E.C. Olson Lumber Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 19, 1951

93 N.L.R.B. 1597 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

E. C. OLSON LUMBER COMPANY 1597
I shall further recommend that the Respondent in a like manner make Cor-
nelius Reed whole for any loss of pay suffered by him as a result of the dis-
crimination by payment to him of a sum of money equal to the amount he would
have earned from the date of his discharge to the offer of reinstatement or
reemployment which he declined on May 2, 1950, less his net earnings to be
computed as set forth above.
Further finding from the past conduct of the Respondent, and the nature of
the unfair labor practices herein revealed, a likelihood that such practices may
be continued in the future, it will be recommended that the Respondent cease
and desist from in any manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its,
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act."
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the
case, I make the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. International Woodworkers of America, CIO, is a labor organization within
the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act, admitting to membership employees of
the Respondent.
2. By discriminating in regard to the hire or tenure of employment of Cornelius
Reed and Henry Davis to discourage membership in a labor organization, thereby
discouraging membership in the International Woodworkers of America, CIO,
the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of and in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) and Section 8 (a) (3) of
the Act.
3. By other acts and conduct interfering with, restraining, and coercing its
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the
Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication in this volume.]
8 May Department Stores v. N. L. R B , 326 U. S. 376.
E. C. OLSON LUMBER COMPANY and NORTH IDAHO-EASTERN WASH-
INGTON DISTRICT COUNCIL OF LUMBER AND SAWMILL WORKERS, AFL,
PETITIONER. Case No. 19-RC-734. April 19, 1951
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 A. C. Roll, 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-mem-
ber panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Murdock and Styles].
93 NLRB No. 262.
1598 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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 represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section
9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, for the following
reasons: e
International Woodworkers of America, CIO, Local No. 10-100,
herein called the Intervenor, contends that its contract with the Em-
ployer constitutes a bar to this proceeding. The contract in question
provides in Article 16 entitled "Termination and Revision," that it
shall remain in effect until April 1, 1951, and from year to year
thereafter, except that either party may change or terminate the
contract by written notice at least 60 days before April 1 of any
year. With respect to this provision in the contract, the petition, filed
on January 18, 1951, was clearly timed to prevent the automatic re-
newal of the contract from operating as a bar.
However, the Intervenor asserts that other clauses in the contract,
under an article which establishes a "Social Benefit Program," pre-
eludes a present change in bargaining representative. Specifically
relied upon by the Intervenor are clauses in Article 15 of the contract
that (a) "employee authorizations [for payroll deductions to be used
in part payment for certain health and welfare insurance] shall be
irrevocable until April 1, 1952 and thereafter during any extensions
or renewals of this contract with this clause in it," and (b) ". . . addi-
tional employee social benefits shall not be made a subject of negotia-
tions prior to April 1, 1952" (emphasis added). The Intervenor
introduced testimony to show that the purpose of the aforementioned
clauses was to prevent either party from opening the contract on the
subject of the social benefit program before April 1, 1952.
We see no merit in the Intervenor's position, even assuming that the
contract clauses in Article 15 were intended by the parties to achieve
the purpose and result asserted by the Intervenor. We believe that
this portion of the contract pertaining to the social benefit program
involves, at best, merely a single subject of collective bargaining and
cannot be deemed by its particular provisions to control the duration
of the entire contract. In any case, whatever may be the effect of
Article 15 as between the Employer, the employees, and the Inter-
venor, we must hold under the facts and issues before us that the ter-
mination clause specifically provided in the contract governs the con-
1 Mill B, Inc., 43 NLRB 925.
E. C. OLSON LUMBER COMPANY 1599
tract's duration. Accordingly, we find no bar to an immediate
election?
4. The appropriate unit :
The Petitioner seeks a unit of all production and maintenance em-
ployees and all employees in the retail sales department of the Em-
ployer. The Intervenor agrees that such a unit is appropriate. The
Employer, however, objects to the inclusion in the unit of the em-
ployees in its retail operations.
The unit sought by the Petitioner has been the historical bargain-
ing unit since 1946 in the contractual relations between the Intervenor
and the Employer. Moreover, this same unit, specifically including
the Employer's retail department employees, was agreed upon by the
parties in a consent union-authorization election conducted by the
Board in 1948. Nevertheless, the Employer contends that through-
out the period of its bargaining with the Intervenor it protested this
inclusion of its retail employees, as it does here, substantially on the
ground that the interests of the retail employees are different from
those of the other employees in the unit.'
The Employer purchases on the open market all of its lumber, which
it processes and remanufactures in various ways. Its entire opera-
tions are located on a tract of 40 acres. Three sheds housing its retail
department are separated from other buildings on this tract "by ap-
proximately the width of a street," and company offices surround the
retail department on three sides. An estimated 40 percent of the Em-
ployer's remanufactured products is sold through its retail depart-
lnent; and, of the total retail sales, 70 percent is supplied by the Em-
ployer's remanufacturing plant.
The retail department employees in question include three or four
truck drivers and three or four loaders and lumber handlers. The
truck drivers make local deliveries and assist in loading and unload-
ing their own trucks. The loaders and lumber handlers assist in load-
ing trucks and in stacking lumber in bins within the retail yard.
These retail department employees also work jointly or interchange-
ably with certain of the production employees in transferring to the
retail yard the lumber supplied from the Employer's remanufactur-
ing departments. Although comparable jobs exist in both the retail
and remanufacturing departments, virtually no interchange of em-
ployees has taken place between these two phases of the Employer's
operations. Departmental supervision and seniority prevail as to all
employees of the Employer and their general conditions of employ-
ment are substantially uniform.
The Intervenor's motion to dismiss is therefore denied
a About 82 employees are included in the unit requested by the Petitioner, of whom 7 are
in the retail department
1 600 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The foregoing does not establish such diverse interests on the part
of the retail department employees to warrant, as the Employer urges,
their exclusion from the unit. Nor do we find any other basis for
excluding the retail employees from the historical bargaining unit,
especially in view of the fact that no union before us seeks to repre-
sent these employees separately.
Accordingly, we find that all production and maintenance em-
ployees and all employees in the retail sales department of-the Em-
ployer at its Spokane, Washington, plant, excluding office and cleri-
cal employees, guards,4 professional employees, and supervisors, con-
stitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
We find that the armed and deputized watchman who devotes 331/3 percent of his time
to production work is a guard, and we therefore exclude him, Scott & Williams, Inc ,
92 NLRB No. 153.
WILEY MFG., INC. and LOCAL 154, UNITED FURNITURE WORKERS OF
AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER. Case No. 1-RC-1674. April 19, 1951
Supplemental Decision and Certification of Representatives
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election,, issued oil Novem-
ber 10, 1950, in the above proceeding, an election by secret ballot was
conducted on December 1, 1950, under the direction and supervision
of the Regional Director for the First Region. At the conclusion of
the election, the parties were furnished with a tally of ballots which
shows that, of 56 eligible voters, 51 cast ballots, of which 26 were for
the Petitioner, 23 were against the Petitioner, and 2 were challenged.
No other labor organization was on the ballot.
On December 7, 1950, the Employer filed objections to conduct
affecting the results of the election, alleging, inter alia, (a) that it was
aggrieved by the refusal of the Board agent conducting the election
to permit Mrs. Wiley to act as an observer, and (b) that the Petitioner
engaged in conduct which was violative of the Act.
After an investigation, the Regional Director, on January 12, 1951,
issued his report on objections in which he found that all the objections
raised by the Employer were without merit. The Regional Director
accordingly recommended that the objections be overruled. There-
'after the Employer filed exceptions to so much of the Regional Direc-
tor's report as dealt with the two objections set forth above. The
192 NLRB 40.
93 NLRB No. 267.