St. Regis Paper Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 4, 1953

105 N.L.R.B. 371 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

ST. REGIS PAPER COMPANY 37 1
ST. REGIS PAPER COMPANY and LODGE 1009, INTER-
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, AFL, Petitioner.
Case No. 3-RC-1147. June 4, 1953
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Hymen Dishner,
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings 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 in connection with this case to
a three-member panel [Members Houston, Styles, and
Peterson].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce withinthe meaning
of the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent
certain employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the
representation of employees of the Employer within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner seeks to add to the units of millwrights
and pipefitters it now represents at the Employer's Deferiet,
New York, plant, the helpers in both of these categories, and it
also seeks to sever craft units of electricians and helpers,
masons and helpers, painters and helpers, and welders and
helpers. International Brotherhood of Pulp, Sulphite and Paper
Mill Workers, AFL, herein called the Intervenor,' contends
that the proposed units are inappropriate in view of the history
of collective bargaining since 1938 covering the employees
sought and all other employees in those classifications at the
several plants, including the Deferiet plant, which comprise
the Employer's Northern Mills.
From 1938 to 1950, the Employer executed agreements
covering employees at the Northern Mills jointly with the
Petitioner, the Paper Makers, and International Brotherhood
of Firemen and Oilers, AFL, herein called the Firemen.2 In
April 1951, the Petitioner filed six petitions seeking craft
units at the Deferiet plant. The Board dismissed these petitions
on the ground that the bargaining history established a con-
trolling multiplant pattern of collective bargaining for the
Northern Mills.3
In June 1952, the Petitioner filed three petitions seeking
craft units of machinists, millwrights, and pipefitters at the
1 International Brotherhood of Paper Makers, AFL, herein called the Paper Makers, also
intervened at the hearing on the basis of its contractual interest, but disclaimed interest in
any election the Board may direct in this case.
2 These multiplant agreements were formerly signed by certain other unions, but the plants
in which these other unions had their membership are no longer part of the Northern Mills.
3St. Regis Paper Company, 97 NLRB 1051 On May 20. 1952, the Petitioner's motion for
reconsideration wau denied.
105 NLRB No. 39.
372 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Deferiet plant. The Board found that the Petitioner had repre-
sented the employees sought for over 30 years, and that, al-
though it had signed the multiplant agreements , it had repre-
sented only these Deferiet employees, according to its
jurisdictional agreement with the other contracting parties.
The Board also found that the Petitioner had not been a party
to the 1950 multiplant agreement , but had signed a separate
agreement in September 1951 covering these employees. Elec-
tions were directed, 4 and the Petitioner was subsequently cer-
tified as the bargaining representative of the three craft units
sought.
In view of the Board's action in that case, the Petitioner
contends that elections should be directed in the four craft units
herein sought. The decision in that case, however, was based
upon the particular circumstances that since 1938 there had been
a multiplant bargaining history for all except the crafts sought
therein, which had been on a single-plant bargaining basis for
over 30 years. The decision was specifically limited to "these
circumstances of this case"; such circumstances do not appear
in the bargaining history of the crafts sought herein, which
have been part of the multiplant unit.
The Petitioner also relies upon the fact that since the de-
cision in that case, a rider to the multiplant agreement has
been executed by all the parties thereto, including the inter-
national representative of the Paper Makers, but not the
representative of the Deferiet Paper Makers local. That local,
a day before, signed a substantially similar rider. The Pe-
titioner contends that the result of this separate action was to
break down the joint bargaining plan at the Deferiet plant. We
find, however, that the plan has not broken down to an extent
that would warrant a departure from the Board's rule that
where, as in the instant case, there has been a history of bar-
gaining on a multiplant basis, the craft units sought to be
severed must be coextensive with the multiplant unit. We
therefore find the proposed craft units inappropriate.'
The Petitioner urges that the two groups of helpers sought
should be given an opportunity to vote for inclusion in the same
units as their respective craftsmen, particularly as, under
the present jurisdictional agreement of the parties, these
helpers must join the Petitioner when they are promoted to
craftsmen. We are satisfied that the interests and duties of the
millwright and pipefitter helpers are closely allied with those
of their respective craftsmen, and as the millwrights and the
pipefitters were severed on a single-plant basis, their helpers
may be severed on that basis also.6
Accordingly, we shall direct elections in the following voting
groups at the Employer's Deferiet, New York, plant, excluding
therefrom office clerical employees, guards, professional em-
'St. Regis Paper Company, 101 NLRB 656 By stipulation of the parties, the record of that
case and of St. Regis Paper Company, 97 NLRB 1051, were incorporated into the record of
the instant case
5 American Steel Foundries, Alliance Works, 101 NLRB 655.
6Bethlehem Steel Company, Shipbuilding Division, 99 NLRB 952.
H. P. WASSON AND COMPANY 373
ployees, all other employees, and all supervisors as defined
in the Act: (1) Millwright helpers and (2) pipefitter helpers. If
a majority of the employees in either group(1) or (2) votes for
the Petitioner, they will be taken to have indicated a desire
that their group be included in the appropriate craft unit, and
the Regional Director conducting the elections directed herein
is instructed to issue a certification of representatives to that
effect. If, however, a majority in either of the groups votes for
the Intervenor, they will be taken to have indicated a desire
that their group remain in the existing multiplant unit, and the
Regional Director conducting the elections directed hereinwill
issue a certification of results of election to that effect.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.]
H. P. WASSON AND COMPANY and RETAIL, WHOLESALE &
DEPARTMENT STORE UNION, CIO, Petitioner. Case No.
35-RC-853. June 5, 1953
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER
On April 21, 1953, the Board issued its Decision and Direc-
tion of Election in the above-entitled proceeding.' In its De-
cision the Board held, inter alia, that "on call" employees
were included in the unit, but not eligible to vote in the election,
of the regular full-time and part-time employees at the Em-
ployer's Indianapolis, Indiana, department store. On April 27,
1953, the Employer filed a petition for reconsideration, re-
questing that the Board reconsider its disposition of the right
to vote of the "on call" employees and find that these employees
are eligible to vote. A On April 28, the Petitioner filed a
telegram opposing the Employer ' s request . On May 12, the
parties further filed a stipulation stating that the cafeteria
employees were part of the appropriate unit and requesting
that the Board amend its original Decision and Direction of
Election specifically to include the cafeteria employees.
The Board' has considered the Employer's petition for
reconsideration , the Petitioner ' s opposition thereto, and the
entire record in the case and makes the following disposition
of the matters raised:
As to the Employer's petition for reconsideration, the Board,
in its original decision, found that the Employer's "on call"
employees were included in the same unit as the Employer's
1104 NLRB 249.
2 The Employer also filed a motion to "vacate" the direction of election pending determina-
tion of the issue raised by its petition for reconsideration. On May 6, 1953, the Board issued
an order which amended the direction of election by directing that the election be held within
60, rather than 30, days from the direction of election.
3Pursuant 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 [Members Houston, Styles, and Peter-
son.]
105 NLRB No. 50.