St. Regis Paper Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsMar 6, 1961

130 N.L.R.B. 1235 (N.L.R.B. 1961)

ST. REGIS PAPER COMPANY 1235 St. Regis Paper Company and Local Lodge No . 1248, Inter- national Association of Machinists , AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 12-RC-874.1 March 6, 1961 DECISION AND ORDER CLARIFYING CERTIFICATION On May 21, 1953, following elections conducted pursuant to a Deci- sion and Direction of Elections,2 the Board issued separate certifica- tions of representatives to the International Association of. Machinists, AFL, herein called the IAM, as the representative of "all mainte- nance department employees, including maintenance men, mainte- nance helpers, and maintenance oilers"; 3 and to the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AGL, herein called the IBEW, as the representative of "all powerhouse employees." On April 8,1960, the IAM filed 'a motion to clarify the 1953 certifica- tions' Thereafter a hearing herein was held on June 22 and 28, 1960, before Norman A. Cole, hearing officer. The IAM, the IBEW, and the Employer appeared and participated at the hearing. The rulings of the hearing officer made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers herein to a three-member panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Rodgers and Jenkins]. The parties seek, in this proceeding, to have the Board determine which of the 1953 certifications includes certain disputed work, tasks involving maintenance of powerhouse equipment outside the power- house.. It.wa stipulated at the.hearing that the issue to be resolved is whether the Board intended "for the powerhouse maintenance men to perform maintenance and repair work on any equipment located out- side the powerhouse building." The IAM contends that the transcript of the record in the 1953 proceeding reflects that the powerhouse maintenance men at that time performed no work outside the powerhouse building, and therefore 1 Formerly Cases Nos. 10-RC-2199 , 10-RC-2207 . through 10-RC-2210 ,â€¢ 10-RC-2219, and 10-RC-2212. 9104 NLRB 411. 9 On August 7, 1958, on a joint request of the IAM, the IBEW ; and the Employer for clarification of the 1953 certifications, and in accord with a stipulation of the parties, the Board amended the IAM certification by adding to the employees included in the unit "all employees who perform maintenance and repair work on the No. 2 paper machine drive turbine." Case No. 12-RC-295. (Not published in NLRB volumes.) * On April 8, 1960, the IAM filed a petition under Section 9(c) of the Act. Thereafter, on May 6, 1960, the Regional Director for the Twelfth Region dismissed the petition on the ground that no question concerning representation existed as the IAM sought only a clarification of the 1953 certifications. On June 3, 1960, the Board , on appeal by the IAM, reinstated the petition and directed a hearing to determine whether there is a question concerning representation or whether the issues could be resolved on the basis of a motion to clarify. At the hearing, the parties stipulated that the IAM's petition should be treated . as a motion to clarify the certifications . We hereby accept the stipulation of the parties. 130 NLRB No. 116. 1236 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the Board, by its certification of a unit composed of all powerhouse employees, apparently did not intend for the powerhouse certification to embrace the maintenance repair of any equipment located outside the powerhouse building. The Employer and the IBEW assert that the powerhouse mainte- nance employees were engaged in the maintenance of the power equip- ment located outside the powerhouse building in 1953 at the time of the earlier decision, and urge that the Board clarify the IBEW's certi- fication by finding that the powerhouse maintenance employees who are engaged in the repair and the maintenance of such equipment are included within the certified unit. Mechanical maintenance throughout the Employer's kraft board and paper manufacturing plant, exclusive of the powerhouse, is performed by the employees in the maintenance department represented by the IAM. The work of maintaining all equipment within the powerhouse department is performed by the powerhouse maintenance men, repre- sented by the IBEW as part of the powerhouse unit. The Employer, for administrative purposes, includes within the powerhouse 'department a recovery boiler and a boiler feed water treat- ment plant, both of which are located outside, but adjacent to the powerhouse, and a river pumping station, which is about one-quarter mile from the powerhouse. The recovery boiler is situated within the recovery building, where water is condensed from steam and recovered for use in both powerhouse and' production purposes. In the feed water treatment plant water is chemically treated before introduction into the boilers. The river pumping station, which functions auto- matically, obtains water from the river, primarily supplying such water to the powerhouse generator condensers, and secondarily to pro- duction units. All employees assigned to. the operation and regular maintenance of the aforementioned equipment are powerhouse em- ployees represented by the IBEW, and working under the direct supervision of the chief power engineer. However, when major re- pairs or general overhaul of this equipment is required, employees within the maintenance unit represented by the IAM perform such tasks. Also, when emergency repair work is necessary during the two evening shifts or weekends such work is performed by the mainte- nance employees represented by the IAM, in the absence of sufficient powerhouse personnel. There is no showing in the record that any employees within the powerhouse unit interchange with the employees in the mechanical maintenance department. It is clear that the maintenance and repair work on the recovery boiler, the boiler feed water treatment plant, and the river pumping station are functions directly related to the generation of steam and power, which is the basic function of the powerhouse and powerhouse employees. In these circumstances, we find that the_IBEWcertifica- HOUSTON CHRONICLE PUBLISHING' COMPANY 1237 tion for the powerhouse employees properly includes the disputed' tasks and the employees performing them.5 We do* not believe that the fact that some of the employees assigned to the maintenance de- partment occasionally perform major or emergency repair work on the same equipment militates significantly against this finding.6 Ac- cordingly we shall clarify the certification issued to the IBEW in the powerhouse unit to specifically include employees engaged in the main- tenance and repair of the recovery boiler, the boiler feed water treat- ment plant, and the river pumping station.' [The Board clarified the certification heretofore issued to the Inter- national Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, by specifi- cally including in the description of the appropriate unit of power- house employees all powerhouse employees engaged in maintenance and repair work on the recovery boiler, the boiler feed water treatment plant, and the river pumping station.] 8 6 United States Smelting, Refining and Mining Company, 116 NLRB 661, 664; Olin Mathieson Chemical Corporation, Olin Works, 117 NLRB 1441 , 1444; Shell Chemical Corporation, 118 NLRB 1605 , 1606; and Container Corporation of America, 121 NLRB 249, 254. 6 See The Westchester Corporation , 124 NLRB 194, and case cited therein. Â° See Mississippi Lime Company, 124 NLRB 884. $ This is not to be construed as a new certification. Houston Chronicle Publishing Company and Houston News- paper Guild, Local 113, American Newspaper Guild , AFL-CIO. Case No. 23-CA-1027. Marche 7, 1961 DECISION AND ORDER On January 9, 1961, Trial Examiner James T. Rasbury issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report, and the Charging Party filed a brief in support thereof. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Rodgers and Jenkins]. The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Boardhas considered the Inter- mediate Report, the exceptions and the brief, and the entire record in 130 NLRB No. 124.