Brookings Plywood Corp.

794 DECISIONS .OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD .my colleagues, to the virtues of clean elections under proper laboratory conditions, 'but I- do not regard the Employer's conduct, looked at in the worst possible light, as more than a trivial dereliction. I am not .convinced on the facts before us 'that the Employer even intended to deceive its employees in order to gain an advantage in the election. 'In any event, I find it impossible to believe that the flimsy transgression attributed to the Employer so altered the atmosphere as' to spoil the ideal laboratory conditions and warrant setting aside the election. I would overrule the Petitioner's objections and dismiss the petition 'herein. CHAIRMAN HERZOG took no part in the consideration of the above Supplemental Decision and Order. BROOKINGS PLYWOOD CORPORATION and UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA, AFL 1 AND INTERNATIONAL WOODWORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO,2 PETITIONERS. Cases Nos. 36-RC-723 and 36-RC-727. March 21,19M Decision and Direction of Elections Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing 3 was held before E. G. Strumpf, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are ,free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed 4 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. 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 is engaged in logging and the manufacture of plywood and lumber in the State of Oregon. It conducts logging I Herein called the AFL. 2 Herein called the CIO. 8 The petitions in these cases were consolidated for purposes of hearing by an order of the Regional Director , dated January 14, 1952. 4 In view of our discussion and findings , paragraph numbered 4, we find it unnecessary to pass on the Employer's motion for a direction of election in a unit of all employees. 98 NLRB No. 131. BROOKINGS PLYWOOD CORPORATION 795 operations at a site approximately 15 miles distant from the city of Brookings where its plywood plant and sawmill are located. Also located at Brookings is the log pond, into which the logs trans- ported from the logging site are placed, the planing mill, truck ,maintenance shop, machine shop, and the powerhouse.5 The AFL seeks a unit of all production, maintenance, and trans- portation employees, employed in the sawmill, planing mill, logging ,woods, and log trucking operations, excluding all office and clerical employees, and all employee-owners of common stock in the company. The CIO requests a unit of all production, transportation, and main- tenance employees engaged in the logging and log transporting opera- tions, excluding office and clerical employees, and all employee-owners of common stock in the company. The Employer disagrees with both of the above unit requests, and contends that the appropriate unit is one of all employees of the Com- pany, including stockholders, and excluding only supervisors and clerical employees at its headquarters office. As of the hearing date, a total of 211 nonsupervisory employees were engaged in the Employer's operations. The logging operation, con- sisting of felling and cutting the trees and transporting the logs by truck to the log pond in Brookings, had 38 employees. The employees of the truck shop, who maintain and repair the Diesel and gasoline- powered trucks and other automotive equipment used in the logging work and at the mill, numbered 4. Sawmill and planing mill em- ployes numbered 40; plywood plant employees, 117. The main machine shop, which serves as the repair and maintenance center for the nonautomptive equipment at the mill site, had 6 employees. The pond crew, whose work it is to sort the logs, cut them to proper size, and feed them to the sawmill and plywood plant, numbered 6 6 The petitions in this case pose the question of whether the Employ- er's operations are of the type which the Board, in the Weyerhaeuser case,7 found to be so integrated and interdependent that only an over- all unit was appropriate, or whether there is a sufficient degree of separation and nonintegration of the logging operations and the mill operations to warrant finding separate appropriate units." - The record indicates that the work classifications, functions, and duties of the logging crew are different from those of the sawmill and plywood plant employees. Although the Employer stated that log- 5 As the powerhouse was to have been placed in operation 1 week from the date of the hearing, our discussion herein assumes that it is operating at the present time. There is no evidence in the record as to the number of employees who will work in the powerhouse. ' Weyerhaeuser Timber company, 87 NLRB 1076. 8 Hamilton Bros. Logging Co., 89 NLRB 1549, and the cases cited therein ; see also Lervick Logging Company, 95 NLRB 946 796 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ging employees would be given work in the mill in the event logging operations were shut down, there is evidence in the record that such practice has not been followed. Morever, it was admitted by the Employer that work assignments in all portions of its operation are relatively permanent. The supervisory hierarchy of the Employer is headed by the plant ,manager. Reporting to the plant manager, and in charge of all log- ging employees, is the woods foreman who is assisted by the bull buck. The plant superintendent, who is in charge of the maintenance work and the powerhouse, also reports to the manager, as do the machine shop foreman, the sawmill-planing mill superintendent, the plywood plant superintendent, and the log buyer. Virtually independent hir- ing arrangements exist as each head supervisor does the hiring for his respective operation. The record in this case discloses a certain degree of the integration which normally exists in lumbering operations of this type. The production processes, beginning with the felling of the trees and con- cluding with the manufacture of plywood and finished lumber, are continuous .9 However, the fact that the Employer's logging operation does not now supply all of its timber needs thereby necessitating the purchase of logs in the open market, vitiates to a considerable degree the factor of interdependence of operations on which the. Employer relies to support its over-all unit claim 10 Therefore, though the record contains support for the Employer's contention that all its employees could appropriately be included in a single bargaining unit,h1 in the absence of any collective bargaining history among these employees, and because the record contains evidence of separate supervision, negligible interchange between the groups of logging and mill employ- ees, and independent hiring arrangements for each group, we believe that the logging employees and milling employees may also appropri- ately function as separate units.12 With respect to the truck shop employees, whom the CIO would include in the logging unit, the record shows that these employees spend most of their time repairing, maintaining, and servicing the trucks and other automotive equipment used in the logging operations. Truck shop mechanics often go to the logging site to perform repairs. Log hauling equipment is garaged at the truck shop where the logging drivers pick up their trucks each morning. The logging crew assem- 9 Weyerhaeuser Timber Company, supra. 10 Though the Employer , at the hearing, asserted that it does not intend to expand its logging operations and that independent logging contractors will , in the future, be engaged to harvest its timber, there is no certain evidence that the present logging operation will, in the near future, be discontinued. 11 Weyerhaeuser Timber Company, supra. 12 Hamilton Bros. Logging Co ., supra. BROOKINGS PLYWOOD CORPORATION 797 bles daily in the truck shop area and waits for transportation to the logging site. Although truck shop mechanics perform some repair work on automotive equipment used in the mill, this work appears to constitute only a very minor part of their total working time. The mechanics employed in the main machine shop and in the sawmill do not perform the type of work done by the truck shop mechanics. In this connection, the Employer testified that the latter are more special- ized than the mill maintenance men. The contact between the two groups of mechanics appears to be of minimal nature. Upon the above facts, we believe that the interests of the truck shop employees are more closely allied with the logging employees than with the mill employees. Accordingly, we shall include them in the same voting group with the logging employees. The AFL unit request, which encompasses the employees at the saw- mill, planing mill, logging woods, and log trucking operations, does not include the log pond crew, the machine shop and powerhouse employees, and the plywood plant employees. With respect to the last-named group, if the stockholder employees are excluded in accord- ance with the desires of the AFL, the AFL contends that because 113 of the 117 nonsupervisory employees are stockholders, an election in the plywood plant among the 4 nonstockholders would be untimely in view of the expected increase in the number of nonstockholder employ- ees. The contention of the AFL with respect to the untimeliness of an election among the nonstockholder employees of the plywood plant is, in our opinion, without merit, because under the facts in this case, particularly in view of the integration of the Employer's mill opera- tion, the plywood plant could not by itself constitute an appropriate unit 13 Therefore, even though we exclude stockholders from the voting groups, the remaining plywood plant employees, being em-, ployed in an integral part of the mill (or over-all) unit, should not be deprived of their rights to union representation. As we have shown above, the nature of the Employer's operations supports the establish- ment of either separate units of logging and mill employees or an over-all unit of production, maintenance, and transportation employ- ees. Although the AFL's unit request does not correspond to any of these units, it encompasses the major part of the over-all unit. Be- cause it appears that the AFL has an adequate showing of interest in this over-all unit, excluding stockholder employees, we shall in accord- ance with the alternative request of the AFL, treat the petition as one requesting the over-all unit.14 We shall, therefore, also direct an election among the mill employees, excluding the clerical employees at the Employer's headquarters office. 13 See footnotes 7 and 8. It Emhart Manufacturing Company, 96.NLRB 375. 798 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 0 In their unit requests, both Petitioners asked that stockholder- employees be excluded from any unit found appropriate. The Em- ployer, however, would include such employees who are owners of the Company's common stock. The Brookings Plywood Corporation was organized on February 15, 1951. Its common capital stock is divided into 250 shares with a par value of $5,000 per share. At the date of the hearing, there were 242' stockholders, of whom 118 were employed in nonsupervisory posi- tions by the Company.15 Under the articles of incorporation, no one stockholder may own more than 1 share of common stock. With respect to the rights and duties of stockholders, the bylaws of the Company provide that : The employment policy of the company shall be one under which, all things being equal, stockholders shall have preferential employment rights; in the event a stockholder is discharged, he shall have the right within 72 hours thereafter to appeal to the Board of Directors; the basic wage scales of non-supervisory stockholders shall be uniform and shall be determined by the Board of Directors; no share of stock shall be sold 'unless first offered to the company, and only if the company refuses to pur- chase the share can it be sold to another person, but such sale is subject to the approval of the Board of Directors; stockholders shall elect directors who shall, manage the affairs of the company and elect all officers; in the event 13 months lapse without the holding of an annual stockholders' meeting, any stockholder may call such meeting; all directors must be and remain stock- holders during their terms of office. The Board, in prior cases, has adhered to the principle that mere ownership of stock in a corporation does not preclude the inclusion of a stockholder in a collective bargaining unit of the corporation's employees unless the employee-stockholder's interest is of such nature as to give him an effective voice in the formulation and determination of corporate policy 16 While it may be argued in this case that since each stockholder has only 1/250 of all the votes the probability of his having an effective voice in the making of corporate policy is small, nonetheless, 113 of the 117 employees in the plywood plant are stock- holders. That such a large homogeneous group of stockholders may influence management policies is not a remote possibility in this case. Furthermore, as shown above, each stockholder has certain powers which enable him to affect the operations of the corporation. "The nonsupervisory stockholder employees are' located as follows : 4 in the logging crew, 1 In the sawmill , and 113 in the plywood plant. The Employer conceded that the most desirable jobs were in the plywood plant. 10 Muskogee Dairy Products Co., 85 NLRB 520; Mutual Rough Hat Company, 86 NLRB 440; Aiderwood Products Corporation, 81 NLRB 186. BROOKINGS PLYWOOD . CORPORATION 799 The fact that the most desirable jobs in the Employer's operation are held by stockholders and the evidence in the record that at least one nonstockholder was "bumped" from a desirable job by a stock- holder, serve to demonstrate one aspect wherein the employment interests of the nonstockholder-employees and those of the stockholder- employees are divergent. This divergency of employment interests is also illustrated by the uniform wage rate policy for stockholder 17 and by the existence of the separate grievance procedure for stock- holders. Though to date there has been no distribution of profits, we recognize that stockholders, who are interested in maximizing profits, would favor minimizing costs, including that of the nonstockholder labor, whereas the representative of the latter would constantly seek to obtain higher wages for its members. Under all these circum- stances, we shall exclude the stockholder-employees from the voting groups hereinafter found appropriate. We shall direct elections among the employees at the Employer's Brookings, Oregon, plant and logging operations, in the following voting groups : 1. All production, transportation, and maintenance employees engaged in the logging operations of the Employer, in and about Brookings, Oregon, including truck shop employees, but excluding the bull buck, the woods foreman, all stockholder-employees, all other employees, guards, and all other supervisors as defined in the Act. 2. All production and maintenance employees employed at the Employer's Brookings, Oregon, plant, including the log pond crew, powerhouse employees, sawmill and planing mill employees, plywood plant employees, machine shop employees, but excluding truck shop employees, all stockholder-employees, office and clerical employees; guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. We shall make no final unit determination at this time, but shall first ascertain the desires of these employees as expressed in the elec- tions hereinafter directed. • If the employees in group 1 select a bar- gaining representative different from that selected by the employees 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 employees in group 2 also constitute an appropriate unit. If the employees 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 17 The uniform rate for nonsupervisory' stockholder-employees is $2.25 per hour. The Employer testified that there may be some non stockholder -employees receiving as low as $1.75 per hour. 800 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD result from the election?$ 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 Elections omitted from publication in this volume.] 18 Although the AFL has petitioned for an over -all unit, in the event group 1 votes for the CIO and group 2 votes for the AFL , the latter will be certified as the bargaining repre- sentative for group 2 unless it informs the Regional Director that it does not wish to repre- sent the employees of group 2 alone. AMERICAN SEATING COMPANY and PATTERN MAKERS LEAGUE OF NORTH AMERICA, GRAND RAPIDS ASSOCIATION, AFL, PETITIONER. Case No. 7-RC-1485. March 24,1952 Decision and Order Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Emil C. Farkas, 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 Aut, 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. 2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain employees of the Employer.' 3. No 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, for the following reasons : The Petitioner seeks to sever the Employer's patternmakers from the existing production and maintenance unit represented by the In- tervenor. The Employer asserts its current contract with the Inter- venor, signed July 1, 1950, and effective from that date, as a bar to this proceeding. The Petitioner contends that the contract is not a bar because it is of indefinite duration. With respect to this contention, it is clear that the contract is not for an indefinite term, but for a 3- year period with provision for automatic renewal thereafter on a yearly basis in the absence of a valid termination notice from either party. As the record fails to establish that contracts for 3-year terms are customary in the seating industry, of which the Employer is a part, IIntervention was granted to International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW-CIO, herein called the Intervenor. 98 NLRB No. 123.