independent, and the Joint Intervenors ' have filed briefs. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's rulings made at the hearing and ifmds that they are free from prejudicial error. They are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds: 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act and it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. 2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain employees of the Employer. 3. No question affecting commerce exists con- cerning the representation 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 Employer is an Ohio corporation with a plant and place of business located at Valdosta, Georgia, where it is engaged in the manufacture of unbleached I United Paperworkers International Union and International Brother- hood of Electrical Workers of America (AFL-CIO) were permitted to intervene on the basis of a current collective-bargaining contract embracing the employees involved herein, which expires on September 15, 1977. The Employer and Intervenors refused to stipulate that Petitioner Maintenance Workkers is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act The record shows that this Petitioner was established sometime pnor to September 24, 1974. Its membership consists of maintenance employees of the Employer. 218 NLRB No. 124 craft liner board. There are approximately 408 production and maintenance employees at the Valdosta plant, all covered under a single collective- bargaining contract between the Employer, United Paperworkers International Union (hereafter called UPIU), and the International Brotherhood of Elec- trical Workers (AFL-CIO) (hereafter referred to as IBEW). The employees are represented by three different locals of the UPIU and one local of the IBEW. In this proceeding, the Petitioner 2 seeks a unit of all employees in the maintenance department repre- sented currently by Local 646, UPIU. It will also accept the storeroom employees, currently represent- ed by Local 646, as part of that unit. The Employer and the Intervenors contend, inter alia, that the petitioned-for unit is not appropriate, but rather that a production and maintenance unit, as presently represented by the two International Unions, is the only appropriate unit. Since 1954, Respondent's production and mainte- nance employees have been represented together under consecutive single contracts. Prior to approxi- mately 1972, the United Papermakers and Paper- workers, the International Brotherhood of Pulp, Sulphite and Paper Mill Workers, and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (AFL-CIO) were parties to these contracts. The first two unions then merged and became United Paperworkers Interna- tional Union, which, along with the IBEW, is a party to the 1974 collective-bargaining agreement. Under these agreements, the employees are split up so that different groups of classifications are represented by four different locals chartered by the two Interna- tionals. The maintenance department and the store- room employees are represented by Local 646, UPIU. When negotiating for a new contract, a negotiating committee consisting of representatives of each local and of the two Internationals represents the unit employees. Prior to bargaining with the Employer, these representatives meet, develop a program for negotiations which incorporates the demands of each of the locals and the unit as a whole, and select a representative of one of the Internationals as spokes- man for the unit. The entire committee then negotiates with the Employer. Each local then votes The purpose of Petitioner Maintenance Workers is to deal with the Employer on matters relating to wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment. Accordingly, it is found that Petitioner Maintenance Workers is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act. 2 References to the Petitioner herein are to United Maintenance Workers of Georgia, Independent, the Petitioner in Case 10-RC-10163. 800 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD on any- contract proposals which affect the entire unit.3 The contracts bargained, for provide the same fringe benefits and grievance procedure for all the employees. Grievances pertaining to individual employees are handled, by the appropriate local at the lower steps, with a representative of the appropri- ate International being, present at the higher steps. The number of employees for which separate representation is sought herein is approximately 96. Classifications included in the maintenance depart- ment include general maintenance leadmen; shift general maintenance mechanics A, B, and C; general maintenance mechanics A, B, C, and D; brick mason carpenter leadman; brick mason carpenter; oiler leadman ; shift oiler;, oiler-day; combination driver; winch driver; dempster driver; truckdriver and/or tractor driver. The classifications in the storeroom include receiving clerk, day clerk, and shift clerks. The maintenance department has six supervisors, and the entire department is under Maintenance Superintendent Kluball, who is also in charge of scheduling and the service department, not sought herein. These departments, with others, are under the overall supervision of the manager of engineering and maintenance. The storeroom is an entirely different department where the employees are super- vised by a storekeeper, who ultimately reports to the manager of administrative services. The service department, not sought herein, is supervised by Supervisor Durrence, and the employ- ees are represented by Local 777, UPIU. However, Durrence is also the supervisor of the truckdrivers represented by Local 646 and sought herein. The six supervisors in the maintenance department work days, whereas many of the employees classified in the maintenance department do shift work, when the only supervision is provided by production supervisors. Although Petitioner contends that the maintenance department has its own physical location, the machine shop, the record shows not only that the machine shop is also the area where other employees work, such as those in the electrical-instrument department (E & I), but that only 5 or 6 of the approximately 72 general mechanics of the mainte- nance department work in the machine shop on a full-time basis . The other mechanics work in specific areas of the mill, such as the pulp mill or woodyard, and are rotated every 3 to 6 months from one area to another. Other sought employees are assigned to different areas of the mill. The oilers are permanently assigned to specific production areas . The truckdriv- ers, who report to the day room of the service department, are used wherever they are needed. The machine shop is on the second floor of the paper mill; the storeroom, used for the storage and distribution of supplies for the mill and the offices, is on the first floor. Not only do the sought storeroom employees do a different type of work from the sought employees in the maintenance department, but other unsought employees do perform maintenance work. The service crew, represented by Local 777, perform such maintenance as is required on concrete and paving, and the E & I employees perform all the mainte- nance and repair - on electrical and instrumentation systems. The physical layout of the plant provides for common facilities available to all employees, such as a cafeteria, first aid station, showers, lockers, and testrooms. Also, all employees use the same entrance to the plant and punch their timecards in the same area. The record shows that a substantial number of employees in the maintenance, department previously worked in other departments in the plant. Addition- ally, there is evidence that employees in other departments have been temporarily assigned to the maintenance department (i.e., as truckdrivers). The record also indicates a great deal of physical contact between the sought employees and the other employ- ees as a result of the physical dispersion of mainte- nance employees throughout the plant. Production and maintenance employees even work as a team under certain circumstances. Under the contract not only do all employees enjoy the same fringe benefits, but a seniority system covering all the employees is set out whereby employees obtain job seniority, departmental seniori- ty, and mill seniority. Although the seniority is applied differently for different purposes, it appears that mill seniority dominates in circumstances such as job vacancies and layoffs (the record shows that in a reduction in force, for example, if a maintenance department employee is displaced,he can go to the bottom job in any department, and vice versa). The record as a whole in this case does not convince us that the petitioned-for employees consti- tute a distinct or homogeneous group. Rather, the sought unit constitutes a group of, diversified employ- ees possessing a broad range of skills from two different departments of the Employer's plant, each department performing a different function. These functions, at least for the maintenance department employees, are performed throughout the whole plant, and are supervised in, part by common 3 Local 646 did not participate in the negotiations for the 1974 contract, but it did ratify it. OWENS-ILLINOIS, INC. 801 supervisors of employees not sought . Moreover, any separate community of interest that these employees might enjoy is overshadowed by the broader commu- nity of interest which the presently constituted unit of production and maintenance , employees have developed over more than 20 years of bargaining history. For the foregoing reasons, we shall dismiss the petitions in both Cases 10-RD-482 and 10-RC- 10163. ORDEK It is hereby ordered that the petitions in Cases 10- RD-482 and 10-RC--10163 be, and they hereby are, dismissed.