Russian River Redwood Co.

HOLLOW TREE LUMBER COMPANY 493 ployees in group 2, the Board finds that they constitute a separate appropriate unit; and if, in these circumstances the employees in group 2 also select a bargaining agent, the Board finds that the em- ployees in group 2 also constitute an appropriate unit. If the em- ployees in the two groups select the same bargaining agent, the Board finds that together they constitute an appropriate unit. The Regional Director conducting the elections directed herein is instructed to issue a certification of representatives to the union or unions in the unit or units which may result from the election. If either group selects no bargaining agent, the Regional Director shall issue a certificate of results of election to such effect. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this volume.] HOLLOW TREE LUMBER COMPANY ; WILLIAM M. MOORES, W. H. A. SMITH, AND J. GROVES SMITH, D/B/A RUSSIAN RIVER REDWOOD CO.; WILLIAM M. MOORES, W. H. A. SMITH , AND LORENZO D. COURTRIGHT, D/B/A UKIAH VALLEY LUMBER COMPANY and LUMBER & SAWMILL WORKERS, LOCAL No. 2975, UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS & JOINERS OF AMERICA, AFL, PETITIONER. Case No. 2O-RC-1673. March 11,1952 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 David Karasick, 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- member panel [Members Houston, Murdock, 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.' I The Employer moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that the petition was fatally defective because it failed to indicate the date request for recognition was made and that recognition was thereafter refused. The hearing officer referred the motion to the Board. The Employer admitted at the hearing at the Petitioner requested recogni- tion and that such request was refused. Although the petition was technically defective in failing so to state, the Employer has not shown that any prejudice resulted . Accord- ingly, the motion is denied . Petco Corporation-New Orleans Dwision, 98 NLRB 150. 2 For the reasons stated in paragraph numbered 4, we find that the three companies involved herein together constitute a single employer . In view of the totality of their operations , we also find , contrary to the companies' contention , that they are engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act , and that it would effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. Commercial Equipment Company, Inc., et al., 95 NLRB 354; Hollow Tree Lumber Company, 91 NLRB 635. 98 NLRB No. 101. 494 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain employees 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 petitioner seeks to represent a single unit of all production and maintenance employees in the Hollow Tree, Russian River, and Ukiah operations,3 excluding logging employees, office and clerical employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act: The Inter- venor' agrees generally with the unit requested, but would include the logging employees. Although the Employer agrees with the composition of the unit, it contends that there should be separate units of the employees of each company. Hollow Tree, a corporation, is engaged in logging and processing standard lumber on a 15-acre tract of land which adjoins Ukiah and is about 11/,? miles from that of Russian River. Ukiah, a partnership, conducts a custom milling operation on a 5-acre tract of land, retriev- ing mismanufactured or poor lumber and manufacturing lumber to special dimensions or finishes. Russian River, also a partnership, is engaged in the storage and loading of lumber on a 30-acre tract of land. All logs produced at Hollow Tree are cut into standard lengths and widths after which they are hauled by truck to Russian River to be stored and subsequently loaded for shipment by Russian River. Approximately 26 percent of this lumber is sent from Russian River to Ukiah for additional processing after which it is returned to Rus- sian River. During the 3-month period ending December 31, 1951, about 66 percent of Ukiah production was for Hollow Tree. During 1951, approximately 90 percent of Russian River's income for storing and loading of lumber was received from Hollow Tree. William M. Moores, the president, and W. H. A. Smith, the vice president, of Hollow Tree, own the majority of the stock of that company and are the principal partners of Russian River and Ukiah. Although each company has its own manager or superintendent who handles the hire and discharge of employees for that company, over- all supervision of the three companies is vested in Moores. The latter is also the sole representative of the three companies for the purpose of selling their products or services. Over-all policies of the three 8 Hollow Tree Lumber Company, William M. Moores, W. H. A. Smith, and J. Groves Smith , d/b/a Russian River Redwood Co., and William M . Moores, W. H. A. Smith, and Lorenzo D. Courtright , d/b/a Ukiah Valley Lumber Company, are hereinafter referred to individually as Hollow Tree, Russian River, and Ukiah, respectively, and collectively as the Employer. 4 International Woodworkers of America, CIO. HOLLOW TREE LUMBER COMPANY 495 companies, with respect to business operations, are determined together. Wage rates are established by a committee 5 which has set the same minimum wage rates for all three companies. Wage rates for similar jobs in the various operations are comparable, and hours and general conditions of employment are substantially the same for all three. Employees are occasionally interchanged 6 While each company purchases its own supplies and equipment and maintains a separate office staff, all the offices are under the supervision of one supervisor, Courtright, whose salary, and those of all office employees, are paid by Hollow Tree. All general ledger and accounting for the three companies is performed by one employee on the Hollow Tree payroll 7 Although employees are carried on separate payrolls, and are paid by separate checks, all payroll checks, as well as all other checks and receipts for all three companies, are made up and issued by the Hollow Tree office. Income tax records and withholding and social security tax records and forms are also maintained by Hollow Tree. In view of the foregoing, we find, contrary to the contention of the companies, that Hollow Tree, Russian River, and Ukiah are so interdependent as to constitute a single Employer within the meaning of Section 2 (2) of the Act, and that their employees comprise a single appropriate unit for purposes of collective bargaining.8 As previously mentioned, the parties are in disagreement as to the unit placement of logging employees. During the last year, Hollow Tree alone employed a logging crew. However, logging operations ceased in September 1951 and Hollow Tree no longer employs loggers and intends- in the future to secure all logs from independent contractors. Under these circumstances, we shall make no unit determination as to the category of logging employees., We find that the following employees of Hollow Tree, Russian River, and Ukiah, at their operations in Ukiah, California, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act: "The committee is composed of Moores, Smith, and Courtright, who is a stockholder of Hollow Tree and a partner of Ukiah. The superintendent or manager of the particular company involved is also consulted. When an employee is borrowed from another company , the borrowing company is charged for the cost of the services rendered. The employee, however, remains on the payroll of, and is paid by, the lending company, and his vacation and other privileges acquired at the lending company are unimpaired while he is on loan. I Hollow Tree charges a pro rata share for the bookkeeping services rendered to Russian River and Ukiah. 8 See Commercial Equipment Company, Inc., et at., supra ; Florida Jafra Steel Co., et at, 94 NLRB 386. 9 Cities Service Refining Corporation, 94 NLRB 1634. 496 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD All production and maintenance employees, including the planer man,10 but excluding office and clerical employees, guards,'1 and super- visors as defined in the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this volume.] 10 As the planer man is not vested with supervisory authority , we find, in accordance with the agreement of the parties, that he is not a supervisor and shall include him in the unit. 11 Hollow Tree employes three watchmen-cleanup men who perform both guard and non- guard duties . However, the record is not clear as to the exact proportion of time devoted by each employee to these duties. If they devote more than 50 percent of their time to the performance of guard duties , they shall be excluded from the unit ; otherwise, they are to be included. -Cf. The Mountain Copper Company , Ltd., 96 NLRB 1018. PECHEUR LOZENGE CO ., INC. and Luis FEALARCE , GLADYS THIRION, AGNES PIZZARELLI, ALEJANDRA RODRIGUEZ , MARY ROMAN' AND DOROTHY SCHNITZER and `65' THE WHOLESALE , RETAIL AND WARE- HOUSE WORKERS UNION OF NEW YORK. AND NEW JERSEY . Cases Nos. 2-CA-1068 and 2-CA-1607. March 11, 1952 Decision and Order On August 20, 1951, Trial Examiner Charles W. Schneider issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceedings, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) and (5) of the Labor Management Relations Act, as amended, and recommending that the Respondent cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirm- ative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent had not engaged in certain unfair labor practices in violation of Sec- tion 8 (a) (3) of the Act and consequently recommended dismissal of the allegation of the complaint insofar as it alleged such violation. The General Counsel, the charging parties, and the Respondent filed exceptions and supporting briefs.' The Board 2 has considered the Intermediate Report, the excep- tions and briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Exam- I The request of the charging parties for oral argument is denied , inasmuch as the record, including exceptions and briefs, adequately presents the issues and the positions of the parties. 2 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 -member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Murdock and Styles]. 98 NLRB No. 84.