Sonoco Products Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 17, 1953

107 N.L.R.B. 82 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

82 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
within the meaning of the Act, or would establish them as a
separate appropriate unit on the ground that their work interests
are different from those of other employees.
The approximately 3 chief inspectors in the defense contract
department inspect finished products. They have authority to
reject work done by production employees. One of the chief
inspectors is assisted by 5 or 6 other inspectors. Although
chief inspectors may recommend the discharge of employees,
such recommendations do not carry effective weight. Nor does
the record disclose that chief inspectors have any of the other
powers of a supervisor as set forth in Section 2 (11) of the Act.
We therefore find that chief inspectors are not supervisors
within the meaning of the Act. The Board has found that em-
ployees such as the instant chief inspectors may appropriately
be included in a production and maintenance unit.4 We shall
therefore include chief inspectors in the unit hereinafter found
appropriate.
Upon the entire record in this case, we find that the follow-
ing employees of the Employer at its punch press and screw
machine plant at Houston, Texas, constitute a unit appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9 (b) of the Act: All production and maintenance em-
ployees, including employees in the toolroom and in the punch
press, screw machine, and defense contract, departments,
chief inspectors in the latter department, and other inspectors,
but excluding office clerical employees, professional employees,
watchmen, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
5. No election can be held in this proceeding until after
October 1953, the time of the expected layoff of the defense
contract employees. If any such employees have actually been
laid off by the date of the election, without reasonable expecta-
tion of reemployment, they will be regarded as having been
permanently severed and will be ineligible to vote in the election
hereinafter directed.5 Otherwise, they will be eligible to vote.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
4Palmer Manufacturing Company, 103 NLRB 336, and cases cited therein
5 Mosher Steel Company, 88 NLRB 173.
SONOCO PRODUCTS COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF PULP, SULPHITE, AND PAPER MILL
WORKERS, AFL, AND INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD
OF PAPER MAKERS, AFL, Petitioners. Case No. 11-RC-566.
November 17, 1953
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Jerold B.
Sindler, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made
107 NLRB No. 24.
SONOCO PRODUCTS COMPANY 83
at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby
affirmed. i
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning
of the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to representcer-
tain employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the rep-
resentation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of
Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The parties stipulated that the appropriate unit consists of
all production and maintenance employees at the Employer's
Hartsville, South Carolina, plant, where the Employer is engaged
in making paper and paper products. However, they disagree as
to the unit placement of certain employees.'
Assistant beater room foreman: The Employer contends that
the 3 assistantbeater room foremen,who alternate on the 3 daily
shifts, are supervisors. The record, however, is insufficient to
enable us to make a determination on this issue. We shall ac-
c ordingly permit the as sistant beate r room foreman to vote under
challenge and shall conduct a further investigation if it should
appear that their votes would be determinative of the election.
Lacquer, paint-pigment, and sonolite operators: The Em-
ployer asserts that these three operators are professionalem-
ployees, who should be excluded from the unit. The record dis-
closes, however, that they merely operate mixing machines, add-
ing various ingredients to the product being mixed according to
prescribed formulas set by the chief chemist. Their duties are
of a routine nature and do not require the use of independent judg-
ment. Upon the basis of the entire record, we find that the lac-
quer, paint-pigment, and sonolite operators are neither profes-
sional nor technical employees and shall include them in the unit.
Mail carrier: The Employer would include the mail carrier,
while the Petitioner would exclude him. The mail carrier car-
ries mail and packages between the post office and the Employ-
er's main office. We find that his interests are with the office
clerical employees and shall exclude him from the unit.3
Order tracers: The Petitioner would exclude as managerial
employees the order tracer and his assistant. Their duties are
to keep records in order to enable them to inform customers of
iThe hearing officer referred to the Board the Employer ' s motion to dismiss the joint
petition filed herein on the grounds that (1) two unions cannot constitute a labor organization
within the meaning of the Act; and (2) the showing of interest was not based upon joint desig-
nations by the employees involved . The motion is denied . The Board has consistently held that
two or more labor organizations may appropriately bargain as joint representatives, and that
the adequacy of a showing of interest is an administrative matter, not litigable by the parties.
Webb-Linn Printing Co., 95 NLRB 1488; Harry Brown Motor Company, 86 NLRB 652.
2 It was stipulated at the hearing that the evidence regarding these employees adduced in a
prior case concerning the parties -- Sonoco Products Co., 11-RC-514 ( not reported in printed
volumes of Board Decisions)--was still applicable and should be adopted by the Board in this
case We hereby take official notice of that proceeding and shall rely on the evidence there
presented in determining the unit placement of the disputed categories.
3Heintz Maa^,+acturing Company, 100 NLRB 1521
84 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the stage of completion of products being made for them. Their
work requires them to move continually throughout the plant. We
find that the order tracer and his assistant are plant clericals
and shall include them in the unit.4
Nurses: The Petitioner contends that the three registered
nurses should be excluded, while the Employer would include
them. The Board has consistently held that nur se s have interests
and duties basically different from those of production and main-
tenance personnel. 6 Accordingly, we shall exclude them from
the unit.
Cooperative students: Five university students are employed
as draftsmen in the drafting department, alternating every 3
months between the plant and the university. The record does
not indicate that there is any likelihood that they will become
permanent employees upon graduation. As they are technical
employees and their employment is merely incidental to their
education, we shall exclude them from the unit. 6
Grill employees: The Employer maintains a grill or lunch-
room near the production office. The Petitioner would exclude
the grill employees as not having any community of interest
with the other employees in the proposed unit, while the Em-
ployer would include them. The Employer maintains the grill
solely for the use of its employees. The grill employees have
the same terms and conditions of employment as the other em-
ployees. We have frequently found that the interests of cafeteria
employees are not so dissimilar to those of production and
maintenance employees as to preclude their inclusion with the
latter. We shall therefore include the grill employees in the unit.?
We find that all production and maintenance employees at the
Employer's Hartsville, South Carolina, plant, including lacquer,
paint-pigment, and sonolite operators, order tracer, order
tracer assistant, and grill employees, but excluding office and
clerical employees, mail carrier, nurses, cooperative students,
and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appro-
priate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
4Clarostat Mfg. Co., Inc., 105 NLRB 2,0.
5W. F. & John Barnes Company, 96 NLRB 1136.
6 National Cash Register Company, 95 NLRB.27.
7 Taunton Pearl Works, 89 NLRB 1382.
MAC SMITH GARMENT COMPANY, INC. and AMALGAMATED
CLOTHING WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO. Case No. 15-CA-
481. November 18, 1953
DECISION AND ORDER
On June 15, 1953, Trial Examiner David London issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding
107 NLRB No. 27.