The Mengel Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 13, 1953

104 N.L.R.B. 58 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

58 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
THE MENGEL COMPANY and UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF
CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA, AFL, Petitioner.
Case No. 9-RC-1831. April 13, 1953
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act,` a hearing was held before William G.
Wilkerson, 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 [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston
and Murdock].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:'
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing of the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the
representation of employees of the Employer within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act,
for the following reasons:
The Petitioner and the Employer propose a unit consisting
of all production and maintenance employees at two of the Em-
ployer's Louisville, Kentucky, plants. The Intervenor, Inter-
national Woodworkers of America, CIO, and its Local S-51
contend that this unit'is inappropriate.
The Employer is' engaged in manufacturing and selling
furniture, plywood, doors, veneers, 'and other wood products``
as well as fibre containers; it maintains plants throughout the
United States. Several of these plants are situated in Louisville,
Kentucky. Two plants, known as the Fourth Street and 12th Street
plants, comprise the furniture division, and two other plants,
called branches 2 and 10, form the plywood division. Another
plant in the Louisville area is part of the Employer's-corru-
gated box division, now represented by an independent union.
Finally, there is a plant and warehousing operation in the same
area, maintained as a joint venture with the U.S. Plywood Com-
pany, where the employees are not represented by any labor
organization. This proceeding involves only the 4 furniture and
plywood division plants, the Petitioner requesting only the
plywood plants, and the Intervenor insisting only upon a 4-plant
unit.
The two plywood plants and the Fourth Street plant are
physically located in the same immediate vicinity, the latter
separated from the plywood plants by a railroad track. The
12th Street plant is about 2-1 miles° distant. The executive
offices of the Employer's entire Louisville operations are
located in two buildings at the Fourth Street plant. ' -
IThe Petitioner' s request for oral argument is hereby denied, as the record and the
Petitioner's brief adequately present the issues and positions of the parties.
104 NLRB No 4.
THE MENGEL COMPANY 59
Each of these 2 divisions is headed by a vice president in
charge of operations; 1, manufactures a branded type of furni-
ture nationally advertised and sold to retailers, and the other
produces plywood, doors, veneers, and other wood products.
Only a small percentage of the plywood and veneer produced in
the plywood division is used by the furniture division plants.
Generally, all the employees are engaged in woodworking, and
in large measure the same type of machines are found in both
divisions. Although there is some difference in the special
skills required in the 2 divisions, as between the 2 plywood
plants this disparity is greater than appears between furniture
and plywood. Each division has its own sales department, pay-
roll, personnel officer, and employment office. However, there
is 1 labor relations director for the entire company. Employees
are rarely interchanged between divisions; the only instances
occur under the application of the seniority clause of the Em-
ployer's contract with the Intervenor. Facilities shared by the
employees of the 2 divisions appear to be limited to a common
cafeteria located at the 12th Street plant.
For many years all the employees here involved have formed
a single bargaining unit. In 1941, the Employer recognized the
Petitioner as bargaining agent in the 4-plant unit. In 1948, in a
Board proceeding, the Employer urged separation of the Z divi-
sions into 2 units, but, as both the Petitioner and the Intervenor
insisted upon continuance of the historic unit, the Board re-
jected the Employer's contention.' The Intervenor won the
resultant election and was certified. And in 1950, the Employer
joined both Unions in a stipulation for certification upon a con-
sent election for the 4-plant unit; again the Intervenor was
certified. Throughout all these years there have been succes-
sive single collective -bargaining contracts covering all 4 plants.
On this record we., see no reason for departing from the
Board's earlier decision on the same issue. Those factors
which showed the appropriateness of the 4-plant unit in 1948,
when only the Employer attacked it, are equally present now
that the Petitioner, having been ousted in the 1948 election as
bargaining representative, would also dismember the estab-
lished unit. If anything, the additional 5 years of successful
bargaining on the same unit basis makes the bargaining history
more persuasive than it was in 1948, at the time of the earlier
decision. In support of their present position, the Employer and
the Petitioner point to certain management and operational
changes which were made since 1948. It is true, as they assert,
that hiring for each division is now more independent, that the
amount of plywood going from the plywood to the furniture
division has decreased, and that the plywood divisionno longer
receives power and steam from the powerhouse of the furni-
ture,division. These facts, however, are insufficient to offset
the. community of interest among the employees of all 4 plants
shown by the proximity of the plants in the same area, the
basic similarity of the woodworking skills at the various
locations, the similarity in the employees' working conditions
2 The Mengel Company, 78 NLRB 880.
60 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and other benefits, and the Employer's ultimate centralized
control over labor relations. On these facts, and in view of
the long history of collective bargaining on the 4-plant unit
basis, we believe that the existing multi divisionpattern should
be left undisturbed. 3 Accordingly, as the unit requested by the
Petitioner is inappropriate, we shall dismiss the petition.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed herein be,
and it hereby is, dismissed.
3Murray Corporation of America--Ecorse Plant, 101 NLRB 313.
EIGEL JENSEN AND THOMAS N. RAMSAY, COPARTNERS,
d/b/a ARTCRAFT ENGINEERING & MANUFACTURING CO.
and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, DIS-
TRICT LODGE NO. 94, LOCAL NO. 311. Case No. 21-CA-
1339. April 14, 1953
DECISION AND ORDER
On February 17, 1953, Trial Examiner Herman Marx issued
his Intermediate Report in the above - entitled proceeding , finding
that the Respondent had not engaged in and was not engaging
in the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and
recommending that the complaint herein be dismissed, as set
forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto.
Thereafter , the General Counsel and the Respondent filed
exceptions to the Intermediate Report and supporting briefs.
The Board' has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Ex-
aminer at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was
committed.2 The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has
considered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions and briefs,
and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings,
conclusions , and recommendations of the Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in this case and pursuant to Section
10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the com-
t 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 Herzog and Members Styles
and Peterson].
ZThe Trial Examiner erroneously sustained the Respondent 's objection to receipt in
evidence of the written statement of witness Allstead at the hearing . The statement should
have been admitted as evidence of a past recorded recollection. Wigmore on Evidence,
Third Edition, "Past Recollection Recorded," sections 734-737; 744-747. However, as the
statement was contradictory on its face , we find that the General Counsel's position was not
prejudiced by this action.
104 NLRB No. 14.