Weyerhaeuser Timber Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 21, 1951

93 N.L.R.B. 887 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

WEYERHAEUSER TIMBER COMPANY 887
will be needed , Texsun was renting 11 houses at the date of the hearing. The
order herein , broadened to include Texsun, should therefore include and continue
the provision with respect to availability of living quarters.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record in the
case, the undersigned makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Texsun Supply Corporation is, and, since October 24, 1949, has been, the
successor of Indianapolis Wire-Bound Box Company, d/b/a Cleveland Veneer
Company.
2. Texsun Supply Corporation is, and, since October 24, 1949, has been, re-
sponsible for remedying the unfair labor practices engaged in by Indianapolis
Wire-Bound Box Company, d/b/a Cleveland Veneer Company.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication in this volume.]
WEYERHAEUSER TIMBER COMPANY and LUMBER AND SAWMILL WORKERS
LOCAL UNION No. 2562, AFL, PETITIONER . Case No. 36-RC-506.
March 21,1951
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 H. J. Merrick, hearing of-
ficer. 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, Reynolds, and Styles].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 2
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. A question affecting commerce exists concerning representation
of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c)
(1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
I At the hearing International Woodworkers of America, CIO, herein called the Inter-
venor , objected to the receipt in evidence of certain of the Employer's exhibits, and moved
to strike all testimony relative to these exhibits on the ground that the Intervenor was
denied access to the Employer' s mill property to take any similar pictures in preparation
of its case . The hearing officer received the exhibits in evidence and referred the motion
to strike the testimony relative to the exhibits to the Board. As the Intervenor was
afforded full opportunity to litigate all issues at the hearing, and has not demonstrated
that it was prejudiced in any manner by the Employer's actions , we hereby deny the
Intervenor 's motion to strike.
2 The Employer' s request for oral argument before the Board is denied , because, in our
opinion, the record and briefs adequately present the issues and the positions of the parties.
93 NLRB No. 140.
888 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
4. The Petitioner seeks a unit of all production, maintenance , trans-
portation, cook house, and powerhouse employees at the Employer's
Coos Bay branch, including all maintenance electricians, machinists,
auto mechanics, and welders, but excluding clerical, office and pro-
fessional employees, temporary construction employees, guards, and
supervisors.' The Petitioner's proposed unit, hereinafter referred to
as the combined mill and woods unit, would include the Employer's
logging and mill employees in a single unit. The Intervenor contends
that at the present time only a unit of all production, maintenance,
and transportation employees at the Employer's logging operation at
Allegany, Oregon, excluding office, clerical and professional em-
ployees, guards, and supervisors, hereinafter referred to as the woods
unit, is appropriate. The Employer argues that the only appropriate
iuiit for the purposes of collective bargaining is the combined mill
and woods unit requested by the Petitioner. '
The Employer is engaged in the production of logs and the manu-
facture of lumber and various wood products at a. number of locations
in the States of Washington and Oregon. This proceeding is con-
cerned only with the Employer's operations at its Coos Bay, Oregon,
branch. There is no history of collective bargaining for any of the
employees at this branch.
The Employer's Coos Bay branch was organized in April 1950. In
May 1950, logging operations were commenced in the vicinity of Al-
legany Creek, located about 18 miles from the mill site at North Bend,
Oregon. These logs are rafted at Allegany Creek, and are towed to
the Employer's booming grounds which are located about 5 to 6 miles
from the mill. Construction of the mill was started in February 1950,
and at the time of the hearing the Employer estimated that all work
will be completed about April 1, 1951.4
Both the woods and mill, when completed, are to be year-round op-
erations, and both mill and woods employees will be hired at the em-
ployment office at the mill. The record shows that the operations at
this branch, when completed, will be as integrated as those at the Em-
ployer's Springfield branch, where the Board found that a single unit
of all logging and mill employees of the Employer was appropriate for
purposes of collective bargaining .5 The Intervenor does not attack
the findings of the Board in the Springfield Lumber Division• case, nor
does it seriously dispute the contentions of the Employer and the
Petitioner that the operations of the Coos Bay branch will be as in-
tegrated as those at the Employer's Springfield branch. The Inter-
venor argues for a woods unit only on the ground that the completion
3In the alternative , the Petitioner requested a unit consisting only of the woods
employees
* Construction of the mill was 75 percent completed in December 1950.
Weyerhaeuser Timber Company ( Springfield Lumber Division ), 87 NLRB 1076
WEYERHAEUSER TIMBER COMPANY 889
date of the mill at North Bend is indefinite, and that the Board should
not deny the right to bargain collectively to the woods employees until
the mill is completed. The Intervenor concedes that if the mill were
in operation the appropriate unit would be the combined mill and
woods unit.
Upon the entire record we find that the combined mill and woods unit
requested by the Petitioner is appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining.6 Because, however, the mill is not yet in operation, we
cannot direct that an immediate election be held in this unit. In view
of the fact that the mill will soon be in operation, we shall not dismiss
the petition, but shall provide that an election be held during the month
of May 1951, or on such earlier date to be selected by the Regional Di-
rector as it shall appear that a substantial and representative number
of employees are then employed in both the mill and woods operations,
subject to submission by the parties of an adequate showing of repre-
sentation in such representative group. Eligibility shall be determined
by the payroll period immediately preceding the issuance of a notice
of election.
Direction of Election 7
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 on a date to be selected by the Regional Di-
rector, subject to instructions set forth in paragraph numbered 4,
above, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director
for the Region in which this case was heard, and subject to Sections
102.61 and 102.62 of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regu-
lations, among the employees in the unit found appropriate in para-
graph numbered 4, above, who are employed during the payroll period
immediately preceding the date of the issuance of a notice of election,
including employees who did not work during said payroll period be-
cause they were ill or on vacation or temporarily laid off, and employees
in the military services of the United States who appear in person at
the polls, 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 employees on strike who
are not entitled to reinstatement, to determine whether they desire to
be represented, for purposes of collective bargaining, by Lumber and
Sawmill Workers Local Union No. 2562, AFL, or by International
Woodworkers of America, CIO, or neither.
6 we do not believe that in this instance a unit limited to the woods employees should
be found appropriate merely because the mill is not yet in operation.
7 Either participant in the election directed herein may, upon its prompt request to, and
approval thereof by, the Regional Director, have its name removed from the ballot.