The Sorg Paper Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 27, 1938

8 N.L.R.B. 657 (N.L.R.B. 1938)

In the Matter of THE SORG PAPER COMPANY and COMMITTEE FOR
INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATION
Case No. B-633.-Decided July 27, 1938
Paper and Paper Bag Manufacturing Industry-Investigation of Representa-
tives: controversy concerning representation of employees: controversy as to
appropriate unit ; employer's refusal to grant recognition of union-Unit Ap-
propriate for Collective Bargaining: production employees in both Paper Mill
and Bag Division, excluding office workers, supervisory employees who have
the right to hire and discharge, and watchmen-Election Ordered
Mrs. Mary Telker Ili ff, for the Board.
Nichols, Morrill, Wood, Marx and Ginter , by Mr. Robert S. Marx
and Mr. Edward M. Brown, of Cincinnati , Ohio, for the Company.
Mr. Julius Holzberg, of Cincinnati , Ohio, for the Union.
Miss Margaret M. Farmer, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On December 9, 1937, the Committee for Industrial Organization,
on behalf of Local Industrial Union No. 112, United Paper Workers
of America, herein called the Union, filed with the Regional Di-
rector for the Ninth Region (Cincinnati, Ohio) a petition alleging
that a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the repre-
sentation of employees of Sorg Paper Company, Middletown, Ohio,
herein called the Company, and requesting an investigation and
certification of representatives pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. On
January 14, 1938, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called
the Board, acting pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the Act and Article
III, Section 3, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regu-
lations-Series 1, as amended, ordered an investigation and author-
ized the Regional Director to conduct it and to provide for an ap-
propriate hearing upon due notice.
On February 2, 1938, the Regional Director issued a notice of
hearing, copies of which were duly served upon the Company, upon
8 N. L. R. B., No. 67.
657
658
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Union, and upon Employees Representation Plan. Pursuant to
the notice, a hearing was held on March 18, 1937, at Middletown,
Ohio, before James L. Fort, the Trial Examiner duly designated by
the Board. The Board, the Company; and the Union were repre-
sented by counsel and participated in the hearing. Employees Rep-
resentation Plan did not appear. . Full opportunity to be heard, to
examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bear-
ing on the issues was afforded all parties. During the course of the
hearing the Trial Examiner made several rulings on motions and on
objections to the admission of evidence. The Board has reviewed
the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial errors
were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed.'
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Sorg Paper Company is an Ohio corporation, having its principal
place of business in Middletown, Ohio. It is the result of a consoli-
dation on January 2, 1931, of the W. B. Oglesby Company, the Paul
A. Sorg Paper Company, and the Frank Smith Paper Company. In
May 1936, the Company acquired the assets of the Lawrence Bag
Company and the Superior Bag and Paper Corporation, also located
in Middletown, Ohio, and has since operated said properties as its
Bag Division. The Bag Division is located at a distance of a few
blocks from the Paper Mill.
The Company at its Paper Mill manufactures paper- of various
grades and at its Bag Division manufactures paper bags. Approxi-
mately 90 per cent of the raw materials used by the Company at its
Paper Mill come from sources outside the State of Ohio. Wood pulp
'The Company objected to the refusal of the Trial Examiner to permit it to make appli-
cation for a subpena to compel the Union to produce the minutes of the meeting at which
a resolution was allegedly passed authorizing the petition in the instant case we find
the action of the Trial Examiner proper. The Act authorizes the Board to investigate
and certify bargaining representatives . In the exercise of this authority , the Board has
provided in Article III, Section 1, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regula-
tions-Series 1, as amended, that a "petition requesting the Board to investigate and cer-
tify under Section 9 ( c) of the Act the name or names of the representatives designated
or selected for the purpose of collective bargaining may be filed by any employee or any
person or labor organization acting on his behalf ." This provision is, however , solely for
the convenience and protection of the Board . It does not empower an employer to ques-
tion the authority of a labor organization to act on behalf of employees or other persons
or the authority of a particular individual to act on behalf of a labor organization The
Company also objected to the exclusion of evidence of allegedly coercive measures employed
by the Union in gaining members . We ale of the opinion that in those cases in which a
labor organization chooses not to submit evidence in support of its claim to represent a
majority of the employees for the purpose of securing certification but seeks rather an
election by secret ballot as the means of determining the validity of such claims , testimony
of coercion is irrelevant and is properly excluded at a bearing.
DECISIONS 'AND ORDERS 659
is shipped directly to the mill from New England, from western and
southern States, from Canada `and from the Scandinavian countries.
Coal is sent principally from Kentucky. Paper used by the Com-
pany, other than that manufactured by itself, is obtained from Wis-
consin and Indiana. Approximately 33 per cent of the finished paper
is sold outside the State of Ohio.
Approximately 5 per cent of the raw materials used by the Com-
pany in the Bag Divison are shipped from sources outside the State.
Approximately 70 per cent of the bag output is sold outside the State.
The Company employs 429 persons in the Paper Mill and 117
persons in the Bag Division exclusive of office and sales force.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Local Industrial Union 112, United Paper Workers of America,
herein called the Union, is a labor organization affiliated with the
Committee for Industrial Organization, admitting to its membership
all production "employees of the Company in both the Mill and Bag
Division excluding office workers, • supervisory employees who have
the right to hire and discharge, and watchmen. ,
Employees Representation Plan, although duly served with a no-
tice of hearing in this case, did not appear. ' Nothing is disclosed
by the record, concerning its membership requirements.
'III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Company contended at the hearing and in its brief filed after
the hearing that no question had arisen concerning the representation
of its employees. It ,asserted that organizational activities at its
plants were instigated and carried out by field representatives of the
Committee for Industrial Organization, and that the Union has failed
to show that the employees of the Company participated to any sub-
stantial extent in these activities. It contends that the petition in the
instant case was signed by a person unknown to the employees, and
that the Union had failed to show that the employees either desired
or authorized this petition.
The Union testified that its claim to represent a majority of the
employees of the Company and its demand for recognition as a col-
lective bargaining agent were presented to officials of the Company
by a committee composed of employees of both the Paper Mill and
the Bag Division. It testified that the Company had refused to deal
with it on the ground that it had failed to furnish any proof in sup-
port' of its claim that it represented such a majority.
We find that a question has arisen concerning the representation
of employees of, the Company. ,
117213-39-vol, 8-43
I
'660 NAT1ONAIr-LABOR 'RELATIONS BOARD
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE QUESTION CONCERNIN G REPRESENTATION UPON
COMMERCE
We find that the question concerning representation which has
arisen , occurring in connection with the operations of the ' Company
described in Section I above, has a close, intimate , and substantial
relation to trade, traffic , and commerce among the several States, and
tends to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce
and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Union seeks a bargaining unit consisting of all production
employees in both the Paper Mill and Bag Division excluding office
workers, supervisory employees who have the right to hire and dis-
charge, and watchmen. The Union witnesses testified at the hearing
that the interests of employees in the Paper Mill. and Bag Division
are similar and that they wish to be represented by one union in
negotiations with the Company.2
The Company objects to the inclusion in a single unit of employees
of both the Paper Mill and the Bag Division. It contends that the
Paper Mill and the Bag Division represent two separate and dis-
tinct industries, competing in entirely different markets and operat-
ing under separate managements . It points out that at the time the
Company acquired the bag companies, the board of directors was
wholly unfamiliar with the bag business, and therefore retained E. E.
Brown, the president of one of the bag companies, as manager of the
newly formed Bag Division. Brown testified that he had accepted
such position on the condition that he have the authority to negotiate
with the employees of the Bag Division concerning wages , hours, and
other conditions of employment. The Company also points out that,
due to the difference in manufacturing processes, there is no inter-
change of employees between the plants.
Notwithstanding the considerations advanced by the Company, we
are of the opinion that the employees of the Company at both the
Paper Mill and the Bag Division are appropriately included in the
same bargaining unit. As stated above, the Paper Mill and the Bag
Division are geographically close to each other, being located only
approximately three blocks apart. The workers at both plants are
semi-skilled and have a similarity of interests. Although the wage
scale in the Bag Division is somewhat lower than in the Paper Mill,
this results from the large number of women employed as operators
in the Bag Division. The wages paid the men in the Bag Division
2 Subsequent to the hearing , the Company submitted to the Board a petition signed by a
majority of the employees of the Company in the Bag Division , addressed to the Board,
requesting that they be not included in the same bargaining unit with the Paper Mill
employees
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 661
compare favorably with the average obtaining in the Paper Mill. It
appears that the Paper Mill and the Bag Division are at the present
time operated as substantially separate units and that Brown has
beenaccorded wide administrative powers. However, the Paper Mill
and the Bag Division are both parts of a single corporate entity and
the ultimate control of all the policies of the Company as they relate
to the employees of the Paper Mill and the Bag Division would ap-
pear to rest in the same hands. The Company conceded that the
Board of Directors might conceivably veto policies proposed by
Brown, and also that there is a community of interest between the
employers at the two plants naturally arising from the fact that
they are members of one company.
We find that the production employees of the Company in both
Paper Mill and Bag Division, excluding office', workers, supervisory
employees who have the right to hire and discharge, and watchmen,
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargain-
ing and that said unit will insure to employees of the Company the
full benefit of their right to self-organization and to collective bar-
gaining and otherwise effectuate the policies of the Act.
VI. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
The Union claims to represent a majority of the employees within
the unit which we have determined to be appropriate. The Union
did not introduce membership or application cards in support of this
claim. We find that the question which has arisen concerning repre-
sentation can best be resolved by the holding of an election by secret
ballot. The Union requested that if the Board should order an elec-
tion, the pay-roll dates of March 15 and March 16, 1938, shall be used
to determine eligibility to vote. The Company made no objection to
this choice of date.
On the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire
record in the case, the Board makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. A question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the repre-
sentation of employees of Sorg Paper Company, Middletown, Ohio,
within the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of
the National Labor Relations Act.
2. The production employees of the Company in both the Paper
Mill and the Bag Division, excluding office workers, supervisory em-
ployees who have the right to hire and discharge, and watchmen,
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargain-
ing, within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act.
662 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National
Labor Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Re-
lations Act , and pursuant to Article III, Section 8, of National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 1, as amended, it is
hereby
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation authorized by the Board
to ascertain representatives for collective bargaining with Sorg Paper
Company, Middletown, Ohio, an election by secret ballot shall be con-
ducted within fifteen (15) days from the date of this Direction, under
the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Ninth
Region, acting in this matter as agent for the National Labor Rela-
tions Board, and subject to Article III, Section 9, of said Rules and
Regulations, among the production employees in both the Paper Mill
and the Bag Division of the Sorg-Paper Company on the company
pay rolls of March 15 and 16, 1938, excluding office workers, super-
visory employees who have the right to hire and discharge, and
watchmen, and excluding also employees who have since quit or been
discharged for cause , to determine whether or not they desire to be
represented by Local Industrial Union No. 122, United Paper Work-
ers of America, for the purposes of collective bargaining.