J. F. Alexander Lumber Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 18, 1948

78 N.L.R.B. 1097 (N.L.R.B. 1948)

In the Matter of J . F. ALEXANDER AND CHARLOTTE A. SAUNDERS, D/B/A
J. F. ALEXANDER LUMBER COMPANY, EMPLOYER and INTERNATIONAL
WOODWORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER
Case No . 10-RC-111.Decided August 18, 194,8
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before a hearing
officer of the National Labor Relations Board. The hearing officer's
rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudical error and are
hereby affirmed.
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-man panel consisting of the undersigned Board
Members.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer, a partnership, is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
2. The labor organization named below claims to represent em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. A question of representation 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 following employees of the Employer constitute a unit ap-
propriate for purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9 (b) of the Act:
All production and maintenance employees in the Employer's
Talbotton, Georgia, plant, including employees of the yard, checkers,
* Houston , Reynolds , and Gray.
I The Employer moved to dismiss the petition upon the grounds that there was (1) no
showing of interest by the Petitioner and (2) no proof that Petitioner is in compliance
with Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) of the Act. Inasmuch as the showing of interest is an
administrative matter (see Matter of Southern Advance Bag d Paper Co., The, 75 N. L.
R B 614 ) and, according to our investigation, the Petitioner is in complete compliance
with the aforesaid Section, we find no merit in the Employer ' s motion.
78 N. L. R. B., No. 156.
1097
1098 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and tally men, and planing mill employees,2 but excluding contractors
operating away from the plant, their crews and employees, retail and
wholesale office clerks, salesmen, office clerical employees, guards,
watchmen, professional employees, the supervisor of the planing mill,
the superintendents of the yard, and all other supervisors as defined
.by the Act.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining with the Employer, an election by secret
ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than 30
days from the date of this Direction, under the direction and super-
vision of the Regional Director for the Region in which this case was
heard, and subject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62 of National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 5, among the em-
ployees in the unit found appropriate in paragraph numbered 4, above,
who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding
the date of this Direction of Election, including employees who did
not work during said pay-roll period because they were ill or on vaca-
tion or temporarily laid off, but excluding those employees who have
since quit or been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or
reinstated prior to the date of the election, and also excluding em-
ployees on strike who are not entitled to reinstatement, to determine
whether or'not they desire to be represented, for purposes of collective
bargaining, by International Woodworkers of America, CIO.
2 The Employer contends that the planing mill employees should be excluded from the
unit as employees of an independent contractor , Lewis Dyess . We disagree with the con-
tention of the Employer and find that the planing mill crew are employees of the Employer
and that Dyess is a supervisor, on the following facts :
The Employer 's production process consists of two operations ( 1) the yard or dry kiln,
and (2 ) the planing mill. The planing process is , therefore , an essential part of the Em-
ployer ' s production
The Employer owns or leases the entire plant property and all equipment . Dyess is the
planing null operator . He does not sublease the planing mill from the Employer. While
the planing mill is a distinct operation on the Employer 's premises ,- it is not roped or
marked off from the Employer 's surrounding property , and the workers in the planing mill
pass freely over the surrounding property . Dyess works exclusively for the Employer, and
he may make no substantial changes in the machinery without the consent of the Em-
ployer. Dyess is paid by the Employer at certain rates per thousand board feet of lumber
processed He has authority to hire or discharge the planing mill crew . He keeps a time
book which he submits to the Employer . The Employer pays the planing mill crew by
check, deducting withholding and social security taxes . This total amount is then de-
ducted from the amount due Dyess for the lumber planed during the period.
All employees , including the planing mill crew , use the same facilities , are subject to the
same safety regulations , and are covered by insurance carried by the Employer. Em-
ployees are occasionally temporarily interchanged between the drying and planing mill
operation See Matter of Alexander Brothers Lumber Company , Inc., 78 N. L. R B. 1099,
and cases cited therein.