Olin Industries, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 28, 1952

101 N.L.R.B. 659 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

FROST LUMBER INDUSTRIES 659
FROST LIIMBER INDUSTRIES, DIVIsIoN OF OLIN INDUSTRIES, INC. FROST
HARDWOOD FLOORS, INC.; AND FROST BRAND FURNITURE MANUFAC-
TURING COMPANY, INC 1 and INTERNATIONAL WOODWORKERS OF
AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER. Case No. 15-RC-789. November 28,
1952
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 Caso March, hearing officer.
The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from preju-
dicial error. They are hereby affirmed with one exception hereafter
noted.
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 Murdock and Peterson].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. Frost Hardwood Floors, Inc., herein called Frost Hardwood, is
a Louisiana corporation engaged at Shreveport, Louisiana, in the
manufacture of hardwood flooring and hardwood dimension. It em-
ploys in these operations approximately 250 employees. Frost Brand
Furniture Manufacturing Company, Inc., herein called Frost Furni-
ture, is a Louisiana corporation engaged at Shreveport, Louisiana, in
the manufacture of summer furniture. It employs in these operations
approximately 50 employees. Olin Industries, Inc., herein called Olin,
is a Maryland corporation which, among other things, owns the ma-
jority of the stock of both Frost Hardwood and Frost Furniture, and
exercises control over the operations and general labor relations poli-
cies of each through its general manager and industrial relations di-
rector. We find, in these circumstances, that Olin is the Employer
of these employees of Frost Hardwood and Frost Furniture within the
meaning of Section 2 (2) of the Act.2
1 The name of the Employer was designated in the petition and the notice of hearing as
Olin Industries , Inc., Frost Lumber Company Division . The record shows that the parties
to the proceeding referred to the "Division" in question at the hearing as "Frost Lumber
Division of Olin Industries , Inc.," as "Forest Products Division ," and as "Frost Lumber
Industries , Division of Olin Industries , Inc." In the captions of the briefs filed herein,
however, the last designation is used by both parties . In view of this fact , we have
adopted the last designation.
At the hearing , it also developed that two subsidiary companies , Frost Hardwood Floors,
Inc., and Frost Brand Furniture Manufacturing Company, Inc., were employers of some of
the employees in the proposed unit . Accordingly, the Petitioner moved to amend the title
of the petition in order to name the companies accurately . The hearing officer granted the
motion over the objection of the Employer . For reasons hereafter set forth , we find no
merit to these objections , and accordingly adopt the hearing officer 's ruling on this point.
Burruss Timber Products , Inc., 87 NLRB 1561.
s Home Furniture Co., 77 NLRB 14317.
101 NLRB No. 126.
242305-53-43
660 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Included among the enterprises operated by Olin under its own
name is a lumber treating plant located in Shreveport, Louisiana, on
the same premises as the plants of Frost Hardwood and Frost Furni-
ture. This plant of Olin's is known as the "Treating Division" or
"Treating Plant." Approximately 30 employees are employed in this
plant. The "Treating Plant," and three other Olin plants located in
Nacogdoches and Waskom, Texas, and Huttig, Arkansas, comprise to-
gether, a functional division of Olin which it designates as the "Frost
Lumber Industries Division."
As noted in part above, the petition, as originally filed, described
the unit requested as being one composed of about 300 employees of
Olin, "Frost Lumber Company Division" at its "Shreveport, Louisi-
ana operations." This petition, and the notice of hearing, were duly
served upon Olin, but not upon Frost Hardwood and Frost Furniture.
Olin's officials however, clearly understood that the petition involved
not only Olin's treating plant employees, but also the Frost Hardwood
and the Frost Furniture employees. Thus, Caldwell, the industrial
relations director, whose authority extends over all 3 plants, and who
appeared at the hearing as counsel for Olin, brought with him to the
hearing, not only the plant manager of the treating plant, but also the
plant managers of Frost Hardwood and Frost Furniture. Each of
these plant managers testified at Caldwell's request with respect to the
nature of the operations at each of the plants, and Caldwell himself
testified with respect to the corporate and stock relationship among the
3 companies. Each of the plant managers was present throughout the
hearing. In light of all these circumstances, we are of the view that
all 3 companies had actual notice of the proceeding, although formal
notice was given only to Olin, and that the interests of all were fully
represented. Moreover, in view of Olin's relations to Frost Hardwood
and Frost Furniture, we believe that, in any event, service of the for-
mal papers upon Olin constituted service upon Frost Hardwood and
Frost Furniture 3 We therefore reject such of the Employer's pro-
cedural objections to the proceeding as are predicated upon the lack
of formal notice upon Frost Hardwood and Frost Furniture, and
upon the amendment of the petition to indicate, with exactitude, pre-
cisely what operations are involved in this proceeding.
We find further that Olin, Frost Hardwood, and Frost Furniture
are engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act, and that it
will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction over these
operations.
2. International Woodworkers of America, CIO, Petitioner herein,
is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the
Act, which claims to represent certain employees of the Employer.
3 Smith Rice Mill, Inc., and DeWitt Bonded Warehouse Company , Inc., 83 NLRB 380.
FROST LUMBER INDUSTRIES 661,
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 in one unit, all production and
maintenance employees of the three plants operated by Olin in Shreve-
port, Louisiana, which are known as Frost Hardwood plant, Frost
Furniture plant, and the treating plant. As an alternative, however,
the Petitioner requests three separate, single-plant units of these
employees. The Employer contends that the three plants should not
be combined in one Unit .4
Notwithstanding the fact that the three plants in question are
physically located on the same premises and that they are commonly
controlled by Olin's general manager and industrial relations director,
we do not believe the employees of all three should necessarily be com-
bined in one unit. For, apart from the fact that there is this common
general supervision by Olin of all three, each plant maintains a high
degree of autonomy in its day-to-day operations. Each is under the
direct supervision of a separate manager who has exclusive authority
to hire and fire within the plant. Each plant produces entirely unre-
lated products, with no interchange of machinery or employees from
one plant to another. Each plant maintains its own accounting, sales,
and payroll office. Although there is common general supervision
of these plants, such supervision extends to other plants not involved
in this proceeding. Nor do the three plants comprise any distinct
organizational or administrative division of Olin's total operations.5
Furthermore, there is no history of collective bargaining among the
employees on any but a single-plant basis.6 We find, therefore, in
accord with established precedentj that the employees at the treat-
ing plant, the Frost Hardwood plant, and the Frost Brand Furniture
manufacturing plant, respectively, constitute separate appropriate
bargaining units. Because the Petitioner has not made an adequate
showing of representation as to employees of the treating plant and
the Frost Furniture manufacturing plant, we shall make no formal
4 It also contends that the Board cannot make any unit findings involving any employees
other than those of the treating plant. This contention is based upon argument we have
disposed of under paragraph numbered 1, supra , and found to be without merit.
5 As far as can be determined from the record , the Frost Hardwood plant and the Frost
Furniture plant , although sharing the same premises with the treating plant , are not part
of the Frost Lumber Industries division . The record does establish , however , that the
"Division" includes , together with the treating plant , three sawmills not petitioned for,
one of which is located in Nacogdoches , Texas, one in Waskom , Texas, and one in Huttig,
Arkansas
A This bargaining history was developed at a time when two of the plants in question,
Frost Hardwood and Frost Furniture , were owned and operated by Frost Lumber Indus-
tries, Inc., Olin's predecessor . Such history did not involve the Petitioner.
7 Mullins Lumber Company and Bchooifeid Industries , Division of Mullins Lumber Co.,
94 NLRB 28; FU-Back Co. and Bock-It Co ., Inc., 85 NLRB 959.
662 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
unit finding nor direct an election as to the employees of these two
plants at this time s
Upon the basis of the entire record, and in accordance with the
foregoing considerations, we find the following unit appropriate for
the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section
9 (b) of the Act :
All production and maintenance employees of Frost Hardwood
Floors, Inc., at its plant in Shreveport, Louisiana, including watch-
men 9 and truck drivers, but excluding clerical, professional, and
supervisory employees within the meaning of the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
e The hearing officer ordered the Employer to produce for the record a copy of its con-
tract with the American Lumber and Treating Company for the purpose of aiding the
Board in determining whether the employees of the latter company who perform their
duties in the Employer's treating plant might also be deemed to be employees of the Em-
ployer. In view of our disposition of the Petitioner 's request for a unit of the treating
plant employees , we deem it unnecessary to require the Employer to produce a copy of this
contract . Accordingly , the Employer 's motion to dismiss the hearing officer 's order is
hereby granted.
9In accord with established Board policy , any person classified as a watchman who
spends 50 percent or more of his time performing services which conform to the statutory
description of guards is to be excluded from the unit.
SCHwIEN ENGINEERING COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD
of ELECTRICAL YY oRHERs, LOCAL UNIoN No. 11, AFL, PETITIONER.
Case No..°31RC-589. November 28, 1952
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 Norman H. Greer, a
hearing officer of the National Labor Relations Board. 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 National Labor
Relations 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
National Labor Relations Act.
2. The labor organization , International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers , Local Union No. 11, AFL, claims to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
101 NLRB No. 116.