Pineville Kraft Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 19, 1968

173 N.L.R.B. 863 (N.L.R.B. 1968)

PINEVILLE KRAFT CORP.
Pineville Kraft Corporation and United Papermakers
& Paperworkers , AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case
15-RC-3918
November 19, 1968
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
By MEMBERS BROWN, JENKINS, AND ZAGORIA
On June 14, 1968, the Regional Director for
Region 15 dismissed the petition as untimely because
the Employer had on June 3, 1968, voluntarily
recognized the Intervenor, International Brotherhood
of Pulp, Sulphite and Paper Mill Workers, AFL-CIO,
prior to any request for recognition by the Petitioner
and prior to the filing of the petition on June 4,
1968. Thereafter the Petitioner filed an appeal.
On July 10, 1968, the National Labor Relations
Board concluded that the appeal raised issues which
could best be resolved on the basis of record
testimony, and, accordingly, reinstated the petition
and directed a hearing in this proceeding. A hearing
was held at Alexandria, Louisiana, on July 30, 1968,
before Hearing Officer Andy N. Stalder. Thereafter,
the Employer and the Petitioner, filed briefs with the
National Labor Relations Board and the Intervenor,
Pulp, Sulphite and Paper Mill Workers, filed a
memorandum to the Board.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case
to a three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's
rulings made at the hearing and finds that they are
free from prejudicial error. They are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, including the
briefs and memorandum, 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 Petitioner, United Papermakers & Paper-
workers, AFL-CIO; Intervenor, International Broth-
erhood of Pulp, Sulphite and Paper Mill Workers,
AFL-CIO (hereinafter called Intervenor Pulp Sul-
phite) and Intervenor, United Association of Journey-
men and Apprentices of the Pipe Fitting Industry of
the United States, AFL-CIO (hereinafter called
Intervenor United Association),' are all labor organi-
zations claiming to represent certain employees of the
Employer.
3. The petition herein was filed June 4, 1968 (all
I Intervenor , United Association was permitted to intervene at the
hearing on the basis of a showing of interest.
2 At the hearing all parties agreed to eliminate the classifications of
wood scalers and truckdrivers from the appropriate unit
863
dates herein are in 1968) for a unit of all production
and maintenance employees, including wood scalers,
laboratory technicians, storeroom employees and
truckdrivers employed at the Employer's Pineville,
Louisiana, plant.' The Employer and Intervenor Pulp
Sulphite contend that the petition should be dis-
missed because on June 3, the Employer had volun-
tanly recognized Intervenor Pulp Sulphite as
collective-bargaining agent for employees in the unit
and therefore a question concerning representation
does not exist.
In early March, Intervenor Pulp Sulphite estab-
lished a trailer headquarters near Employer's new
plant in Pineville, Louisiana and commenced an active
organizing campaign. Shortly thereafter, the Petition-
er also located a trailer headquarters in the same area
and began an organizing campaign. The record is clear
that the Employer was well aware of the campaigns
being conducted by the two unions.
On May 27, Intervenor Pulp Sulphite telephoned
the Employer's industrial relations manager, Heidt,
and told Heidt the Intervenor represented a majority
in the unit and offered to prove majority status. A
card check was conducted in the plant offices on the
morning of June 3 by the City Attorney of Pineville.3
The Employer agreed to recognize the Intervenor
Pulp Sulphite as the representative of its employees
but before sending a letter to this effect wished to
check the composition of the unit. Some discussion
then took place concerning aspects of working condi-
tions. Sometime between 2 and 4 p.m. a representa-
tive of Intervenor Pulp Sulphite picked up a letter
which the Employer had prepared and which granted
recognition to Intervenor Pulp Sulphite.
Between 1: 15 and 2 p.m. of the same day, June 3,
a representative of Petitioner delivered to Heidt, at
the plant, a letter claiming a majority and requesting
recognition., Later in the afternoon, at some time
between 3 and 4 p.m., the Employer called Petition-
er's representative and asked for proof of Petitioner's
majority status. Petitioner's representative informed
Heidt he did not have the authorization cards, that
they were with another representative who was
traveling at the moment, and that in view of what had
taken place in the morning the Petitioner would file a
petition. The petition, as previously indicated herein,
was in fact filed the next day, June 4.
From the facts recited above we conclude that a
question concerning representation clearly existed on
June 3 when recognition was extended to Intervenor
Pulp Sulphite, and that the recognition granted
Intervenor Pulp Sulphite did not operate as a bar to
the petition within the rule set forth in Keller Plastics
3 The City Attorney found 112 of the 117 cards to be valid. The
number of employees at that time in the unit was approximately 129. It
is estimated that when the plant is fully staffed it will have a normal
complement of between 200 and 210 hourly employees.
173 NLRB No. 128
864 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Eastern, Inc.' In the instant case there was no
showing that recognition was granted at a time when
only Intervenor Pulp Sulphite was actively engaged in
organizing among the Employer's workers. Indeed the
record is clear that both unions were involved in
organizing campaigns prior to the granting of recogni-
tion, that the Employer was well aware of the two
campaigns before June 3, that the Petitioner, as well
as Intervenor Pulp Sulphite, had authorization cards
from a substantial number of employees, as evidenced
by its showing of interest when filing its petition on
June 4. Under these circumstances it is evident that
there was clearly a question concerning employees'
choice at the time recognition was given.' Accord-
ingly, we find the petition herein to have been timely
filed, and that a question affecting commerce exists
concerning the representation of certain employees of
the Employer, within the meaning of Section 9(c)(1)
and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. As set forth above, the petition seeks a unit of
all production and maintenance employees, including
laboratory technicians and storeroom employees. The
Employer and Intervenor Pulp Sulphite would ex-
clude the latter two categories of employees from
inclusion in the unit, while Intervenor United Associa-
tion takes no position with respect to their inclusion
or exclusion.
The two laboratory technicians work in the main
laboratory which is located on a mezzanine level in
the building where production operations are con-
ducted. They are under the Technical Department
and are supervised by the Technical Director. They
will be involved in such things as making river quality
studies and composite studies of things done in the
plant. Also employed by the Employer are a number
of testers, such as pulp and paper testers, who are
hourly employees who work in laboratories in the
production area and perform more routine testing
work. The parties all concede that these testers, who
are also within the Technical Department, are within
the unit. While the laboratory technicians are salaried
employees, their pay is comparable to the crew
leaders of the testers and their benefits are compara-
ble to those of the hourly employees. While one of
the two laboratory technicians has completed 3 years
of college, the other technician has not yet begun
college work, and the record fails to substantiate any
claim that they are professional employees within the
meaning of the Act. Under these facts we find that
there is a sufficient community of interest between
the laboratory technicians and employees in the
production and maintenance unit to make appropri-
ate their inclusion in the unit.
There are six storeroom employees-five materials
clerks and one senior materials clerk. They operate on
a 24 hour, 7 day a week basis, and are supervised by a
storeroom supervisor. They are salaried employees
whose pay approximates the median wages of hourly
employees. They are located in the Maintenance and
Stores building. Their work encompasses the receipt
of all material coming in, the placement of the
materials in the storeroom, the issuance of materials
on requisitions to maintenance and production per-
sonnel, the cataloging and inventorying of materials,
and the preparation of source documents used in the
data processing program of inventory controls. While
the Employer would consider them office clericals
because of their preparation of documents for its data
processing operations, we find that the work per-
formed is more closely associated with the production
operations of the Employer, and that the work is
more in the nature of that performed by plant
clericals. Therefore, we shall include them in the unit.
Accordingly, we find that the following employees
of the Employer constitute a unit appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9(b) of the Act:
All production and maintenance employees, includ-
ing laboratory technicians and storeroom employ-
ees, employed by the Employer at its plant in
Pineville, Louisiana, but excluding all office clerical
employees, guards, professional employees, and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Direction of Election6 omitted from publication.]
4 157 NLRB 583.
5 Superior Furniture Manufacturing Co., Inc., 167 NLRB No. 40.
6 An election eligibility list, containing the names and addresses of all
the eligible voters, must be filed by the Employer with the Regional
Director for Region 15 within 7 days after the date of this Decision and
Direction of Election . The Regional Director shall make the list
available to all parties to the election . No extension of time to file this
list shall be granted by the Regional Director except in extraordinary
circumstances. Failure to comply with this requirement shall be grounds
for setting aside the election whenever proper objections are filed.
Excelsior Underwear Inc ., 156 NLRB 1236.