Paramount Paper Products Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsSep 8, 1965

154 N.L.R.B. 1064 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

1064 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD WE WILL offer George A. Perry full and immediate reinstatement to his former position or one substantially equivalent thereto, without prejudice to his seniority or other rights and privileges previously enjoyed by him. WE WILL offer Willie L. Green immediate employment without prejudice to such seniority or other rights and privileges he would have enjoyed or acquired had he been hired on the date when, absent the discrimination against him, we would have reemployed him. WE WILL make whole George A. Perry and Willie L. Green each for any loss of pay he may have suffered as the result of the discrimination against him. All our employees are free to become or remain, or refrain from becoming or remaining, members of the above-named or any other organization. NORFOLK TALLOW CO., INC., Employer. Dated------------------- By------------------------------------------- (Representative) (Title) NOTE.-We will notify George A. Perry and Willie L. Green, if presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States, each of his right to full reinstatement or reemployment upon application in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act of 1948, as amended, after dis- charge from the Armed Forces. This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, Sixth Floor, 707 North Calvert Street, Baltimore, Maryland, Telephone No. 752-8460, Extension 2100. Paramount Paper Products Co. and Atlanta Stereotypers & Elec- trotypers Union No. 42. Case No. 10-CA-5939. September 8, 1965 DECISION AND ORDER On June 15, 1965, Trial Examiner James V. Constantine issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had not engaged in certain unfair labor practices as alleged in the com- plaint and recommending that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. There- after, the Charging Party filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision and a brief in support thereof, and the Respondent filed cross- exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Brown and Zagoria]. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and cross-exceptions, the brief, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the Trial Exam- iner's findings, conclusions, and recommendations. 154 NLRB No. 89. PARAMOUNT PAPER PRODUCTS CO. 1065 ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board hereby adopts as its Order the Order recommended by the Trial Examiner, and orders that the complaint herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed in its entirety. TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is an unfair labor practice case, based on a complaint issued on February 18, 1965, and prosecuted against Paramount Paper Products Co , heiein called Respond- ent. The complaint, issued on behalf of the National Labor Relations Board by the General Counsel through the Regional Director for Region 10 (Atlanta, Georgia), is founded on a charge filed on December 11 and amended on December 18, 1964. Those charges were filed by Atlanta Steieotypers & Electrotypers Union No. 42, herein called the Union. As amended at the hearing, the complaint in substance alleges that Respondent has violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1), and that such conduct affects commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, herein called the Act. Respondent has answered admit- ting some facts but putting in issue the commission of the unfair labor practices. Pursuant to due notice, this cause came on to be heard and was tried before Trial Examiner James V. Constantine at Atlanta, Georgia, on April 14, 1965. All parties were represented at and participated in the hearing and were granted full opportunity to offer evidence, examine and cross-examine witnesses, present oral argument, and submit briefs. By letter dated May 6, 1965, Respondent wrote to the Regional Attorney for Region 10 that it did not intend to file a brief, and attached thereto a document executed between Respondent and the Union wherein the Union has agreed to withdraw its charges. No such withdrawal has been received. A brief has been submitted by the General Counsel. In the absence of objection, Respond- ent's motion to correct record is granted. Upon the entire record in this case, and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. AS TO JURISDICTION Respondent, a Nebraska corporation, is engaged at Atlanta, Georgia, in manu- facturing and selling labels. During the past calendar year it sold and shipped products valued in excess of $50,000 directly to points outside the State of Georgia. I find that Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act, and that it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction over Respondent in this proceeding. II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED This case involves the question of (1) whether Respondent unlawfully refused to recognize the Union and (2) whether Respondent unilaterally changed wage rates and hours of employment in a manner constituting an unlawful refusal to bargain with the Union. A. The refusal to recognize the Union 1. Sequence of events On March 7, 1955, Atlanta Stereotypers' & Electrotypers' Union No. 42, Inter- national Stereotypers' & Electrotypers' Union of North America, AFL, filed an RC petition, as amended at the hearing on the petition, to be selected as the bargaining agent of "all employees in the electrotyping department, including finishers, molders, and apprentices, excluding all other employees," of Miller & Miller, Inc., at 136 Marietta Street, NW., Atlanta, Georgia. Nine employees were eligible to vote and nine voted. Seven voted for the petitioner and two voted against. The electrotyping department was engaged in one phase of Miller's operations. About 100 employees were employed by Miller in its plant at Marietta Street. On May 25, 1955, Atlanta Stereotypers & Electrotypers' Union No. 42, Interna- tional Electrotypers' Union of North America, AFL, was certified as the exclusive bargaining agent, in the unit there specified, of the employees of Miller & Miller, Inc. That unit is described as "all employees in the electrotyping department including 1066 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD finishers, molders, and apprentices, excluding all other employees" (Case No. 10-RC-3018). Thereafter, that union entered into a series of collective-bargaining contracts with Miller & Miller, Inc., covering the latter's electrotype employees, the first of which was executed in 1955. In 1958, Union Bag-Camp Paper Corporation, Folding Carton and Label Division, purchased Miller & Miller, Inc. It was then operated as the Miller & Miller Label Division of Union Bag-Camp. Thereafter, collective-bargaining contracts were executed between Union Bag-Camp and the Union respecting the electrotype depart- ment and with another labor organization for all other employees. On August 15, 1963, Union Bag entered into the last contract with the Union covering its employees in its "electrotype, stereotype, rubber, and plastic departments" for 1 year and year to year thereafter unless either party gave written notice to terminate it by a notice 60 days prior to its expiration. The Union gave such notice on June 10, 1964. President Salmon of the Union explained that the words "stereotype and plastic" were inserted in the contract because electrotypers do a small amount of such work in some plants and these are but job classifications in the electrotype department. As noted above on June 10. 1964. the Union wrote to Union Bag-Camp requesting negotiations for a new contract, but no reply thereto was ever received Nor did the parties ever meet for such purpose On October 5, 1964, Union Bag-Camp wrote to its customers that its Miller & Miller Label Division had been sold to Paramount Paper Products Co., of Omaha, Nebraska. General Counsel's Exhibit No. 4C. On October 4, Paramount issued a written "Announcement" that it had purchased the Miller & Miller Label Division from Union Bag-Camp. General Counsel's Exhibit No. 4B. By memorandum dated October 3, 1964, Paramount Paper notified "all people ... formerly employed by or associated with Union Bag-Camp Paper Corp." that it had purchased "machinery, equipment, inventory, and certain other assets used by Union Bag-Camp Paper Corp.", that it would relocate the "label facilities" in the same general area northeast of Atlanta, and promised to "provide as much genuine security to employees as pos- sible." General Counsel's Exhibit No. 4A. Attached thereto were the above docu- ments in evidence as General Counsel's Exhibits Nos. 4B and 4C. On October 19, 1964, President Salmon of the Union called on Ryland Nantkes, general manager of Paramount, at the offices of Union Bag-Camp. Salmon inquired whether Paramount would "operate non-union" and expressed concern that rumors persisted that Paramount had brought electrotype plates only and would therefore close down its electrotype department Nantkes replied that it was cheaper to buy electroplates from others than to make them in the plant, and suggested further discussion among "those fellows" (the employees) as to where operational costs could be reduced. Finally Nantkes said that he had to leave for Omaha but if the label division operated "it will be operated Union." Salmon assured Nantkes that he was willing to negotiate if Paramount continued this operation. I do not credit Nantkes' denial of this. By letter dated October 21, 1964, the Union wrote to Nantkes requesting a meeting for contract negotiations "at your earliest convenience." No reply to this letter has since been received by the Union. About November 24. 1964, Vice President William C. Stott, Jr., of the Union, met with Nantkes, an official of Paramount. Stott "tried to find out if we had any contract there, and, if not, what we could do." Nantkes replied that Paramount did not think that the Union represented the men. Stott than said that he "thought we still had a contract " From 1952 to 1958 Miller & Miller was located at Marietta and Spring Streets in Atlanta. Its electrotyping work involved making electrotyping plates and running a machine which has a shaver, rougher, end tanks, and molding press. At that time the employees in this department were Ottley Wood, Carl Miller, Kirk Ashley, Guy Wilson, Robert Ensley, Robert Post, Jerry Wallace, and two colored men. From 1958, when Union Bag-Camp took over this operation, until it sold the same to Paramount in 1964, this department was located at Georgia and Ponce de Leon in Stone Mountain, Georgia. The same work was done with the same men and the same machines. Union Bag-Camp employed in this department the following: Miller, Ashley, Wilson, Wallace. Post, Wood, Bill Browning , and Jerry Dutton. It employed over 300 in the entire plant When Paramount took over in October 1964, the same electrotyping work was done with the same machinery. Shortly thereafter Paramount moved to another building in Stone Mountain. Paramount employed Williams, Wilson, Post, Browning, Dutton, Wood, and Henry Gaddis as of October 19, 1964, in the electrotyping depart- ment. It also continued to employ Union Bag's plant superintendent, Luther Autrey. Paramount 's plant in Stone Mountain employed more than 100 employees. PARAMOUNT PAPER PRODUCTS CO. 1067 Employee Wood received $3.76 an hour under the contract with Union Bag-Camp and worked 371/2 hours a week pursuant to that contract. This exact arrangement continued when Paramount took over and until he left their employ about November 20, 1964. Paramount also gave the same severance pay as that required under Union-Camp's contract. Respondent contends and offered evidence showing that Miller & Miller Labels is a trade name and not a department. Paramount reactivated the name after Union Bag had dropped it. Further, Respondent contends that it was interested in electro- type equipment to produce labels, and that, after buying such equipment from Union Bag-Camp, some was sold, some retained in Stone Mountain, some shipped to Los Angeles, and some was shipped to Omaha for storage. Evidence of this was offered. When Paramount completed the purchase it invited Union Bag's employees to fill out applications and they did so. As a result a "substantial number" were employed by Paramount. At present Paramount employs 100 hourly paid employ- ees at Stone Mountain, of whom but 4 constitute the electrotype department. It has no employees in any plastics or stereotype department. Union Bag utilized 40,000 feet of floor space in label making, whereas Paramount needs only 17,000. Para- mount did not assume any Union Bag-Camp debts or obligations In addition Paramount brought some special equipment to this location from other of its plants and eliminated some of the operations performed by, and departments of, Union Bag-Camp. At the time Paramount purchased from Union Bag-Camp, the latter had a col- lective-bargaining contract with Atlanta Printing Specialties and Paper Products Union No. 527, AFL-CIO, covering employees in a unit found appropriate in Cases Nos. 10-RC-4198 and 10-RC-4952. Paramount has recognized this latter Union for 90 percent of its employees at Stone Mountain. 2. The Union's majority In order to remain in good standing with the Union a member is required to pay dues and assessments. Employee Wilson on January 11, 1965, was notified by the Union that his November and December 1964 and January 1965 dues and assessments were in arrears and that he would be automatically suspended if not paid on or before February 2, 1965. A similar letter was sent to employees Post and Gaddis. Gaddis, Wilson, and Post were suspended in March 1965 for failing to pay these arrears. In mid-November 1964, after Nantkes returned to the plant on November 16, having been out of town since October 21, Paramount terminated some employees because of its desire to reduce electrotyping operations (using 800 square feet of floor space therefor whereas Union Bag-Camp used 3,000) and retained foui employ- ees with the most seniority. Shortly thereafter electrotype employee Wilson, accom- panied by a "group," called on General Manager Nantkes and informed Nantkes that the electrotype employees did not want the Union to represent them and had so advised the Union. On the morning of November 23, electrotype employees Wilson, Post, Gaddis, and Williams met with Nantkes. They composed the entire complement of employees in the unit of electrotypers. Informing Nantkes that they did not want the Union to represent them, they sought his advice as to how to "get the Union off their backs," suggesting an election. In addition they stated they wanted to get out of the Union. Nantkes promised them he would look into it They also "wanted to go over work- ing conditions." Nantkes then told them they would thereafter work 40 hours a week, receiving the same gross weekly pay, and that they would work according to the Paramount handbook which had been distributed to them. The next morning Nantkes again met with the above-mentioned four employees. They reiterated their sentiments of the day before regarding the Union and again asked whether it was possible to hold an election "to vote the Union out." That afternoon Nantkes filed an RM petition. Case No. 10-RM-397. Concluding Findings as to the Refusal to Bargain Initially, I find that Union Bag-Camp became a successor to Miller & Miller, Inc., when it acquired the latter's business in 1958, and that Respondent Paramount became a successor to Union Bag-Camp when it acquired the latter's Miller Label Division in 1964. It follows that Respondent Paramount is a successor to Miller & Miller, Inc. Mole Oldsmobile, Inc., 152 NLRB 407; Randolph Rubber Company, Inc, 152 NLRB 496. This is because I find a substantial continuity in the identity of the employing enterprise, which in the instant case is the electrotype department. 1068 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Further, if material, I find a substantial continuity of the employing enterprise even if the entire label division, which employs about 100 persons, is regarded as the operating entity. Johnson Ready Mix Co., 142 NLRB 437; Colony Materials, Inc., 130 NLRB 105. As the successor to Miller & Miller, Inc., Respondent is bound by the certificate issued in 1955 in Case No. 10-RC-3018. It follows that I must, and do, find that the unit specified in Case No. 10-RC-3018, i.e., the electroplating department, is appropriate, and that the Union had a majority therein when the certificate issued. "It is well established that, absent unusual circumstances, the majority status of a certified union is conclusively presumed during the certification year, and that a successor employer, as well as the original employer, is obligated to recognize and bargain with the certificated union ... during that period " Rohlik, Inc., 145 NLRB 1236, 1240. See Ray Brooks v. N.L R.B., 348 U.S. 96 But after the certification year has elapsed there is a rebuttable presumption of the certified Union's majority, binding an employer, including a successor employer, to continue to recognize and bargain with the certified union Rohlik, Inc, supra, The Richard W Kaase Coin- pany, 141 NLRB 245, enforcement denied 346 F. 2d 24 (C.A. 6). However, evi- dence sufficient to support a good-faith doubt of the Union's majority following the expiration of the certification year "will serve as a defense to a refusal to bargain charge." Rohlik, Inc., supra, and cases there cited. It is my opinion, and I find, that Respondent entertained a good-faith doubt of the Union's majority after November 16, 1964, when Nantkes returned to the plant following his absence on October 21. In this connection, I find that on October 19 the unit included seven employees and on November 16 it was composed of but four employees. Further, I find that four employees, all of whom constituted the entire unit on November 16, became dissatisfied with the Union, that their dissatisfaction was communicated to Nantkes, and that such employees asked Nantkes about pro- cedures to withdraw from the Union, to get the Union off their backs, and to vote out the Union. It is my opinion, and I find, that this action by employees warranted Nantkes in good faith to question the Union's majority.' Mitchell Standard Corpora- tion, 140 NLRB 496. It follows, and I find that Respondent has not unlawfully refused to recognize and bargain with the Union. Laystrom Manufacturing Co., 151 NLRB 1482, in my opinion is distinguishable. B. The unilateral changes in rates of pay and hours of work Employee George Williams was hired by Union Bag-Camp to work in the electrotyping department. He worked 371/ hours a week or 71/2 hours a day. These hours were adopted when Paramount became his employer. However in the week of November 23, 1964, Paramount increased the weekly hours to 40 for Williams and all others in the electrotype department. But the weekly pay remained the same as when 371/2 hours were worked. In effect, wages were reduced. Paramount neither discussed this with the Union nor notified the Union thereof. As found above, Respondent was not obligated to recognize or bargain with the Union when Respondent acquired the Miller & Miller label division or any time thereafter. It follows that no statutory duty was imposed upon Respondent to bar- gain with the Union respecting the increase in the working week from 371/2 to 40 hours and the corresponding decrease in wages. Accordingly, no violation of the Act occurred by these unilateral changes in hours of work and weekly wages. Kellog's Inc. d/b/a Kellogg Mills, 147 NLRB 342, 347 F. 2d 219 (C.A. 9), is distinguishable. Accordingly, I shall recommend that the complaint be dismissed. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and the entire record in this case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Sec- tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. The Union is a labor organization within the contemplation of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. Respondent has not committed any unfair labor practices as alleged in the complaint. i I find that the Union requested recognition on October 19, 1964 , and that Respondent did not unreasonably delay its reply because Nantkes was out of town from October 21 until November 16. BATH IRON WORKS CORPORATION, ETC. 1069 RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon the entire record in this case, it is recommended that the complaint be dismissed. Bath Iron Works Corporation (Hyde Windlass Company Divi- sion), Petitioner and Bath Marine Draftsmen 's Association, Member of the Association of the National Council of Marine Draftsmen. Case No. 1-UC-4. September 8, 1965 DECISION AND ORDER Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hearing was held before a Hearing Officer of the National Labor Relations Board. The Hearing Officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Thereafter, the Employer and the Union both filed briefs. 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 Fanning and Brown]. 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 jurisdic- tion herein. 2. The Employer-Petitioner, Bath Iron Works Corporation,' has requested clarification as to whether its contractual bargaining unit with Bath Marine Draftsmen's Association, member of the Association of the National Council of Marine Draftsmen'2 should include or exclude certain employees employed by BIW's Hyde Windlass Com- pany Division .3 BIW is a Maine corporation engaged principally in shipbuilding. Since August 1940, BIW has recognized the Union as exclusive bar- gaining representative for certain of its employees. The most recent collective-bargaining agreement, effective from October 31, 1963, to April 18, 1967, covers a unit of all employees "... employed by the BIW as laboratory technicians, radiographers, draftsmen, and all others employed in the drafting and technical departments, excluding stenog- raphers, stenographic clerks, guards, engineers, and supervisors within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended ...." Hyde is engaged in the design and fabrication of marine deck equip- ment and various kinds of industrial equipment. On November 30, 1961, BIW purchased all of the outstanding stock of Hyde and there- 1 Hereinafter referred to as BIW. 2 Hereinafter referred to as the Union. 3 Hereinafter referred to as Hyde. 154 NLRB No. 85.