J. G. Howard Lumber Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 5, 1951

93 N.L.R.B. 1230 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

1230 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
We find that all the boat and shoreside employees at the Employer's,
Cedar Grove, West Virginia, dock, including mates,' welders, burners,,
and laborers, but excluding office and clerical employees, captains,,
masters, and pilots, chief and assistant engineers, and all other super-
visors as defined in the Act,' constitute a unit appropriate for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining within the meaning of the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this,
volume.]
I The parties agree that the mates on the Employer's boats and barges do not possess
supervisory authority within the meaning of the Act.
s The record indicates that there are also several watchmen employed . There is no
description , however, of their actual duties or how their time is apportioned . If these,
watchmen spend more than 50 percent of their working time in guard duties , they shall
be excluded from the unit . Radio Industries, Inc., 91 NLRB No. 124.
J. G. HOWARD LUMBER COMPANY 1 and PLYWOOD AND VENEER WORKERS
LOCAL UNIONS Nos. 3130 AND 3135 AFFILIATED WITH UNITED BROTH-
ERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA (AFL), PETI-
TIONER . Case No. 10-RC-10692. April 5, 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 John C. Carey, Jr.,.
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 Murdock and Styles].
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 organization involved claims 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.
4. The appropriate unit :
The Petitioner requests a unit consisting of all production, main-
tenance, and lumberyard employees employed at the Employer's plant
I The petition was amended at the hearing to join Thomas H. Bishop and Otis A. Jones
as employers . In view of our decision herein, we find such jointure to be unnecessary.
93 NLRB No. 224.
J. G. HOWARD LUMBER COMPANY - 1231
in Varnville, South Carolina, including planing mill and green chain 2'
employees. In the alternative, the Petitioner seeks to represent these
employees in three separate units comprising : (a) Lumberyard em-
ployees; (b) planing mill employees; (c) green chain employees. The
Employer contends that only the alternative request is proper on the
ground that the planing mill and green chain employees are not its
employees, but rather the employees of Otis Jones and Thomas Bishop,
respectively. Both of these individuals, the Employer asserts, are
independent contractors.
The Employer is engaged in the manufacture, processing, and sale
of lumber. All operations, including the planing mill and green chain
operations, are carried on at its plant in Varnville, South Carolina.
When the timber arrives it is sent through the green chain operation
where it is treated and trimmed. It is then stacked in the lumber yard
where it is handled by the Employer's admitted employees. From
there it goes to the planing mill where it is cut and finished to the speci-
fications of the customer, and then placed in the carbox. There are
18 lumberyard employees, 10 employees on the green chain operation,
and 16 employees in the planing mill.
Both Bishop, who is in charge of the green chain operation, and
Jones,. who is in charge of the planing mill, work under an oral agree-
ment with the Employer whereby each is paid a fixed sum per thou-
sand board feet processed by their respective crews. Both have com-
plete and sole authority over the compensation, hiring, and discharge
of the employees working under them. Generally, there is no inter-
change among these employees and those in the lumberyard. Jones
and Bishop maintain separate payrolls, make social security deduc-
tions, and establish independently working hours and conditions for
the employees in their respective crews.
Neither, however, perform similar work for any other employer.
The oral agreements under which they operate are apparently termi-
nable at the will of either party. It appears from the record that
Bishop, in addition to his contractual duties, also acts as a part-time,
supervisor for the Employer and receives a salary for such supervision.
The green chain and planing mill operations are carried on in separate
buildings located on the premises of and owned by the Employer.
The Employer furnishes all equipment and machinery necessary for'
their operations. Jones has been working under this arrangement
with the Employer for 10 years and Bishop for 2 years.
Although Jones and Bishop are allegedly independent contractors,
their green chain and planing mill crews are employed to work only
on the Employer's premises and are solely and directly engaged in
' Referred to in the record as "grain" chain employees . The duties of such employees,,
however, are commonly known as green chain operations.
1232 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
its business of manufacturing lumber. The employment of these
employees may be terminated by the termination of the Employer's
agreements with the alleged independent contractors. Necessarily,
Jones and Bishop, as well as their respective crews, are subject to sub-
stantial control by the Employer.
In view of the foregoing, we find that the Employer's operations
at its Varnville, South Carolina, plant, including those of the green
chain and planing mill crews, constitute a single, integrated enter-
prise in which all of the employees involved share a common interest .3
We further find that Bishop and Jones are, in effect, supervisors
rather than independent contractors, and that the green chain and
planing mill employees are employees of the' Employer.4 Accord-
ingly, a single, plant-wide unit, including these employees, is appro-
priate for purposes of collective bargaining.
We find that all production, maintenance, and lumberyard em-
ployees at the Employer's plant in Varnville, South Carolina, includ-
ing planing mill and green chain employees, but excluding office
clerical employees, guards, and all supervisors as defined in the Act,
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargain-
ing within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
8 See Nu-Car Carriers , Inc., 88 NLRB 75.
* See Alexander Brothers Lumber Company, Inc., 78 NLRB 1099.
U. S. RUBBER COMPANY and TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA,.
CIO. Case No. 5-CA-239. April 9, 1951
Decision and Order
ti
On September 27,1950, Trial Examiner Louis Plost issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding finding that the
Respondent had not engaged in unfair labor practices and recommend-
ing that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety, as set forth in the
copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the
charging party, Textile Workers Union of America, CIO, filed excep-
tions to the Intermediate Report and a,supporting brief. The Re-
spondent also filed a brief in support of the recommendations of the
Trial Examiner.
The Board 1 has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
I 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 -member panel
[ Chairman Herzog and Members Reynolds and Murdock].
93 NLRB No. 227.