Howard County Lumber Co., Inc.

In the Matter Of HOWARD COUNTY LUMBER Co., INC., EMPLOYER AND PETITIONER and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL No. 759, A. F. OF L., UNION Case No. 13-RM-47.Decided October 12, 1941.9 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before Ivan C. Mc- Leod, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hear- ing 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 Reynolds, Murdock and Gray]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is an Indiana corporation engaged in buying and selling building supplies and lumber. Its only office and plant is located at Kokomo, Indiana. Its products consist of lumber, brick, roofing, plywood, paint, cement, plaster, nails, and hardware. In 1949, the Employer purchased products in the amount of about $130,- 000, of which 95 percent was shipped originally or directly from points outside the- State of Indiana. The Employer's sales for the same period totaled about $160,000, all of which were made within the State. For the reasons set forth in Matter of J, H. Patterson Co.,2 we find that the Employer's operations affect commerce within the meaning of the Act.3 'The hearing in this matter was scheduled for 10 a. in., August 5, 1949. At the ap- pointed time, representatives of the Union were present in the hearing room, but the Petitioner had not appeared. The Union's representatives remained until 10:15 a. M., indicating informally to the hearing officer that they intended to enter a limited appear- ance for the sole purpose of contesting the Board's jurisdiction. At about 10:15 a. in. they asked the hearing officer if the hearing would be opened, and were advised that a reasonable time would be given the Petitioner to appear. They then stated that they could wait no longer, and left the hearing room. The Petitioner's representatives ap- peared about 10 :45 a. in., explaining that they had been delayed because of detours on the road. The hearing proceeded without the Union being represented. Under the circum- stances, we do not believe that the hearing officer abused his discretion in so proceeding. See Matter of Mike Benton, d/b/a General Broadcasting Co., 81 N. L. R. B. 422. 2 79 N. L. R. B. 355. 3 Member Murdock joins in this decision because he feels bound by the majority deci- sion of the Board in Edgar P. Folse, Inc., 86 N. L. R. B., No. 52. That case approves 86 N. L. R. B., No. 69. 512 HOWARD COUNTY LUMBER CO., INC. 513 2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em- ployees 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 Employer requests a unit of truck drivers, helpers, and yard- men. The unit, sought is the same as the one which previously has been bargained for by the Union. Since no valid reason appears to the contrary, we find that the claimed unit is appropriate. We find that all truck drivers, helpers, and yardmen at the Em- ployer's Kokomo, Indiana, plant, excluding clerical employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. 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 as early as possible, but not later than 30 days from the date of this Direction, under the direction and super- vision of the Regional Director for the Region in which this case was heard, and subject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62 of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, among the employees in the unit found appropriate in paragraph numbered 4, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of this Direction of Election, including employees who did not work during said pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation or temporarily laid off, but excluding those employees who have since quit or been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or rein- stated prior to the date of the election, and also excluding employees on strike who are not entitled to reinstatement, to determine whether or not they desire to be represented, for purposes of collective bargain- ing, by International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware- housemen and Helpers of America, Local No. 759, A. F. of L. the assertion of jurisdiction over building material supply dealers who import lumber from out of State, and the refusal to assert jurisdiction over those who import cement, a distinction which Members Murdock and Houston rejected as absurd in their dissent in that case. Under the doctrine of that case the Employer's activities herein would not affect commerce insofar as he imports cement, but in view of the fact that the record indicates that the major product handled is lumber, taking jurisdiction seems appro- priate under the Folse case.