Lervick Logging Co.

946 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD OLE LERVICK', A. J. LERVICK, M. O. LERVICK AND A. T. LERVICK, D/B/A LERVICK LOGGING COMPANY 1 and EVERETT DISTRICT COUNCIL OF LUMBER AND SAWMILL WORKERS, LOCAL 2631, AFL, PETITIONER. Case No. 19 RC-704. August 2,1951 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 Patrick H. Walker, 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-mem- ber-panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Reynolds]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. '2.. The labor organizations involved claim 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, a . copartnership doing business in the State of Washington, is engaged in logging operations and in the manufac- turing and selling of lumber.. The divisions of the Employer's oper- ations include a logging camp located approximately 13 miles North- east of Sultan, Washington, and a sawmill' situated in Sultan.2 _ The Petitioner seeks to represent employees of the Employer who. are employed in the sawmill division, excluding shingle mill employees,3 office personnel, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. The Intervenor contends that only a unit combining the employees of the sawmill and the logging operations is appropriate. The Employer manifests no preference, but awaits unit determination by the Board. At its logging camp, the Employer presently maintains a crew of 12: employees who rig, fell, and buck trees and load the logs on corn- ' The Employer's name appears as amended at the hearing. 2 The logging or "woods" operation of the Employer has a collective bargaining history of approximately 12 or 13 years , the latest contract being the one presently in existence between the Intervenor , International Woodworkers of America , Local 2-93, CIO and the Employer. However, the record does not disclose any history of collective bargaining for the employees of the sawmill. ' The shingle mill, situated under the same roof as the sawmill , is not now in operation, nor has it been in operation during any portion of 1951. During the year 1950 , however, about $40 ,000 worth of shingles were produced there, and during that period the shingle mill employees were represented under contract by a local of the Carpenters and Joiners, AFL. Although the shingle mill will probably resume operations at some time in the future, the record is quite indefinite as to when this may occur. 95 NLRB No. 107. . LERVICK LOGGING COMPANY -947 pany trucks to be transported either to the situs of the sawmill 13 miles distant from this operation or to other points designated by a vendee or , contracting party4 Though the sequence of the sawmill operations is not disclosed by the record, it appears that .there are now approximately 27 employees 5 engaged in the unloading of logs, the .processing and planing of the lumber , and the storing of the finished product. On January 1, 1950, the Employer purchased . the sawmill as an ad= dition to its logging operations. During that calendar year, however, the sawmill -was in operation for only 3 weeks in May and an addi- tional 4 weeks during the November-December period. The sawmill is now operating at its full capacity and is utilizing a fullcomplement of personnel ; the logging contingent is operating considerably below its normal level with from 20 to 23 percent of a full crew of employees, and there is no clear indication as to when production willbe increased.6 The logging and lumber business, being seasonal in nature, is de- pendent upon weather conditions , ability to procure additional timber footage, and marketability of the logs and lumber . However, these varying factors do not necessarily affect both of the Employer's divi- sions simultaneously because when inclement weather interferes with logging operations , or when timber footage becomes scarce , the saw- .mill subsists on its accumulated supply of logs. The Employer also procures logs on the open market to be processed in the mill. Al- though the Employer maintains a central bookkeeping system for the accounts and payrolls of both operations, they are separately super- vised and there is no interchange of employees between the two. The Company has a vacation plan for logging camp employees which apparently does not extend to the sawmill employees: As it appears that the logging and sawmill operations are conducted to a considerable degree as independent enterprises , are separately supervised, have no interchange of employees, and there has been no recent history of bargaining among the sawmill employees, we find that the` sawmill employees may be appropriately represented sepa- rately from the logging employees.? However, as 'these is some 4In the past, the Employer has engaged in logging on contract basis. Apparently, on such occasions, the logs are taken directly from the logging camp by truck or by the com- bination facilities of truck and river-raft to the site designated by the contracting party. The record also indicates that some of the logs produced are sold on open market. The. complement of employees includes sawyers, green chain pullers, planer. operators, pond man, and other yard workers ; the physical plant is composed of the sawmill structure, a planer mill, pond, storage sheds and yard and powerhouse. Located in the same vicinity as the sawmill is a shop in vv hich the truck foreman and one other employee work and where the trucks are kept and repaired. This shop is considered as a part of the logging operations. " It was testified that even if the logging operations were extended and log production thereby increased, no more employees wou'd be added to the sawmill. 7 Flodin Lumber Company, 82 NLRB 889. 961974-52-vol. 95-61 948 DECISIONS OF. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD integration in that the logging.camp furnishes a portion of the logs used in the sawmill, and as the two operations are subject to common over-all management and control, we further find that a single unit including both the sawmill employees and the logging employees may also be appropriate." Accordingly, we shall make no present determination of the appro priate unit, but shall reserve such finding pending an expression of .the desires .of the employees of the Employer's sawmill; operations.as. revealed in the election which we shall hereinafter direct. If a `majority of the voting group designated below vote for the Intervenor, they will be deemed to have indicated their desire to be represented in a single unit together with the employees of the Employer's logging operations now representing by the Intervenor. If a majority vote for the Petitioner, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to constitute a separate unit. We shall direct that an election by secret ballot be held ;among- the employees in the following voting group : Employees in the Employer's. sawmill operations in Sultan, Wash- ington, including the employees in the sawmill, planing mill, yard, shipping department, boom, and powerhouse, but excluding shingle -mill employees, office personnel, guards, the sawmill foreman, and all other supervisors 9 as defined in the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this volume.] 8 The J. N. Bray Company, 83 NLRB 388. A. question was raised at the hearing as to the supervisory status of Olsen, foreman of the sawmill, and Rode, referred to as the millwright in the sawmill division. As the Employer in effect conceded that . Olsen possesses authority to hire, discharge , and to direct the work of employees under him, we find that he is a supervisor and shall exclude him. The record, however, is insufficient to enable us to make a determination as to Rode's status. If, in fact, he possesses supervisory authority within the meaning of Section 2 ( 11) of the Act, he shall be excluded from the voting group . Otherwise, he shall be included: Chrysler Corporation, 80 NLRB 334; Lalance f Groajean Manufacturing Co., 63 NLRB 130. FITZGERALD MILLS CORPORATION and TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER. Case No. 10-RC-1339. August 2, 1951 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 Jerold B. Sindler, 95 NLRB No. 96. '