Brookings Plywood Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 21, 1952

98 N.L.R.B. 794 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

794 DECISIONS . OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
.my colleagues, to the virtues of clean elections under proper laboratory
conditions, 'but I- do not regard the Employer's conduct, looked at in
the worst possible light, as more than a trivial dereliction. I am not
.convinced on the facts before us 'that the Employer even intended to
deceive its employees in order to gain an advantage in the election.
'In any event, I find it impossible to believe that the flimsy transgression
attributed to the Employer so altered the atmosphere as' to spoil the
ideal laboratory conditions and warrant setting aside the election.
I would overrule the Petitioner's objections and dismiss the petition
'herein.
CHAIRMAN HERZOG took no part in the consideration of the above
Supplemental Decision and Order.
BROOKINGS PLYWOOD CORPORATION and UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF
CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA, AFL 1 AND INTERNATIONAL
WOODWORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO,2 PETITIONERS. Cases Nos.
36-RC-723 and 36-RC-727. March 21,19M
Decision and Direction of Elections
Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a consolidated hearing 3 was held before E. G. Strumpf,
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are
,free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed 4
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].
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 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 Employer is engaged in logging and the manufacture of
plywood and lumber in the State of Oregon. It conducts logging
I Herein called the AFL.
2 Herein called the CIO.
8 The petitions in these cases were consolidated for purposes of hearing by an order of
the Regional Director , dated January 14, 1952.
4 In view of our discussion and findings , paragraph numbered 4, we find it unnecessary to
pass on the Employer 's motion for a direction of election in a unit of all employees.
98 NLRB No. 131.
BROOKINGS PLYWOOD CORPORATION 795
operations at a site approximately 15 miles distant from the city of
Brookings where its plywood plant and sawmill are located. Also
located at Brookings is the log pond, into which the logs trans-
ported from the logging site are placed, the planing mill, truck
,maintenance shop, machine shop, and the powerhouse.5
The AFL seeks a unit of all production, maintenance, and trans-
portation employees, employed in the sawmill, planing mill, logging
,woods, and log trucking operations, excluding all office and clerical
employees, and all employee-owners of common stock in the company.
The CIO requests a unit of all production, transportation, and main-
tenance employees engaged in the logging and log transporting opera-
tions, excluding office and clerical employees, and all employee-owners
of common stock in the company.
The Employer disagrees with both of the above unit requests, and
contends that the appropriate unit is one of all employees of the Com-
pany, including stockholders, and excluding only supervisors and
clerical employees at its headquarters office.
As of the hearing date, a total of 211 nonsupervisory employees were
engaged in the Employer's operations. The logging operation, con-
sisting of felling and cutting the trees and transporting the logs by
truck to the log pond in Brookings, had 38 employees. The employees
of the truck shop, who maintain and repair the Diesel and gasoline-
powered trucks and other automotive equipment used in the logging
work and at the mill, numbered 4. Sawmill and planing mill em-
ployes numbered 40; plywood plant employees, 117. The main
machine shop, which serves as the repair and maintenance center for
the nonautomptive equipment at the mill site, had 6 employees. The
pond crew, whose work it is to sort the logs, cut them to proper size,
and feed them to the sawmill and plywood plant, numbered 6 6
The petitions in this case pose the question of whether the Employ-
er's operations are of the type which the Board, in the Weyerhaeuser
case,7 found to be so integrated and interdependent that only an over-
all unit was appropriate, or whether there is a sufficient degree of
separation and nonintegration of the logging operations and the mill
operations to warrant finding separate appropriate units."
- The record indicates that the work classifications, functions, and
duties of the logging crew are different from those of the sawmill and
plywood plant employees. Although the Employer stated that log-
5 As the powerhouse was to have been placed in operation 1 week from the date of the
hearing , our discussion herein assumes that it is operating at the present time.
There is no evidence in the record as to the number of employees who will work in the
powerhouse.
' Weyerhaeuser Timber company, 87 NLRB 1076.
8 Hamilton Bros. Logging Co., 89 NLRB 1549, and the cases cited therein ; see also Lervick
Logging Company, 95 NLRB 946
796 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ging employees would be given work in the mill in the event logging
operations were shut down, there is evidence in the record that such
practice has not been followed. Morever, it was admitted by the
Employer that work assignments in all portions of its operation are
relatively permanent.
The supervisory hierarchy of the Employer is headed by the plant
,manager. Reporting to the plant manager, and in charge of all log-
ging employees, is the woods foreman who is assisted by the bull buck.
The plant superintendent, who is in charge of the maintenance work
and the powerhouse, also reports to the manager, as do the machine
shop foreman, the sawmill-planing mill superintendent, the plywood
plant superintendent, and the log buyer. Virtually independent hir-
ing arrangements exist as each head supervisor does the hiring for his
respective operation.
The record in this case discloses a certain degree of the integration
which normally exists in lumbering operations of this type. The
production processes, beginning with the felling of the trees and con-
cluding with the manufacture of plywood and finished lumber, are
continuous .9 However, the fact that the Employer's logging operation
does not now supply all of its timber needs thereby necessitating the
purchase of logs in the open market, vitiates to a considerable degree
the factor of interdependence of operations on which the. Employer
relies to support its over-all unit claim 10 Therefore, though the record
contains support for the Employer's contention that all its employees
could appropriately be included in a single bargaining unit,h1 in the
absence of any collective bargaining history among these employees,
and because the record contains evidence of separate supervision,
negligible interchange between the groups of logging and mill employ-
ees, and independent hiring arrangements for each group, we believe
that the logging employees and milling employees may also appropri-
ately function as separate units.12
With respect to the truck shop employees, whom the CIO would
include in the logging unit, the record shows that these employees
spend most of their time repairing, maintaining, and servicing the
trucks and other automotive equipment used in the logging operations.
Truck shop mechanics often go to the logging site to perform repairs.
Log hauling equipment is garaged at the truck shop where the logging
drivers pick up their trucks each morning. The logging crew assem-
9 Weyerhaeuser Timber Company , supra.
10 Though the Employer , at the hearing , asserted that it does not intend to expand its
logging operations and that independent logging contractors will , in the future , be engaged
to harvest its timber, there is no certain evidence that the present logging operation will,
in the near future, be discontinued.
11 Weyerhaeuser Timber Company , supra.
12 Hamilton Bros. Logging Co ., supra.
BROOKINGS PLYWOOD CORPORATION 797
bles daily in the truck shop area and waits for transportation to the
logging site. Although truck shop mechanics perform some repair
work on automotive equipment used in the mill, this work appears to
constitute only a very minor part of their total working time. The
mechanics employed in the main machine shop and in the sawmill do
not perform the type of work done by the truck shop mechanics. In
this connection, the Employer testified that the latter are more special-
ized than the mill maintenance men. The contact between the two
groups of mechanics appears to be of minimal nature. Upon the above
facts, we believe that the interests of the truck shop employees are
more closely allied with the logging employees than with the mill
employees. Accordingly, we shall include them in the same voting
group with the logging employees.
The AFL unit request, which encompasses the employees at the saw-
mill, planing mill, logging woods, and log trucking operations, does
not include the log pond crew, the machine shop and powerhouse
employees, and the plywood plant employees. With respect to the
last-named group, if the stockholder employees are excluded in accord-
ance with the desires of the AFL, the AFL contends that because 113
of the 117 nonsupervisory employees are stockholders, an election in
the plywood plant among the 4 nonstockholders would be untimely in
view of the expected increase in the number of nonstockholder employ-
ees. The contention of the AFL with respect to the untimeliness of an
election among the nonstockholder employees of the plywood plant is,
in our opinion, without merit, because under the facts in this case,
particularly in view of the integration of the Employer's mill opera-
tion, the plywood plant could not by itself constitute an appropriate
unit 13 Therefore, even though we exclude stockholders from the
voting groups, the remaining plywood plant employees, being em-,
ployed in an integral part of the mill (or over-all) unit, should not be
deprived of their rights to union representation. As we have shown
above, the nature of the Employer's operations supports the establish-
ment of either separate units of logging and mill employees or an
over-all unit of production, maintenance, and transportation employ-
ees. Although the AFL's unit request does not correspond to any of
these units, it encompasses the major part of the over-all unit. Be-
cause it appears that the AFL has an adequate showing of interest in
this over-all unit, excluding stockholder employees, we shall in accord-
ance with the alternative request of the AFL, treat the petition as one
requesting the over-all unit.14 We shall, therefore, also direct an
election among the mill employees, excluding the clerical employees at
the Employer's headquarters office.
13 See footnotes 7 and 8.
It Emhart Manufacturing Company, 96.NLRB 375.
798 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD0
In their unit requests, both Petitioners asked that stockholder-
employees be excluded from any unit found appropriate. The Em-
ployer, however, would include such employees who are owners of
the Company's common stock.
The Brookings Plywood Corporation was organized on February
15, 1951. Its common capital stock is divided into 250 shares with a
par value of $5,000 per share. At the date of the hearing, there were
242' stockholders, of whom 118 were employed in nonsupervisory posi-
tions by the Company.15 Under the articles of incorporation, no one
stockholder may own more than 1 share of common stock.
With respect to the rights and duties of stockholders, the bylaws of
the Company provide that :
The employment policy of the company shall be one under
which, all things being equal, stockholders shall have preferential
employment rights; in the event a stockholder is discharged, he
shall have the right within 72 hours thereafter to appeal to the
Board of Directors; the basic wage scales of non-supervisory
stockholders shall be uniform and shall be determined by the
Board of Directors; no share of stock shall be sold 'unless first
offered to the company, and only if the company refuses to pur-
chase the share can it be sold to another person, but such sale is
subject to the approval of the Board of Directors; stockholders
shall elect directors who shall, manage the affairs of the company
and elect all officers; in the event 13 months lapse without the
holding of an annual stockholders' meeting, any stockholder
may call such meeting; all directors must be and remain stock-
holders during their terms of office.
The Board, in prior cases, has adhered to the principle that mere
ownership of stock in a corporation does not preclude the inclusion of
a stockholder in a collective bargaining unit of the corporation's
employees unless the employee-stockholder's interest is of such nature
as to give him an effective voice in the formulation and determination
of corporate policy 16 While it may be argued in this case that since
each stockholder has only 1/250 of all the votes the probability of his
having an effective voice in the making of corporate policy is small,
nonetheless, 113 of the 117 employees in the plywood plant are stock-
holders. That such a large homogeneous group of stockholders may
influence management policies is not a remote possibility in this case.
Furthermore, as shown above, each stockholder has certain powers
which enable him to affect the operations of the corporation.
"The nonsupervisory stockholder employees are' located as follows : 4 in the logging
crew, 1 In the sawmill , and 113 in the plywood plant. The Employer conceded that the
most desirable jobs were in the plywood plant.
10 Muskogee Dairy Products Co., 85 NLRB 520; Mutual Rough Hat Company, 86 NLRB
440; Aiderwood Products Corporat ion, 81 NLRB 186.
BROOKINGS PLYWOOD . CORPORATION 799
The fact that the most desirable jobs in the Employer's operation
are held by stockholders and the evidence in the record that at least
one nonstockholder was "bumped" from a desirable job by a stock-
holder, serve to demonstrate one aspect wherein the employment
interests of the nonstockholder-employees and those of the stockholder-
employees are divergent. This divergency of employment interests
is also illustrated by the uniform wage rate policy for stockholder 17
and by the existence of the separate grievance procedure for stock-
holders. Though to date there has been no distribution of profits, we
recognize that stockholders, who are interested in maximizing profits,
would favor minimizing costs, including that of the nonstockholder
labor, whereas the representative of the latter would constantly seek
to obtain higher wages for its members. Under all these circum-
stances, we shall exclude the stockholder-employees from the voting
groups hereinafter found appropriate.
We shall direct elections among the employees at the Employer's
Brookings, Oregon, plant and logging operations, in the following
voting groups :
1. All production, transportation, and maintenance employees
engaged in the logging operations of the Employer, in and about
Brookings, Oregon, including truck shop employees, but excluding the
bull buck, the woods foreman, all stockholder-employees, all other
employees, guards, and all other supervisors as defined in the Act.
2. All production and maintenance employees employed at the
Employer's Brookings, Oregon, plant, including the log pond crew,
powerhouse employees, sawmill and planing mill employees, plywood
plant employees, machine shop employees, but excluding truck shop
employees, all stockholder-employees, office and clerical employees;
guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
We shall make no final unit determination at this time, but shall
first ascertain the desires of these employees as expressed in the elec-
tions hereinafter directed. • If the employees in group 1 select a bar-
gaining representative different from that selected by the employees
in group 2, the Board finds that they constitute a separate appropriate
unit, and if in these circumstances the employees in group 2 also select
a bargaining agent, the Board finds that the employees in group 2 also
constitute an appropriate unit. If the employees in the two groups
select the same bargaining agent, the Board finds that together they
constitute an appropriate unit. The Regional Director conducting
the elections directed herein is instructed to issue a certification of
representatives to the union or unions in the unit or units which may
17 The uniform rate for nonsupervisory' stockholder-employees is $2.25 per hour. The
Employer testified that there may be some non stockholder -employees receiving as low as
$1.75 per hour.
800 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
result from the election?$ If either group selects no bargaining agent,
the Regional Director shall issue a certificate of results of election
to such effect.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication in this
volume.]
18 Although the AFL has petitioned for an over -all unit, in the event group 1 votes for the
CIO and group 2 votes for the AFL , the latter will be certified as the bargaining repre-
sentative for group 2 unless it informs the Regional Director that it does not wish to repre-
sent the employees of group 2 alone.
AMERICAN SEATING COMPANY and PATTERN MAKERS LEAGUE OF NORTH
AMERICA, GRAND RAPIDS ASSOCIATION, AFL, PETITIONER. Case No.
7-RC-1485. March 24,1952
Decision and Order
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Emil C. Farkas, 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 Aut, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Members Houston, 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 organizations involved claim to represent certain
employees of the Employer.'
3. No 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, for the following reasons :
The Petitioner seeks to sever the Employer's patternmakers from
the existing production and maintenance unit represented by the In-
tervenor. The Employer asserts its current contract with the Inter-
venor, signed July 1, 1950, and effective from that date, as a bar to
this proceeding. The Petitioner contends that the contract is not a
bar because it is of indefinite duration. With respect to this contention,
it is clear that the contract is not for an indefinite term, but for a 3-
year period with provision for automatic renewal thereafter on a
yearly basis in the absence of a valid termination notice from either
party. As the record fails to establish that contracts for 3-year terms
are customary in the seating industry, of which the Employer is a part,
IIntervention was granted to International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft &
Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW-CIO, herein called the Intervenor.
98 NLRB No. 123.