Brown Wood Preserving Co., Inc.

BROWN WOOD PRESERVING COMPANY, INC. 273 4. Substantially in accord with the agreement of the parties, we find that the: following employees of the Employer at the Louisville, Ken- tucky, plant, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collec- tive bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act: All boiler operators, water plant operators, firemen, coal handlers, and all other employees engaged in the operation of the boiler room, and all production employees such as chemical operators, chemical operators (alcohol), laboratory analysts, laboratory samplers, stores clerks, yard clerks, safety inspectors, and shipping clerks, excluding plant maintenance employees, janitors, crane bulldozers and heavy equipment operators, light truck drivers, office and professional em- ployees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act." [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this volume.] " This is essentially the unit in which the Operating Engineers was previously certified (Carbide and Carbon Chemicals Co)po>ation, 57 NLRB 783) BROWN WOOD PRESERVING COMPANY, INC. and J. A. LEDBETTER, J. A. WALLACE, MARION COPRICH, C. J. WILSON, CECIL NALLS AND ARCHIE WILSON, PETITIONERS and UNITED GAS, COKE AND CHEMICAL WORK- FRS of AMERICA, CIO. Case No. 10-R-92. February 21, 1952 Decision and Direction of Election Upon a petition for decertification duly filed, a hearing was held before Morgan C. Stanford, 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 00 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Styles]. 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 Petitioners, employees of the Employer, assert that the Union is no longer the bargaining representative, within the meaning of ,Section 9 (a) of the Act, of the employees designated in the petition. The Union, a labor organization, was certified on October 24, 1950,1 as the bargaining representative of the Employer's employees involved herein. Case No 10-RC-862 98 NLRB No. 43 274 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 3. We find that a question affecting commerce exists concerning the representation of employees of the Employer, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The appropriate unit: The Petitioners seek a decertification election in a emit composed of all production and maintenance employees, of the Employer at its Brownsville, Alabama, plant, including the woods crew, but excluding section laborers, office-clerical employees, and the usual statutory exclusions. The Employer and the Union are in general agreement as to the unit composition, except that the Employer and the Union would include the section laborers and the Union would exclude the woods crew, The parties are also in disagreement as to the unit placeineiit of certain individuals discussed below. Woods crew: The Employer is engaged in creosoting poles and tim- her at its plant in Brownsville, Alabama. Approximately 50 percent of the poles and timber used are obtained from-the Employer's logging operations presently located approximately 110 miles from the creo- soting plant. The remainder are purchased from independent con- tractors. The logging operations, performed by a woods crew, con- sist of cutting down trees, peeling the bark, and skidding the poles to a loading point where they are trucked to a railhead or to the Employer's plant in Brownsville. The woods crew, like the employees at the plant, are all hourly paid, have the same holiday and vacation plans, are eligible for the same insurance and company housing, are carried on the same payroll, and receive their pay in Brownsville or at the logging operations.2 However, the Employer seeks to recruit most of the woods crew from the vicinity of the, logging operations, and they perform different functions and are under separate immedi- ate supervision. While there have been a few permanent transfers between the woods crew and plant employees, interchange is infrequent.3 No woods crew was employed at the time of the previous election among the employees of the Employer and none participated in the election. There has been no controlling bargaining history .4 While the Board has recognized that logging and plant employees may be grouped in a single unit, it has also held that one or the other group may constitute a separate unit, particularly in the absence of any controlling bargaining history on a broader basis and of a union ' Some of the woods crew pick up the pay of other employees and bring it to them at the logging operations ' Logging operations are curtailed during the summer months at which time the Employer attempts to temporarily place in other jobs as many of the woods crew as possible. 11 No bargaining contract was executed after the certification of the Union in October 1950. Although the record indicates that the Employer bargained with the AFL in 1948 and 1949 concerning both plant employees and woods crew, no contract resulted from that bargaining. BROWN WOOD PRESERVING COMPANY, INC. 275 seeking to represent both groups in one unit.' Under all the circum- stances in the present case, including the remoteness of, the logging operations, the absence of any controlling bargaining history on a broader basis, and of any labor organization seeking to represent the woods crew in a single unit with the plant employees, we shall exclude the Woods crew from the unit.6 Section laborers: These laborers are employed by the Mobile and Gulf Railroad Company, a separate corporation owned and operated by the Employer. The railroad is licensed by the Interstate Com- merce Colmmission, runs for 11 miles from Brownsville to Buhl, Ala- bama, where it connects with the Gulf, Mobile R Ohio Railroad, and hauls materials for other parties as well as the Employer. The sec- tion laborers, who are engaged mainly as laborers in helping to load freight cars and maintaining the right-of-way, are covered by the Railroad Retirement Act and the Railway Labor Act. In accordance with Section 2 (3) of the Act which provides, in part, that the term "employee" shall not include any individual "employed by an employer subject to the Railway Labor Act," we shall exclude the section laborers from the unit.? John W. Brown: The Intervenor contends that this individual should be excluded as a supervisor. - Brown is employed as a carpenter and is occasionally assisted by a helper. There is no evidence that he is vested with or exercises any supervisory authority. We shall include him in the unit as a production and maintenance employee. Accordingly, we find that all production and maintenance em- ployees of the Employer at its operations in Brownsville, Alabama, excluding woods crew, section laborers, office-clerical 11 and profes- sional employees, guards,9 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. Hamilton Bros Logging Co . 89 NLRB 1549. Lightsei/ Brothers, 96 NLRI: No 15) See also, Plywood-Plastics Col poration , 85 NLRB 265, and Plodin Lumber Company, 82 NLRB 889. " In view of the exclusion of the woods crew, we do not pass upon the supervisory status of .T I) Wicker, one of the woods crew personnel 7 _Vo, the, it Redwood Luinbe, Company, 88 NLRB 272 Cline Kendrick, locomotive engineer, F D. Kendrick, conductor and switchman, and Robert Hall, fireman, spend from 21/a to 3 hours on the daily run of the railroad. The remainder of their time is spent working for the Employer. These employees are not under the Jurisdiction of the Railway Labor Act or the Railroad Retirement Act. In accordance with the agreement of the parties , we shall include them in the unit. Northern Redwood Lambe, Company, supra s L R Irigquis does the bookkeeping and clerical work for the Employer and the rail- road In accordance with the agreement of the parties , we shall exclude him as a clerical emt lob ee ' There are three treating engineers and three firemen who act as combination watchmen anil tire'men ' A's they spend approximately 85) percent of their time firing boilers, we shall include them in the unit 276 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 5. The determination of representatives : Theparties. are in digreement as to the voting eligibility of em- ployee Clara Foster. For the past 21/, to 3 years, this employee has regularly worked 1 hour a day cleaning the Employer's office. Like the full-time employees, she is hourly paid, under the same supervi- sion, eligible for the same group insurance, and receives vacation with pay. We find that this employee is a regular part-time employee and eligible to vote in the election hereinafter directed.'° [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this volume.] 10 Poole Dry Coods ,Company, 89 NLRB 1442. CROWLEY'S MILK COMPANY, INC. (PATERSON DIVISION) and MILK DRIVERS AND DAIRY EMPLOYEES LOCAL UNION NUMBER 680, INTER- NATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, AVAREIIOUSE- MEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, A. F. OF L. and UNITED DAIRY WORKERS ASSOCIATION, PARTY TO TIIE CONTRACT. Case No. 2-CA- 327. February 25,1952 Notice to Show Cause On August 8, 1951, the Board issued its Order remanding the above- entitled proceeding to the Division of Trial Examiners to afford the parties an opportunity to adduce further relevant testimony con- cerning the right of reinstatement of certain individuals previously employed in the Respondent's Paterson Division.' On January 11, 1952, the General Counsel moved that the Board's Order of August 8, 1951, be vacated on the grounds that these individuals do not desire reinstatement in the Respondent's employ and will decline to testify many reopened hearing. In further support of his motion, the Gen- eral Counsel has attached thereto a letter from counsel for the charg- ing party joining in the motion to vac; te, for the same reasons advanced by the General Counsel. Please take notice, therefore, that unless on or before March 7, 1952, proper cause to the contrary is shown, the National Labor Relations Board will vacate its Order of August 8, 1951, in this proceeding, and will amend its Decision and Order herein of March 13, 1950,2 by striking from the Order all of subparagraph (b) of paragraph 2, which directs the Respondent to reinstate, upon application, certain of its former employees. MEMBER STYLES took no part in the consideration of the above Notice to Show Cause. 195 NLRB 1023. x 88 NLRB 1069, 1053. 98 NLRB No. 50.