Norwood Veneer Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 10, 1947

74 N.L.R.B. 45 (N.L.R.B. 1947)

In the Matter of NORWOOD VENEER COMPANY, EMPLOYER and INTER-
NATIONAL WOODWORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER
Case No. 5W-R-37. Decided June 10, 1947
Smith, 11Warton c6 Jordan, by Mr. Harrell Pope, of Greensboro,
N. C., for the Employer.
Mr. William F. Billingsley, of Charlotte, N. C., and Mr. Clyde Jen-
kins, of Norwood, N. C., for the Petitioner.
Mr. Martin Sacks, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
CERTIFICAT1ON OF REPRESENTATIVES
Upon a petition duly filed, a, preheariug election was conducted oil,
March 6, 1947, under the direction and supervision of the Regional
Director for the Fifth Region, among the employees of the Employer
in the alleged appropriate bargaining unit, to determine whether or
not they desired to be represented by the Petitioner for the purposes
of collective bargaining.
At the close of the election a Tally of Ballots was furnished the
parties. The Tally shows that, of approximately 36 eligible voters,
35 cast ballots of which 24 were for the Petitioner, 9 were against the
Petitioner, and 2 were challenged.
Thereafter, a hearing was held on May 6, 1947, at Charlotte, North
Carolina, before Joseph Lepie, hearing officer. The hearing officer's
rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are
hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations
Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Norwood Veneer Company, a North Carolina corporation, is en-
gaged at its plant in Norwood, North Carolina, in the production of
veneer. During the calendar year 1946, the Employer purchased raw
materials valued in excess of $75,000, of which approximately 65 per-
74 N. L. R. B., No. 12. 45
46 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
cent represented purchases made outside the State of North Carolina.
During the same period the Employer manufactured finished products
valued in excess of $180,000, of which 5 percent represented shipments
to points outside the State. -
The Employer admits for the purpose of this proceeding, and we
-find, that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress
of Industrial Organizations, claiming to represent employees of the
Employer.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Employer refuses to recognize the Petitioner as the exclusive
bargaining representative of employees of the Employer until the
Petitioner has been certified by the Board in an appropriate unit.
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
representation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of
.Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Petitioner seeks a unit of all production and maintenance em-
ployees of the Employer, excluding office, clerical and supervisory
employees. The Employer agrees generally as to the appropriate-
ness of the unit sought, but would also include in the unit Robert H.
-Finley and Ernest F. Preslar, whom the Petitioner would exclude as
supervisory employees. This disagreement was reflected at the
election in the two challenged ballots.
The rear half of the Employer's plant, referred to as the lathe de-
partment, is used for the cutting and steaming of veneer. The front
-half of the plant, referred to as the drying department, houses the
sacking, drying, grading and shipping operations. Finley is in charge
of approximately 15 employees in the rear half, whereas Preslar is in
charge of approximately 11 employees in the front half. The record
indicates that the supervision of the production employees of the plant
-is divided between Finley and Preslar, who succeeded to their present
jobs upon the departure of the superintendent over a year ago. It is
significant that Preslar and Finley are the only supervisory employees
who spend all their time in the plant. Both Finley and Preslar have
"hired employees, and both have made effective recommendations that
,employees be discharged. Both have disciplined employees for viola-
NORWOOD VENEER COMPANY 47
tion of the Employer's plant rules, have laid off employees for lack of
work, and have excused employees from work upon request. Upon
the foregoing facts we find that Robert H. Finley and Ernest F.
Preslar are supervisory employees within our customary definition of
the term, and we shall accordingly exclude them from the unit, and
shall sustain the challenges to their ballots.
We find, therefore, that all production and maintenance employees
of the Employer, excluding office and clerical employees, and all
supervisory employees 1 with authority to hire, promote, discharge,
discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or
effectively recommend such action, constitute a unit appropriate for
the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section
9 (b) of the Act.
V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
Inasmuch as the results of the prehearing election show that the
Petitioner has secured a majority of the valid votes cast, we shall
certify the Petitioner as the collective' bargaining representative of
the employees in the appropriate unit.
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
IT IS HEREBY OIRTIFIED that International Woodworkers of America,
CIO, has been designated and selected by a majority of all production
and maintenance employees of Norwood Veneer Company , Norwood,
North Carolina , excluding office and clerical employees , and all super-
visory employees with authority to hire, promote , discharge , disci-
pline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees , or effec-
tively recommend such action, as their representative for the purposes
of collective bargaining, and that, pursuant to Section 9 (a) of the
Act, the said organization is the exclusive representative of all such
employees for the purposes of collective bargaining with respect to
rates of pay, wages , hours of employment , and other conditions of
employment.
CHAIRMAN HERzoG took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Certification of Representatives.
I This includes Robeit H . Finley and Ernest F Preslar.
755420-48-vol 74-5