Minneapolis and Ontario Paper Co.

In the Matter of NATIONAL POLE AND TREATING DI` isioN, MINNEAPOLIS AND ONTARIO PAPER COMPANY and UNITED FOREMEN'S LOCAL IN- DUSTRIAL UNION No. 1527, C. 1. O. Case No. 19-R-1798.-Decided July 25, 1946 Messrs. D. L. Bright and W. T. Kurt e, of Spokane, Wash., for the Company. Messrs. John Al. Glenn and Charles A. Newton, of Spokane, Wash., for the Union. Mr. Martin T. Cainacho, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon a petition duly filed by United Foremen's Local Industrial Union No. 1527, C. I. O., herein called the Union, alleging that a ques- tion affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation of employees of National Pole and Treating Division, Minneapolis and Ontario Paper Company,' herein called the Company, the National Labor Relations Board provided for an appropriate hearing upon due notice before Erwin A. Peterson, Trial Examiner. The hearing was held at Spokane, Washington, on May 23, 1946. The Company and the Union appeared and participated. All parties were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues. The Trial Exami- ner's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. All parties were afforded opportunity to file briefs with the Board. Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY The Company is a corporation having its principal office at Min- neapolis, Minnesota. It is engaged in the process of wood preserving 1 At the hearing the Company's name was corrected. 69 N. L. R. B., No. 113. 942 MINNEAPOLIS AND ONTARIO PAPER COMPANY 943 such as treating of ties and poles with oil and creosote. It operates a, plant at Minnesota Transfer, Minnesota, and a plant at Hillyard, Washington. At the Hillyard plant with which the present proceed- ing is concerned, there are approximately 80 persons employed. The Company annually uses between 300,000 and 400,000 cubic feet of timber, lumber, ties, etc., approximately 50 percent of which originates outside of the State of Washington. In its treating processes it uses approximately 122,000 gallons of creosote all of which originates out- side of the State of Washington, and in excess of 100,000 gallons of oil per month. Approximately 60 percent to 75 percent of the treated and finished products is shipped to points outside the State of Washington. The Company admits, and we find, that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED United Foremen's Local Industrial Union No. 1527 is a labor organ- ization, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, ad- mitting to membership employees of the Company. III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION On or about January 1946, the Union notified the Company that it represented the majority of its supervisory employees and desired recognition as their exclusive bargaining representative. The Company refused to grant recognition to the Union as the exclusive bargaining representative of its supervisory employees in the unit hereinafter found appropriate, until the Union has been duly certified by the Board. 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 Act. IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT The Union seeks a unit of all supervisory employees of the Company with the exclusion of those employees above the rank of foreman such as the plant superintendent and all other employees. There is no dispute as to the general appropriateness of the unit. At present the Company employs three foremen, two working fore- men, and a treating engineer. Both parties agree that the foremen, namely, Fred Stemple, Bert Sims, and Frank Bernier, are within the proposed unit. These men devote all their time to supervision, are paid monthly, have supervision over distinct groups of employees 944 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD and through the superintendent have effective power to recommend disciplinary action and discharge. There is considerable dispute, however, as to the status of three other employees, the Union contending that they should be included in the proposed unit and the Company opposing their inclusion on the ground that they are not supervisors. These employees are Wal- ter Linger, Earl Weaver, and Paul Culver. Walter Liniger is a working foreman in charge of the tie handling crew with five to six men under his supervision. He is hourly paid but receives a wage differential of 25 cents an hour over and above what the men in his crew receive. Approximately 60 percent of his time is spent with his men doing exactly the same work as they do. He has authority to hire new employees and to effect the transfer of employees under his charge although all proposed discharges or disciplinary action are referred to the plant superintendent for effective disposition. From the foregoing facts it is apparent that Liniger is a supervisory em- ployee within the Board's usual definition. Accordingly, we will include him in the unit. Earl Weaver is a working foreman having complete supervision over a number of men varying from 3 to 11. He is hourly paid, re- ceiving 5 cents an hour more than the men in his crew. He devotes between 20 to 25 percent of his time doing exactly the same work as the members of his crew and the remainder of his time he devotes to planning his work and supervising his men. He has discharged 1 man and has given 3 weeks' leave of absence to another. The men under him are considered extra men and Weaver is regularly called upon by other foremen for manpower. In these instances Weaver selects the men he considers best suited for the work involved and sends them along where they are needed. Despite its denial of Weaver's super- visory status the Company, on or about September 1945, posted a notice in its plant advising its employees that Weaver was a foreman. Weaver thereupon withdrew from membership in Local 10-100, Inter- national Woodworkers of America, CIO, the union which represents the Company's rank and file employees.2 We are of the opinion that Weaver properly falls within the unit sought and shall also include him. On the other hand, Paul Culver does not appear to have any super- visory authority. Prior to April 17, 1946, he was a treating engineer or retort operator. On this date he was assigned to his present duties, which are essentially clerical in their nature. He keeps records of the treating processes, the wood products treated, the creosote that comes into the plant, the amounts used, and maintains an inventory of all ' The IWA also offered Liniger a withdrawal card because it regarded him as a foreman. MINNEAPOLIS AND ONTARIO PAPER COMPANY 945 materials on hand. He also makes sample analyses of the creosote, so as to determine its specific gravity, temperature, and quality. He checks the work of the treating engineers, approximately three in number, and he directs their attention to any errors observed with sug- gestions for corrective measures. However, he exercises no disciplin- ary authority over the engineers, and has no authority to effectively recommend a change in their status. Both he and the treating engi- neers are under the direct supervision of the plant superintendent, and he receives the same hourly rate of pay as the treating engineers. It is clear that he cannot be considered as a supervisor within the Board's usual definition, and accordingly, we shall exclude him from the-unit. We find that supervisory employees at the Company's Hillyard plant, excluding those above the rank of foreman, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the mean- ing of Section 9 (b) of the Act.3 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 employees in the appropriate unit who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of the Direction of Election herein, subject to the limitations and additions set forth in the 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- tions Act, and pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3, as amended, it is hereby DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representa- tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with National Pole and Treating Division , Minneapolis and Ontario Paper Company, Spokane, Washington , 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 Nineteenth Region, acting in this matter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject to Article III, Sections 10 and 11, of said Rules and Regulations , among employees in the unit found appropriate in Section IV, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of this s See Matter of Packard Motor Car Company, 61 N. L. R. B. 4 ; 64 N. L. R. B. 1212; Matter of Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation, Vesta-Shannopin Coal Division, 66 N. L. It. B. . 86; Matter of The Tevas Company, 67 N. L. It. B. 452. 701592-47-vol. 6 9- -61 946 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 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 those employees who have since quit or been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or reinstated prior to the date of the election, to determine whether or not they desire to be represented by United Foremen's Local Industrial Union No. 1527, C. 1. 0., for the purposes of collective bargaining. MR. GERARD D. REILLY, dissenting : For reasons stated in my dissenting opinions in Matter of Packard Motor Car Company 4 and Matter of Jones cC Laughlin Steel Corpora- tion, Vesta-Shawnopin Coal Division,SI am constrained to dissent from the majority opinion in this case. 4 61 N. L. R. B. 4. °66N.L. R.B.386.