P. Lorillard Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 26, 1940

21 N.L.R.B. 1076 (N.L.R.B. 1940)

In the Matter of P. LORILLARD COMPANY and UNION LOCAL No . 19897,
A. F. OF L.
Case No. B-1741.-Decided March 26, 1940
Cigarette Manufacturing Industry-Investigation of Representatives : contro-
versy concerning representation of employees : refusal by Company to deal with
petitioning Union, until question of appropriate unit determined by Board-
Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining: employees working in shipping and
receiving department at Company's Jersey City plant, including freight elevator
operators , but excluding supervisory employees-Representatives : proof of choice :
testimony of majority of employees in appropriate unit that they were mem-
bers of petitioning Union and desired to be represented by it for purposes of
collective bargaining-Certification of Representatives : upon proof of majority
representation.
Mr. Christopher Hoey, for the Board.
Mr. Todd Wool, of New York City, for the Company.
Mr. Harold Krieger, of Jersey City, N. J., for the Union.
Mr. Willard Young Morris, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On November 24, 1939, Union Local No. 19897, A. F. of L.,1 herein
called the Union, filed with the Regional Director for the Second
Region (New York City) a petition and on December 6, 1939, an
amended petition alleging that a question affecting commerce had
arisen concerning the representation of employees of P. Lorillard
Company, Jersey City, New Jersey, herein called the Company, and
requesting an investigation and certification of representatives pur-
suant to Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat.
449, herein called the Act. On January 19, 1940, the National Labor
Relations Board, herein called the Board, acting pursuant to Section
9 (c) of the Act and Article III, Section 3, of National Labor Re-
'Erroneously designated as warehousemen 's Union, Local #19897, A F. L. in the peti-
tion and other formal papers These were amended at the hearing to state the name of
the Union as set forth above in the caption
21 N. L. R. B., No. 105.
1076
P. LORILLARD COMPANY 1077
lations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2, ordered an investiga-
tion and authorized the Regional Director to conduct it and to provide
for an appropriate hearing upon due notice.
On February 2, 1940, the Regional Director issued a notice of hear-
ing, copies of which were duly served upon the Company and upon
the Union. Pursuant to notice a hearing was held at New York City
on February 13, 1940, before Mapes Davidson, the Trial Examiner
duly designated by the Board. The Board, the Company, and the
Union were represented by counsel and participated in the hearing.
Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses,
and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded all
parties. During the course of the hearing the Trial Examiner made
several rulings on motions and on objections to the admission of evi-
dence. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner
and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed. During the course of the hearing the Company made
a motion to dismiss the petition, upon which the Trial Examiner did
not rule. The motion is hereby denied.2
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
P. Lorillard Company is a New Jersey corporation maintaining its
executive offices in New York City. It is engaged in the manufacture
and sale of tobacco products. It has a number of plants, including
one at Jersey City, New Jersey, which is the only plant involved in
this proceeding. At this plant the Company manufactures cigarettes.
The Jersey City plant also serves as a center for distributing through-
out New England and the Middle Atlantic States products from the
other plants of the Company. During 1939 the Company used at its
Jersey City plant approximately 24,000,000 pounds of tobacco, valued
at $8,300,000, all of which was shipped to the Jersey City plant from
States other than New Jersey. In the same year finished products,
valued at approximately $51,000,000 and weighing between 30,000,000
and 35,000,000 pounds, were shipped from the Jersey City plant to
States other than New Jersey. The Company employs approximately
1,100 employees at its Jersey City plant.
2 The Company' s motion was based on the contention that the petition had been filed by
a labor organization different from the one appearing at the hearing. The evidence shows
that the same organization filed, the petition and appeared at the hearing. The matter
was clarified at the hearing by amendment concerning the name of the Union. See footnote
1, supra. - -
283032-41-vol 21-69
1078 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Union Local No. 19897 is a labor organization affiliated with the
American Federation of Labor. It admits to membership all em-
ployees of the Company's Jersey City plant working in the shipping
and receiving department, including freight-elevator operators, but
excluding supervisory employees.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
In November 1939 the Union began organizing the employees in the
shipping and receiving department at the Jersey City plant. Shortly
thereafter, the business agent of the Union, George Kane, attempted
to negotiate a contract with the Company's officials. The latter
refused to negotiate, challenged the appropriateness of the bargaining
unit which Kane claimed to represent, and suggested that the Union
seek certification by the Board.
We find that a question has arisen concerning representation of
employees of the Company.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION UPON
COMMERCE
We find that the question concerning representation which has
arisen, occurring in connection with the operation of the Company
described in Section I above, has a close, intimate, and substantial'
relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and
tends to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce
and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Union urges that the employees in the shipping and receiving
department at the Jersey City plant, including freight-elevator opera-
tors, but excluding supervisory employees, constitute an appropriate
bargaining unit. The Company opposes the finding of such a unit.
At the time the Union sought to bargain with the Company, the latter
took'the position that such a unit should not be "carved out from the
other production workers there."
The Union, which began organizing--the, shipping and receiving
employees and freight-elevator operators in November 1939, has con-
fined its organizational activities to such employees, most of whom,
testified that they were members of the Union and expressed their
desire that the unit claimed by the-Union be found appropriate. The
production employees, who differ from the shipping and receiving
P. LORILLARD COMPANY 1079
employees in training , wage basis , and function , are not eligible to
membership in the Union. Another labor organization has organized
among the Company's truck drivers, but, so far as the record shows,
there is no labor organization among the production employees. The
freight-elevator operators , of whom there are seven, are eligible to
membership in the Union. Six of them work in buildings in which
shipping and receiving work is done. The Union has organized the
employees of other business concerns in New Jersey in units similar
to that urged by the Union in this proceeding.
Under these circumstances we see no reason for not finding appro-
priate the unit urged by the Union.
We find that the Company's employees working in the shipping and
receiving department at its Jersey City plant, including freight-
elevator operators , but excluding supervisory employees , constitute a
unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining, and that
said unit will afford to such employees the full benefit of their right
to self-organization and to collective bargaining , and otherwise
effectuate the policies of the Act.
VI. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
Two lists of the Company's shipping and receiving employees were
introduced in evidence , showing the number of such employees em-
ployed by the Company as of December 6, 1939, and January 3, 1940.
The lists show 49 and 50 employees , respectively , including two
freight-elevator operators . The Company employs five additional
freight-elevator operators . Thus it appears that as of December 6,
1939, and January 3 , 1940, respectively , the Company employed 54
and 55 shipping and receiving employees, including the freight-ele-
vator operators . There ; is nothing to show that these lists do not
represent Normal employment periods.
Thirty-nine of the employees named in the above lists testified at
the hearing . They identified their signatures on the Union's mem-
bership application cards, which were introduced in , evidence, and
affirmed their membership in the Union. Another employee testified
that he wanted the Union to represent him, stating that he had not
become a member of the Union because he was "* * * 73 years
old, and * * * ain 't got a whole lot of years to work." The
membership application cards of five additional employees whose
names appear on the employee lists were introduced in evidence. The
Union's business agent and financial secretary testified that they had
witnessed the signing of the cards and that the signers were paid-up
members in good ` standing in,th 'e Union.
We find that Union Local No. 19897 has been designated by a
majority of the employees in the appropriate unit as their represent-
1080 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ative for the purpose of collective bargaining. It is, therefore, the
exclusive representative of all employees in such unit for the purposes
of collective bargaining and we shall so certify.3
Upon the foregoing findings of fact and the entire record in the
case, the Board makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. A question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the repre-
sentation of employees of P. Lorillard Company within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor
Relations Act.
2. The shipping and receiving employees of the Company at its
Jersey City plant, including freight-elevator operators, but exclud-
ing supervisory employees, constitute a unit appropriate for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9 (b)
of the National Labor Relations Act.
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National
Labor Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, 49 Stat. 449, and pursuant to Article III, Sections 8 and 9,
of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series
2, as amended,
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that Union Local No. 19897, A. F. of L., has
been designated and selected by a majority of the shipping and re-
ceiving employees of P. Lorillard Company, Jersey City, New Jersey,
including freight-elevator operators, but excluding supervisory em-
ployees, as their representative for the purposes of collective
bargaining and that, pursuant to Section 9 (a) of the Act, Union
Local No. 19897, A. F. of L., is the exclusive representative of all
such employees for the purposes of collective bargaining with respect
to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of
,employment.
The testimony of employees concerning union membership was admitted without objec-
tion on the part of the Company, but after a statement by the Trial Examiner that it
would be admitted "only as to the appropriateness of the bargaining unit claimed by the
employees ." Since the testimony , whatever may have been the theory on which it was
admitted , establishes that a majority of the employees in the appropriate unit desire to be
represented by the Union , an election to ascertain their desires in this respect would serve
mo purpose