Amos-Thompson Corp.

i In the Matter of AMOS-THOMPSON CORPORATION and UNITED VENEER AND LUMBER WORKERS L. I. U., AFFILIATED WITIi THE C. I. O. Case No. R-J135.Decided May 4, 1943 Mr. Wilbur F. Pell, of Shelbyville, Ind., for the Company. Mr. Howard L. McNamara, of Indianapolis, Ind., for the Union. Miss Melverm R. Krelow, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION ' STATElNENT OF THE CASE Upon petition duly filed by United Veneer and Lumber Workers L. I. U., affiliated with the C. I. 0., herein called the Union, alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the repre- sentation of employees of Amos-Thompson Corporation, Edinburg, Indiana, herein called the .Company, the National Labor Relations Board provided for an appropriate hearing upon due notice before John J. Manning, Trial Examiner. Said bearing was held at Edin- burg, Indiana, on April 7, 1943. The Company and the Union ap- peared, participated, and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues. The Company filed an application for a sub- poena duces tecum in which it requested that the Union be required to produce a copy of*its constitution and bylaws, all its books, records, and papers relating to union membership of and to the dues, fees, and assessments received from employees of the Company during the 6 months preceding April 7, 1943; all resignations from membership, all removals from membership, and all applications for membership of employees of the Company for the same period. The Trial Ex- aminer required that a copy of the constitution and bylaws be produced, which the Union agreed to and did produce. The Trial Examiner denied the balance of the application. The Trial Exami- ner's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. On April 13, 1943, the Company filed a brief which the Board has considered. 49 N. L. R B., No. 55. 423 424 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY Amos-Thompson Corporation, a corporation, is engaged in Edin- burg, Indiana, in the manufacture of -lumber, veneers; gunstocks, and plastic products. The Company purchases annually raw materials, valued in excess of $100,000, approximately 75 percent of which-is shipped to the -Company from points outside the State of Indiana. The Company manufactures finished products annually, valued in excess of $100,000, of which in excess of 75 percent is sold and shipped by the, Company to points outside the State of Indiana. H. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED United Veneer and Lumber Workers, L. I. U., is a labor organiza- tion affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, ad- mitting to membership employees of the Company in the sawmill, veneer, and gunstock departments. • III. THE QUESTION, CONCERNING REPRESENTATION On February 26, 1943, the Union notified the-Company by letter that it represented a majority of the Company's employees, and re- quested a conference for the purpose of collective bargaining negotia- tions. On March 2, 1943, counsel for, the Company notified the Union that the manager of the Company was out of town, and that upon his return the Union's request would be taken up with him.' On March 2, 1943, the Union filed its petition, which was amended on March 23, 1943. The Company at the hearing stated that it did not recognize the Union as the sole exclusive bargaining agent for its employees in the unit it sought to establish, ,or the unit the Company contends is appropriate. A statement prepared by a Field Examiner of the Board, intro- duced in evidence at the hearing, indicates that the Union represents, a substantial number of employees in. the .unit hereinafter found to be appropriate.' . • i The Field Examiner reported that the Union presented 66 memberst<ip cards, bearing apparently genuine signatures , 52 of which bear the names of persons ' appearing on the Company's pay roll of March '4, 1943. Said pay roll contained the names of 176 persons in the appropriate unit. At the hearing, the Company stated that the number of persons' in,the unit is approximately 146 • Counsel for the Company argued that the Field Examiner's statement had no probative value ; that the statement was made in the absence of any representative of the Company, V AMOS-THOMPSON, CORPORATION 425 We find that a question affecting commerce 'has arisen concerning the representation of employees of the Company, within the meaning of Section '9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7), of the National Labor Relations'Act. . V. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT The Union contends that the appropriate unit should comprise all production and maintenance employees of the veneer, sawmill, and gunstock departments, excluding all supervisory aid clerical em- ployees and employees in the- plastic department. The Company maintains that the employees in the plastic department should be included in the unit, 'and agrees with all other exclusions listed by the Union. The operations of the four departments involved in this proceeding are as follows : ` Sawmill department: Logs are brought into the sawmill and are sawed by electrical and power-driven saws into' lumber, which lumber is used in the different departments of the Company.. The employees also engage in loading and unloading the lumber and stacking it in the yards. Boxes are made in the sawmill department which are used in the plastic department for shipping the products of that department. Veneer department.; Logs are manufactured into cants and flinches, which are in turn heated in vats and prepared for the manufacture of veneer, chipped, treated, and put into crates for shipment. Gunstoclc department: The cants of the logs are manufactured into gunstock blanks which are shipped green. Plastic department: Material'in granulated form is purchased from different manufacturers. The material is generally shipped in drums, and is heated to dry before it goes into the injection melting machine. It is then heated to a high temperature so that it will flow, and is injected into the metal which forms a base. that the Company has no knowledge of the truth of the statements contained therein, and objected to the introduction of that statement in evidence. The Trial Examiner overruled the objections. Counsel further argued that the Trial Examiner's ruling denying the Com- pany the privilege of cioss-examination on the Field Examiner's statement based on the statements therein appearing was in error. We have heretofore affirmed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and we find that the Company's contentions are without merit As we have frequently stated, the report of a Board agent with respect to a claim of authorization for the purposes of representation is taken, not as •proot of the precise number of employees who desire to be represented by a labor organization, but rather to protect the Company and the Board from unfounded claims by such organizations and to give reasonable assur ance that a substantial number of employees desire to be so represented. See Matter of Interlake Iron Corporation and Local Union 1657, Steel Worke,8 Organizing Committee, 38 N. L R ' B. 139. ' We have uniformly held that in cases where the petitioning union does not seek certifi- cation upon the record, we do not permit a party opposing the petitioner to go behind the apparently genuine authorization in the manner proposed by the Company. See Matter of Atlas Powder, Company and Local 12083, -National Council of Gas, Coke S Chemical Workers, 43 N. L. R. B. 757. 426 DEIQISdONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD In support of its contention, the Company directs attention to the fact that there is one main office; that the time cards for all employees are brought to the main office, and the pay roll for the entire plant is made up at that office; that there are three watchmen for the whole plant; that the same 'employees operate kilns for both the plastic and gunstock departments, and that there is a maintenance crew number- ing about six men, who work throughout the Company's operations. The record indicates, however, that each department has its own superintendent; that with the exception of the occasional transfer of laborers to help in crating or packing, no sizeable transfers have 'tali'^en place. Employees in the plastic department do no processing on any products of the Company other than on those in the plastic department. It appears, therefore, that the plastic department is distinguishable from the other units of the Company's operations, both as to the kind and degree of skill required of employees and the nature of its product. It further appears that there has been no -history of collective bargaining at the plant, that the Union has not attempted to organize the employees of the plastic department; 2 and that no other union is seeking, to represent employees of the Company on a broader basis. Under the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the unit requested by the Union is appropriate. We find that all production and maintenance employees of the Com- pany in the veneer, sawmill, and gunstock departments, excluding all supervisory and clerical employees and employees in the plastic depart- ment, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bar- gaining, within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES We shall direct that the question concerning representation which has arisen be resolved by an election by secret ballot among the em- ployees in the appropriate unit who were employed during the pay- roll period immediately preceding the date of our Direction of Election herein, subject to the limitations and additions set forth in said Direction. DIRECTION OF ELECTION By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National Labor Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Rela- 2 The Company produced four witnesses working in the plastic department , who testified that Howard L McNamara , field representative for the C I 0, appearing for the Union herein , has solicited them for membership Upon cross -examination , however, they ad- mitted that McNamara did not request their becoming members of the Union McNamara admitted that he solicited these witnesses ; he denied soliciting them for membership in the petitioning union , and stated that lie was attempting to secure their membership in United Cannery, Agricultural , Packing and Allied Workers Union, which union he was representing at the request of the International 1 AMOS-THOMPSON CORPORATION 427 tions Act, and pursuant to Article III,' Section 9, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2, as amended, it is hereby DIRECTED that, as.part of the investigation to ascertain representa- tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Amos-Thompson Corpo'ra'tion, Edinburg, Indiana, ' an election by secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than thirty (30) days from the date of this Direction, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Ninth Region, acting in this matter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject to Article III, Section 10, of said Rules and Regulations, among the employees in the unit found appropriate in Section IV, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of this Direction, including employees who did not work during said pay- roll period because they were ill or on vacation or temporarily laid off, and including employees, in the armed forces of the United States who'present themselves in person at the polls, but excluding any who have since quit or been discharged for cause, to determine whether or not they desire to be represented by United Veneer and Lumber Work- ers L. I. U., affiliated with the C. I. 0., for the purposes of collective bargaining.