Russian River Redwood Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 11, 1952

98 N.L.R.B. 493 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

HOLLOW TREE LUMBER COMPANY 493
ployees 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 em-
ployees in group 2 also constitute an appropriate unit. If the em-
ployees 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 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 Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
HOLLOW TREE LUMBER COMPANY ; WILLIAM M. MOORES, W. H. A.
SMITH , AND J . GROVES SMITH , D/B/A RUSSIAN RIVER REDWOOD CO.;
WILLIAM M. MOORES, W. H. A. SMITH , AND LORENZO D. COURTRIGHT,
D/B/A UKIAH VALLEY LUMBER COMPANY and LUMBER & SAWMILL
WORKERS , LOCAL No . 2975, UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS &
JOINERS OF AMERICA, AFL, PETITIONER . Case No. 2O-RC-1673.
March 11,1952
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 David Karasick, 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].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.'
I The Employer moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that the petition was
fatally defective because it failed to indicate the date request for recognition was made
and that recognition was thereafter refused. The hearing officer referred the motion to
the Board . The Employer admitted at the hearing at the Petitioner requested recogni-
tion and that such request was refused. Although the petition was technically defective
in failing so to state, the Employer has not shown that any prejudice resulted . Accord-
ingly, the motion is denied . Petco Corporation-New Orleans Dwision, 98 NLRB 150.
2 For the reasons stated in paragraph numbered 4, we find that the three companies
involved herein together constitute a single employer . In view of the totality of their
operations , we also find , contrary to the companies' contention , that they are engaged in
commerce within the meaning of the Act , and that it would effectuate the purposes of the
Act to assert jurisdiction herein. Commercial Equipment Company, Inc., et al., 95 NLRB
354; Hollow Tree Lumber Company, 91 NLRB 635.
98 NLRB No. 101.
494 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain
employees 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 petitioner seeks to represent a single unit of all production
and maintenance employees in the Hollow Tree, Russian River, and
Ukiah operations,3 excluding logging employees, office and clerical
employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act: The Inter-
venor' agrees generally with the unit requested, but would include
the logging employees. Although the Employer agrees with the
composition of the unit, it contends that there should be separate
units of the employees of each company.
Hollow Tree, a corporation, is engaged in logging and processing
standard lumber on a 15-acre tract of land which adjoins Ukiah and
is about 11/,? miles from that of Russian River. Ukiah, a partnership,
conducts a custom milling operation on a 5-acre tract of land, retriev-
ing mismanufactured or poor lumber and manufacturing lumber to
special dimensions or finishes. Russian River, also a partnership,
is engaged in the storage and loading of lumber on a 30-acre tract
of land.
All logs produced at Hollow Tree are cut into standard lengths
and widths after which they are hauled by truck to Russian River
to be stored and subsequently loaded for shipment by Russian River.
Approximately 26 percent of this lumber is sent from Russian River
to Ukiah for additional processing after which it is returned to Rus-
sian River. During the 3-month period ending December 31, 1951,
about 66 percent of Ukiah production was for Hollow Tree. During
1951, approximately 90 percent of Russian River's income for storing
and loading of lumber was received from Hollow Tree.
William M. Moores, the president, and W. H. A. Smith, the vice
president, of Hollow Tree, own the majority of the stock of that
company and are the principal partners of Russian River and Ukiah.
Although each company has its own manager or superintendent who
handles the hire and discharge of employees for that company, over-
all supervision of the three companies is vested in Moores. The latter
is also the sole representative of the three companies for the purpose
of selling their products or services. Over-all policies of the three
8 Hollow Tree Lumber Company, William M. Moores, W. H. A. Smith , and J. Groves
Smith , d/b/a Russian River Redwood Co., and William M . Moores, W. H. A. Smith, and
Lorenzo D. Courtright , d/b/a Ukiah Valley Lumber Company, are hereinafter referred to
individually as Hollow Tree, Russian River , and Ukiah , respectively , and collectively as
the Employer.
4 International Woodworkers of America, CIO.
HOLLOW TREE LUMBER COMPANY 495
companies, with respect to business operations, are determined
together. Wage rates are established by a committee 5 which has
set the same minimum wage rates for all three companies. Wage
rates for similar jobs in the various operations are comparable, and
hours and general conditions of employment are substantially the same
for all three. Employees are occasionally interchanged 6 While each
company purchases its own supplies and equipment and maintains a
separate office staff, all the offices are under the supervision of one
supervisor, Courtright, whose salary, and those of all office employees,
are paid by Hollow Tree. All general ledger and accounting for the
three companies is performed by one employee on the Hollow Tree
payroll 7 Although employees are carried on separate payrolls, and
are paid by separate checks, all payroll checks, as well as all other
checks and receipts for all three companies, are made up and issued
by the Hollow Tree office. Income tax records and withholding and
social security tax records and forms are also maintained by Hollow
Tree.
In view of the foregoing, we find, contrary to the contention of
the companies, that Hollow Tree, Russian River, and Ukiah are so
interdependent as to constitute a single Employer within the meaning
of Section 2 (2) of the Act, and that their employees comprise a single
appropriate unit for purposes of collective bargaining.8
As previously mentioned, the parties are in disagreement as to
the unit placement of logging employees. During the last year,
Hollow Tree alone employed a logging crew. However, logging
operations ceased in September 1951 and Hollow Tree no longer
employs loggers and intends- in the future to secure all logs from
independent contractors. Under these circumstances, we shall make
no unit determination as to the category of logging employees.,
We find that the following employees of Hollow Tree, Russian
River, and Ukiah, at their operations in Ukiah, California, constitute
a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within
the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act:
"The committee is composed of Moores, Smith, and Courtright, who is a stockholder of
Hollow Tree and a partner of Ukiah. The superintendent or manager of the particular
company involved is also consulted.
When an employee is borrowed from another company , the borrowing company is
charged for the cost of the services rendered. The employee, however, remains on the
payroll of, and is paid by, the lending company, and his vacation and other privileges
acquired at the lending company are unimpaired while he is on loan.
I Hollow Tree charges a pro rata share for the bookkeeping services rendered to Russian
River and Ukiah.
8 See Commercial Equipment Company, Inc., et at., supra ; Florida Jafra Steel Co., et at,
94 NLRB 386.
9 Cities Service Refining Corporation , 94 NLRB 1634.
496 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
All production and maintenance employees, including the planer
man,10 but excluding office and clerical employees, guards,'1 and super-
visors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
10 As the planer man is not vested with supervisory authority , we find , in accordance
with the agreement of the parties , that he is not a supervisor and shall include him in
the unit.
11 Hollow Tree employes three watchmen -cleanup men who perform both guard and non-
guard duties . However , the record is not clear as to the exact proportion of time devoted
by each employee to these duties. If they devote more than 50 percent of their time to
the performance of guard duties , they shall be excluded from the unit ; otherwise, they
are to be included . -Cf. The Mountain Copper Company , Ltd., 96 NLRB 1018.
PECHEUR LOZENGE CO ., INC. and Luis FEALARCE , GLADYS THIRION,
AGNES PIZZARELLI, ALEJANDRA RODRIGUEZ , MARY ROMAN' AND
DOROTHY SCHNITZER and `65' THE WHOLESALE , RETAIL AND WARE-
HOUSE WORKERS UNION OF NEW YORK. AND NEW JERSEY . Cases
Nos. 2-CA-1068 and 2-CA-1607. March 11, 1952
Decision and Order
On August 20, 1951, Trial Examiner Charles W. Schneider issued
his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceedings, finding
that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain
unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) and (5) of
the Labor Management Relations Act, as amended, and recommending
that the Respondent cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirm-
ative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report
attached hereto. The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent
had not engaged in certain unfair labor practices in violation of Sec-
tion 8 (a) (3) of the Act and consequently recommended dismissal
of the allegation of the complaint insofar as it alleged such violation.
The General Counsel, the charging parties, and the Respondent filed
exceptions and supporting briefs.'
The Board 2 has considered the Intermediate Report, the excep-
tions and briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts
the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Exam-
I The request of the charging parties for oral argument is denied , inasmuch as the
record, including exceptions and briefs , adequately presents the issues and the positions
of the parties.
2 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 Styles].
98 NLRB No. 84.