Michigan-California Lumber Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 8, 1951

96 N.L.R.B. 1379 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

MICHIGAN-CALIFORNIA LUMBER COMPANY 1379
parts warehousemen, service station employees, tire, battery, and gas
men, truck greasers, office and clerical employees, professional em-
ployees, guards, and all supervisors as defined in the Act .4
In accordance with the agreement of the parties, and on the record
as a whole, we also find that the following employees constitute a unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (b) of the Act: All truck drivers, warehousemen,
parts warehousemen, service station employees, tire, battery, and gas
men, and truck greasers, employed at the Employer's Arco, Idaho,
operations, excluding the parts manager and assistant parts manager,
office and clerical employees, guards, professional employees, all super-
visors as defined in the Act, and all others of the Employer's em-
ployees 8
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication in this
volume.]
4 The unit description set out in the petition of the Operating Engineers , includes
among the duties of the employees the word "supervising," and qualifies the exclusion of
supervisors by use of the phrase " excluding valid supervisors." Although the record indi-
cates that the "supervising" duties are related to machine erection rather than to man-
agerial functions , we have corrected the unit described to conform with the Board's
established practice.
5 Both the IAM and the Operating Engineers disclaimed any interest as to the employees
in this unit . Accordingly, we shall direct that only the International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Local No. 983, AFL, appear
on the ballot in the election directed in this unit.
MICHIGAN-CALIFORNIA LUMBER COMPANY and LUMBER AND SAWMILL
WORKERS LOCAL UNION No. 2749, AFFILIATED WITH UNITED BROTH-
ERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA, AFL, and INTER-
NATIONAL WOODWORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL UNION No. 13-286,
CIO, PETITIONER. Case No. 20-RM-79. November 8, 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 Louis S. Penfield, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed?
I Lumber and Sawmill Workers Local Union No. 2749, affiliated with United Brother-
hood of Carpenters and Joiners of America , AFL, herein called the LSU, moved to dismiss
the petition upon the grounds , that ( a) an existing contract is a bar , ( b) International
Woodworkers of America , Local Union No. 13-286, CIO, herein called the IWA, does not
claim to represent an appropriate unit, and ( c) an election at the present time is prema-
ture. For the reasons given hereinafter, the motion to dismiss is hereby denied.
96 NLRB No. 206.
1380 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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 meaning of the
Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
3. The Employer filed the present petition asserting that it is
unable to resolve conflicting claims of representation made by the
LSU and the IWA for the same group of employees.
The Employer is engaged in the business of logging and lumbering.
Before November 1950, it operated at three locations in Eldorado
County, California. At Camino, it ran a planing mill, box factory,
and drying yard. At Pino Grande, which is about 35 miles from
Camino, it had a sawmill and dry kilns. At a place called Camp 10,
approximately 12 miles from Pino Grande, it carried on logging activi-
ties. Because of weather conditions, operations at Pino Grande and
Camp 10 were seasonal, whereas those at Camino were conducted on
a year-round basis.
At the close of the 1950 season, the Employer permanently aban-
doned both Camp 10 and Pino Grande. It transferred its logging
operations to Riverton, which is approximately 16 miles from Camino.
At the time of the hearing it was building a new sawmill and new dry
kilns at Camino to replace the facilities formerly available at Pino
Grande.2 It was also reconstructing older facilities at Camino and
erecting certain entirely new ones not theretofore found at either Pino
Grande or Camino. The work of reconstruction was expected to be
completed by the middle of October 1951.
The new installations being erected at Camino are separated from
older facilities only by a highway. When the new construction is
completed, new and old facilities will be completely integrated under
the same supervision. Logs cut at Riverton will be trucked to Camino,
dumped into a pond, and thereafter run through the new sawmill and
dry kilns. Some of the dried lumber will be sent through the planing
mill, some will be shipped in the rough state, and some will be made
into box shook at the box factory.
Before abandonment, Pino Grande had about 150 employees, ex-
clusive of logging employees. The older facilities at Camino em-
ployed the same number. The enlarged and reconstructed facilities
when fully manned will employ only 150. At the time of the hearing,
50 individuals were working at Camino. In filling remaining posi-
tions, the Employer expects to give preference to its old employees,
2 The machinery and other equipment at Pino Grande have been sold to a salvage com-
pany. Only an insignificant portion has been transferred to Camino.
MICHIGAN-CALIFORNIA LUMBER COMPANY 1381'
regardless of whether they formerly worked at Camino or at Pino
Grande, depending on (1) ability to perform the job and (2) length
of service with the Employer.
In 1941, the IWA was certified as bargaining representative of the
railroad, production, and maintenance employees at Pino Grande.
Subsequently, by mutual consent the parties added the logging em-
ployees at Camp 10 to the unit. Collective bargaining contracts
between the parties have covered this enlarged unit. Since 1942, the
Employer has bargained with the LSU for all "production, railroad,
and maintenance employees at its Camino plant." The most recent
contract between the Employer and the LSU was signed in May 1950
and will not expire until April 1, 1952. The LSU asserts that this
contract is a bar.3
The new construction at Camino and the transfer to that place of
the operations formerly performed at Pino Grande have resulted in
considerable change in operations at Camino. Only half the number
of employees who formerly worked at both Camino and Pino Grande
will be necessary to staff the old and new Camino facilities. Indi-
viduals who formerly worked at Pino Grande and were represented
by the IWA will have as much chance for jobs at Camino as former
workers at the latter place, who have always been represented by the
LSU. Because of the integration of new with old facilities at Camino,
it is not feasible for bargaining purposes to establish separate units
for employees, either on the basis of the former place of employment
or of the building in which an individual is now working. Con-
solidation of Camino and Pino Grande operations at Camino since
the signing of the 1950 contract between the Employer and the LSU
has materially changed the unit which that contract'covered. Under
these circumstances, we believe that sound and stable labor relations
will best be served by allowing the employees in the reconstituted
Camino operation to determine for themselves the labor organization
which they now desire to represent them. Accordingly, we find that
the 1950 contract between the Employer and the LSU is not a bar to a
present determination of representatives .4
A question affecting commerce 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 Employer and the LSU contend that an appropriate unit
should consist of all production, maintenance, and railroad employees
at Camino, excluding logging employees .5 The IWA contends that
3 The contract between the Employer and the IWA had a May 1, 1951 , anniversary date.
It is not clear whether this contract has been automatically renewed or is terminated. In
any event, it is not urged as a bar by the IWA.
4 Cf General Electric Company ( Medford Plant), 85 NLRB 150.
5 Neither the Employer nor the LSU disputes the IWA's right to represent logging
employees.
974176-52-vol. 96-88
1382 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
an appropriate unit should comprise either logging employees at Riv-
erton plus sawmill workers at Camino , or logging employees plus all
employees at Camino.
Logging operations are now carried on at Riverton , about 16 miles
from Camino . From year to year the logging operations will move
farther away from Camino . Logging employees are separately super-
vised , have different skills than, and will not interchange with, Cam-
ino employees . Logging operations will be seasonal , whereas the
Camino operation will function the year round.
Logging employees at the abandoned Camp 10 were bargained for
by the IWA as part of a single unit together with employees at the
now abandoned Pino Grande sawmill . However, Camino employees
have had a history of bargaining as a separate unit.
In view of the integration of the new sawmill at Camino with other
operations at that location , we find that a unit including only saw-
mill employees at Camino and logging employees at Riverton is not
appropriate . Further, because of the long history of separate bar-
gaining for employees at the old Camino plant, and their present
separateness from logging employees in respect to work , working con-
ditions, and supervision , we believe that the employees in the enlarged
,Camino operation may, if they so desire , be represented as a separate
unit apart from logging employees .6 On the other hand , they may
also be included in the same unit with logging employees.
In these circumstances , we shall make no final unit determination
until we have first ascertained the desires of the Camino employees.
If a majority vote for the LSU, they will be taken to have indicated
their desire to constitute a separate appropriate unit, and the Regional
Director conducting the election herein is instructed to issue a certifica-
tion of representatives to the LSU for the unit described in paragraph
numbered 4, which the Board , under such circumstances , finds to be
appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining . In the event a
majority votes for the IWA, the Board finds that a unit comprising
logging employees at Riverton and plant employees at Camino to be
appropriate and the Regional Director will issue a certificate of re-
sults of election to such effect.
We shall direct an election among the following employees : All pro-
duction , railroad , and maintenance employees at the Employer's
Camino, California , plant, excluding logging employees , office and
clerical employees , office janitors, watchmen ,? guards, professional
employees , and supervisors as defined in the Act.
5. The LSU contends that an election at this time is premature. At
the time of the hearing, the Employer had in its employ about one-
e Weyerhaeuser Timber Company, 62 NLRB 1166.
T The watchmen spend all their time patrolling plant property, guarding against theft
and trespassers . We find that they are guards within the meaning of the Act, and there-
fore, contrary to the contention of both unions , exclude them from the unit.
THE BRUSH BERYLLIUM COMPANY 1383
third of its expected full complement of 150 employees. According
to the testimony of its witnesses, the Employer expected to be fully
staffed before any election could be conducted.8 Under these circum-
stances , we reject the LSD's contention that an election now is
p'emature.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
In its brief received by the Board on October 2, 1951, the Employer states that 110
employees were employed at the time of the writing of the brief.
THE BRUSH BERYLLIUM COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD
of ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL UNION No. 1076, AFL, PETITIONER.
Case No. 8-RC-1272. November 8, 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 Charles A. Fleming, 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 Houston and Murdock].
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 Petitioner seeks to represent a unit composed of all main-
tenance electricians and their helpers employed at the Employer's
Luckey, Ohio, plant. The Employer contends that the proposed unit
is inappropriate, asserting that its maintenance electricians are not
true craftsmen. The record does not reveal any history of collective
bargaining at the Luckey plant.
The Employer is engaged exclusively in the production and fabri-
cation of beryllium metal and oxide for the Atomic Energy Commis-
sion. It operates two plants, one located at Cleveland, Ohio, and the
other at Luckey, Ohio, which is involved in this proceeding. The
maintenance electricians sought herein are a part of the maintenance
department of the Luckey plant. This department is under the gen-
96 NLRB No. 207.