Vancouver Plywood & Veneer Co.

In ' the Matter of VANCOUVER PLYWOOD & ¶ENEER COMPANY, AND M & M WOODWORKING"COMPANY DOING BUSINESS AS V-M TTiVIBER COMPANY, EMPLOYER and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAM- STERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS oi, A'MI§RICA, TEAMSTERS`, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS, LOCAL UNION No. 58, AFL, PETITIONER Case No. 36-RC-17 .-Decided September 15, 1948 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon an amended petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held on May 13, 1948, before a hearing officer of the National Labor Rela- tions 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-man panel consisting of the undersigned Board Members.* 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 2. The labor organizations named below claim to represent em- ployees of the Employer. 3. The question concerning representation : International Woodworkers of America, C. I. 0., herein called the Intervenor, raised as a bar to this proceeding its contract with Pananen & Martin, logging contractors herein called the Contractor, who had contracted with the Employer to fell timber and haul it to the Em- ployer's log dump. The agreement between the Contractor and the Intervenor covers employees of the Contractor and of its subcontrac- I The Employer's motion to dismiss, ' hich was referred to the Board, is hereby denied- for reasons set forth below. *Houston, Murdock, and Gray 2 This proceeding is concerned only with the Employei's logging operation in Cowlitz, County and vicinity, Washington. 79 N L R B , No. 94. 708 c VANCOUVER PLYWOOD & VENEER COMPANY 709, tors employed on the Employer's logging operation. The Employer is not a party to the contract, has never ratified it, nor acknowledged in-any-way that the Contractor was acting as agent of the Employer- in executing the agreement. Therefore, we find that the contract, between the Contractor and the Intervenor does not cover employees of the Employer,3 and is not a bar to this proceeding.' The Employer contended at the hearing that its operations were shut, ddwi,coVpletely, and its ecniployees laid off on about January 15, 1948, because of weather conditions; that it had no definite plans for resump- tion of logging nor any obligation to reemploy the laid-off employees; and that there was, therefore, no question concerning representation.. The record indicates, however, that the Employer, at the time of the hearing, had its trucks and other equipment in the garage at the site, of its logging operations and that it owned timber there still to be logged. The superintendent took down the names and addresses of the truck drivers when he laid then off, and told them he would get in touch with them when work was resumed. The employee in charge- of all the Employer's logging operations stated that he had asked the- booninlg contractor about starting work, but that a boom men's,strike - ivas holding up the resumption of logging. Froln the foregoing facts, and from the entire record in this case, we find that the Employer's. cessation of operations was not an indefinite shut-down, but a seasonal- suspension of activities which was prolonged by the boom men's strike.. Therefore, in view of the possibility that operations are to be re-- sunied, we find that a question of representation affecting commerce exists concerning the representation of employees of the Employer- within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the act. However, in view of the fact that the Employer had no employees working at the time of the hearing, and that subsequent flood conditions in the Columbia River Valley may have impeded its,, resumption of logging, we shall make the election contingent upon a finding by the Regional Director for the Nineteenth Region that the Employer is operating with. employees in an appropriate unit as described below. 4. The appropriate unit: The Petitioner seeks a unit composed of the logging truck drivers of the Employer. The Intervenor contends that all employees en- gaged in logging operations, both of the Employer and of the Con- tractor, constitute the only appropriate unit. The Employer takes no position with regard to the unit proposed by the Intervenor, though ' See Matter of Swanson Brothers Logqing Company , 71 N L R. B. 614 4 Furthermore, the original petition in this case, which was filed approximately 3: months before the termination date and 2 months before the Mill B date of-that contract,, would have been timely in any event. 509095-49-vol. 79-46 '71Q DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD it stated-that-the entire logging operation was carried on in a highly integrated fashion, but contended, that all, of its, employees should be included in one unit. The logging operations fall,into three steps : (1) ,thetrees are felled, ,cut into logs, and loaded into trucks; (2) the trucks haul the logs about 47 miles from the Contractor's logging camp to, the Employer's lo- dump ; and (3) the unloading crew removes the logs and dumps them into the river. The felling, bucking, and loading is done solely b3 the ,'Contractor. All trucks, as they are loaded with logs, are under the direction of the head loader, an ,employee of the Contractor. The Employer operates approximately 12 of the trucks, the remainder of ,the 27 or 28 trucks being operated by the Contractor or its subcoiitrac- tors. At the log dump, all, trucks come under, the direction of the -unloading engineer and the two u`nhookers, who are employees of the Employer. In addition to these employees, the Employer has one employee who loads trailers on all trucks and acts as a relief driver, and three service mechanics who work only on the Employer's trucks. The Intervenor contends that the Employer exercises such control over the Contractor that the combined operation is the appropriate unit. In the spring of 1947, the Contractor, a partnership, contracted to log and haul timber for the Employer. The Employer requires that the Contractor submit a logging plan for approval, reserves the right to select timber to be cut, may criticize the manner in which the logging is done, or the work of any individual employee of the Con- tractor, and may halt the delivery of logs because of weather, strikes, or for other specified reasons. The Employer advances working cap- ital to the Contractor from time to time. However, the Employer and the Contractor are separate legal entities, maintain separate pay rolls, and neither directly controls the labor relations of the other. There is virtually no interchange of personnel between them. Where there is substantial agreement among all parties, the Board has found a multiple-employer unit similar to that sought by the Inter- venor to be appropriates But where there is neither agreement nor previous bargaining history, the Board generally holds that the employees of each Employer constitute separate units.? The Board has previously held that where an employer conducted its logging operations as an integrated enterprise, either an operation- wide unit or unit composed of log truck drivers may be appropriate, :The Employer operated 1 truck which was leased , with driver, from the Conti actor. As the driver is on the Contractor 's, not the Employer's, pay roll, he will not be included in the unit hereinafter found appropriate Matter of S A -Agnew, doing -business as S A. Agnew Lumber Company , 44 N L. R. B 1253 7 Matter or Swanson Brothers Logging Company, 71 N L R B 614. VANCOUVER PLYWOOD & VENEER, COMPANY 711 depending upon the desires of the employees.8 However, in the pres- ent case, the Intervenor does not- seek to represent all'employees of the Employer in a unit excluding employees of the Contractor. In accordance with the foregoing, we find that all the log truck drivers employed by the Employer in its Cowlitz County, Washington, operation, including the loader-relief driver, the servicemen and mechanics,9 but excluding the unloading engineer, unhookers, and supervisors, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. 5. The determination of representatives : The Petitioner contended that only those employees on the January 15, 1948, pay roll should be eligible to vote. The Employer and the Intervenor take the position that all those employed at the time of the election should be eligible to vote. We believe that under the circum- stances of this case the most representative vote can be obtained by using the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of the election as the criterion of eligibility to vote. DIRECTION OF ELECTION As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining with the Employer, an election by secret ballot shall be conducted at such time as the Regional Director finds that the Employer is engaged in logging operations in Cowlitz County, Washington, under the direction and supervision of the Re- gional Director for the Nineteenth Region, and subject to Sections 203.1 a,nd 203.62 of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regu- lati ins- Series 5, among the employees in the unit found appropriate in pa.' igr: ,)h 4, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period immedi.,ttel) preceding the date of the election, including employees who did ;,,)t v -rk during said pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacat.''n of temporarily laid off, but excluding those employees who Have since ---it or been discharged for cause and have not been re- hired or reinstated prior to the date of the election, and also excluding employees on strike who are not entitled to reinstatement, to determine whether they desire to be represented, for purposes of collective bar- 8 Matter of Tougaw & Olson, Inc., 78 N L R B 810 ; Matter of Setzer Box Company, 64 N. L. R B 605. 9 These men grease, service, and otherwise maintain the Employer's trucks, but do no driving. The Petitioner amended its petition, inter alia, first to include them, and later to exclude them The Boatd has recently stated that "The duties and interests of (me- chanics ) are closely allied to those of the drivers." Matter of Ferguson-Steere Motor Co , 76 N. L. R. B 1122 Accordingly, we shall include the mechanics in the unit 712 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD gaining, by International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, VVar_&ousemen and Helpers of AMnericaijeamaters, Chauffeurs, Ware- housemen and Helpers, Local Union No. 58, AFL, or by International Woodworkers of America, C. I. 0., or by neither.