Stoll Lumber Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 9, 1951

96 N.L.R.B. 682 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

682 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the assignment of additional employees in case of absences or short-
ages. Moreover, we note that group leaders have always been in-
cluded in the historic bargaining unit. It is apparent that the duties
of the group leaders are primarily of a routine nature which do not
call for the exercise of independent judgment. Upon the entire
record, we find that the group leaders are not, in fact, supervisors
within the meaning of the Act, and we shall include them in the unit.'
The confidential secretaries: According to the record, there are five
private secretaries who all parties agree should be excluded from
the unit as confidential employees. As previously indicated, these
secretaries work for officials of the Employer who deal with wage
changes, piecework rates and similar matters, or who handle griev-
ances at least at the first level of the grievance procedure. In these
circumstances, we shall exclude the private secretaries from the bar-
gaining unit as confidential employees.7
In accordance with the foregoing determinations, we find that all
office employees and shipping department employees of the Employer
at its Bayonne, New Jersey, plant, including expediters, group
leaders, and part-time employees," but excluding confidential secre-
taries , heavy shipping employees, professional employees, guards,
and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appro-
priate 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.]
e Republic Steel Corporation , Canton Plan t, Central Alloy District , 91 NLRB 904 ; Radio
Industries Inc., 91 NLRB No. 124.
7 The Texas Company, 90 NLRB No. 121.
8 According to the record , the Employer has one part -time employee who usually works
8 hours every Saturday . All parties agree, and we find, that the part -time employee should
be included in the unit.
•
HENRY L. STOLL , LYLE L. STOLL AND JOSEPH W. HAMPTON , D/B/A
STOLL LIIMBER COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL WOOD WORKERS OF
AMERICA, CIO , PETITIONER . Case No. 20-RC-1418. October 9,1951
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 Robert V. Magor, 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 [Members Houston, Murdock, and Styles].
96 NLRB No. 107.
STOLL LUMBER COMPANY 683:
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is a partnership engaged in the business of process-
ing and selling lumber and logs at Ukiah, California. The partner-
ship, as currently constituted, was formed on March 1, 1950. During
the fiscal year ending May 31, 1951, the Employer's purchases
amounted to approximately $270,000, all of which were obtained
within the State of California. During the same period, the Em-
ployer's sales totaled approximately $1,269,000, all of which repre-
sent sales to customers within the State.
Among the Employer's customers is the Masonite Corporation, a
manufacturer of hard board with offices located in Ukiah, California.
During the year ending June 30, 1951, the Employer's sales to Mason-
ite Corporation totaled approximately $85,000. In the recent pro-
ceeding involving the Masonite Corporation, the Board found that it
was engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.'
The Board has in recent decisions stated that it would exercise
jurisdiction over those enterprises which affect commerce by virtue
of the fact that they furnish goods or services necessary to the opera-
tion of other employers engaged in commerce, without regard to other
factors, where such goods or services are valued at $50,000 per annum
or more, and are sold to firms in certain categories including those
"engaged in producing or handling goods destined for out-of-State
shipment, or performing services out of State, in the value of $25,000
per annum or more." 2 In the instant case, it is conceded that during
the past year, Masonite Corporation produced more than $25,000 worth
of goods for out-of-State shipment. Furthermore, the Employer's
sales to Masonite Corporation during the same period exceeded the
$50,000 requirement. Accordingly, we find that the Employer's op-
erations affect commerce and that it would effectuate the purposes of
the Act to assume jurisdiction in this case.8
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the repre-
sentation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Sec-
tion 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
120-RC-1294,1296 (unpublished).
2 See Hollow Tree Lumber Company, 91 NLRB 685; Justrite Press, 93 NLRB 7$6.
8 The Employer contends that it expects that its sales to Masonite during the forth-
coming year will fall far below the $50,000 minimum requirement for the assertion of
jurisdiction because of the materials sold by the Employer to Masonite during the past
year. 90 percent was used for crating products manufactured by Masonite under a sub-
contract with the United States Navy and this subcontract terminated on June 30, 1951.
This contention , is, in our opinion, speculative in that there is no certainty that Masonite
will not obtain subcontracts in the future similar to the one herein referred to. Accord-
ingly, we reject the Employer's contention and base our decision herein upon the activities
of the Employer during the past year, which is the only year for which commerce data
appears in the record.
,684 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
4. We find that all production and maintenance employees em-
ployed at the Employer's Ukiah, California, plant, including the
cleanup men,4 but excluding office and professional employees, the
pondmen,5 and all other supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute
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.]
4 We have included the cleanup men who perform some guard duties because the majority
of their time is spent doing maintenance work . Wood Preserving Division of the Koppers
Company, Inc ., 90 NLRB 125.
5 As the pondman has the power to make effective recommendations with respect to
changes in the status of employees , we have excluded him as a supervisor.
GRAHAM COUNTY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. and INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL UNION 1676, AFL.
Case No. 21-CA-998. October 10, 1951
Decision and Order
On June 15, 1951, Trial Examiner Irving Rogosin issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Inter-
mediate Report attached hereto. The Trial Examiner also found that
the Respondent had not engaged in certain other alleged unfair labor
practices and recommended dismissal of these allegations of the com-
plaint. Thereafter the Respondent and General Counsel filed excep-
tions to the Intermediate Report, together with supporting briefs.
The Board 1 has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report,2 the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in
'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
[Members Houston, Reynolds, and Styles].
2 The Intermediate Report contains certain erroneous statements of fact, none of which
affects the Trial Examiner's ultimate conclusions or our concurrence therein. Accordingly,
we make the following corrections :
(1) Contrary to the Trial Examiner's finding that the circumstances under which G. L.
Morris ' employment was terminated are not known, the record shows, as the Trial Exam-
iner found elsewhere in his Report, that G. L. Morris quit his employment on December
20, 1950.
(2) The Trial Examiner found that Cooper's duties consumed on the average 2 or 3
hours a day. However, the record discloses that Cooper on some days was kept busy
all day , and on other days worked 2 or 3 hours a day.
96 NLRB No. 100.