Elberta Crate and Box Co., Inc.

ELBERTA CRATE AND BOX CO., INC. 699 ELBERTA CRATE AND Box Co., INC. and INTERNATIONAL WOODWORKERS or AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER. Case No.10 RC-129. January 97, 1953 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 John Garver, 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 [Chairman Herzog and Members Styles and Peterson]. 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 organization involved claims to represent certain employees of the Employer.2 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 contends that a unit of production and mainte- nance employees at the Employer's wood crate and box manufacturing plant at Bainbridge, Georgia, is appropriate for bargaining purposes. The Petitioner would exclude as supervisors from its proposed unit the plant superintendent, assistant plant superintendent, foreman of the lathe department, foreman of the sawmill, night foreman, dryer operators, and the millwright. The Employer does not directly chal- lenge the status of these employees, but asks the Board to determine their unit placement. The uncontradicted testimony indicates that persons in these categories possess authority responsibly to direct the I After the close of the hearing, and while the case was pending before the Board for decision , the Petitioner filed a motion to reopen the record and to remand the case for further evidence with respect to the status of certain individuals in issue. It appears that the evidence now sought to be introduced was available at the time of the hearing. The motion is therefore denied. 2 At the hearing the Employer contended that it did not know whether the Petitioner and the CIO were labor organizations within the meaning of the Act. The Petitioner, an international labor organization , and the CIO, a confederation of labor unions with which the Petitioner is affiliated , exist for the purpose of dealing with employers on matters relating to wages, hours , and other working conditions on behalf of employees . The Peti- tioner admits the Employer's employees to membership . Accordingly , we find that the Petitioner and the CIO are labor organizations within the meaning of the Act . Peerless X-Ray Laboratories & Manufacturing Corp ., 89 NLRB 1432 ; N. L. R. B. v. Highland Park Mfg. Co., 341 U. S. 322. The Petitioner has not as yet issued any charter to a local union to represent the em- ployees sought . The Employer alleges, in its brief, that the Petitioner is in fact "fronting" for a "noncomplying" local which the employees may join in the future . There is no evidence to support this allegation. The speculative possibility that the Petitioner, if certified , may bargain through a local union to be established in the future does not justify a refusal to proceed with the determination of representatives at this time. Bentwood Products, Inc., 81 NLRB 635. 102 NLRB No. 60. 700 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD work of other employees and to hire and discharge subordinates in their respective departments. Accordingly, we find that they are supervisors as defined in the Act, and we exclude them from the unit. The Petitioner would include the crane operator (vat foreman), 2 sizer machine operators, the lumberyard grader, and 7 wire-bound machine operators. In its brief the Employer contends that they should be excluded from the unit as supervisors. The Petitioner would exclude the Employer's log checker from the unit as an office clerical employee; the Employer would include him as a plant clerical employee. The crane operator (vat foreman) operates a vat loading crane in the lathe department. He is paid at a higher hourly rate than the 8 employees whose work he responsibly directs. He has the authority effectively to recommend the discharge of these 8 employees and has exercised this authority. He also can effectively recommend overtime work for these employees. Under these circumstances, we conclude that the crane operator is a supervisor as defined in the Act 8 and we exclude him from the unit. The 2 sizer machine operators, who work with 9 material handlers in the sizing department, receive their working orders directly from the plant superintendent. Although they are paid at a slightly higher hourly rate than the other employees in the sizing department, the record does not indicate that these operators possess or have exercised any supervisory authority. They primarily transmit instructions given by the plant superintendent, who has the real authority as to discipline and other personnel matters in the sizing department. Un- der these circumstances, we find that the sizer machine operators are not supervisors as defined in the Act,4 and we include them in the unit. The lumberyard grader, with 4 or 5 other stackers, grades, stacks, and places lumber in the plant lumberyard. Although he is paid a few cents more an hour than the other stackers, there is no evidence in the record that he spends any time on personnel matters. He re- ceives his orders from the foreman of the sawmill department and spends most of his time grading lumber and in manual work. He gives instructions rather than responsibily directs. He merely tells the stackers where to pile the graded lumber. Accordingly, we find that he is not a supervisor as defined in the Act,5 and we shall include him in the unit. The 7 wire-bound machine operators work in the wire-bound depart- ment under the supervision of the plant superintendent. Each wire- bound machine has 1 operator and 8 other employees as a crew. The operators start and stop the machines and instruct the crews. They e Kennecott Copper Corporation, 98 NLRB 7S ; Diamond Bros. Company, 96 NLRB 1420. * Wm. Cameron & Co., Inc., 98 NLRB 969. Wm. Cameron & Co., Inc., supra. IOWA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY 701 are paid at a higher hourly rate than the other employees in that department. The record indicates that they possess, and have exer- cised, the authority effectively to recommend the discharge of the crew members. Accordingly, we find that the wire-bound machine operators are supervisors as defined in the Act,e and we exclude them from the unit. The log checker works directly under the supervision of the Em- ployer's office manager and vice president. Although he is hourly paid and works in the plant logyard, he does no manual labor. He checks logs and makes entries of amounts and sizes of logs in a record book which he turns into the office. Inasmuch as his duties are purely clerical in nature and he is under the supervision of-the Employer's office manager, we exclude him from the unit as an office clerical employee.' We find that the following employees constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act: All production and maintenance employees at the Employer's wood crate and box manufacturing plant at Bainbridge, Georgia, includ- ing sizer machine operators and lumberyard grader, but exclud- ing office clerical employees, the log checker, professional employees, guards, watchmen, the plant superintendent, assistant plant super- intendent, foreman of the lathe department, foreman of the saw- mill, night foreman, dryer operators, millwright, crane operator (vat foreman), wire-bound machine operators, and all ' other supervisors as defined in the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this volume.] Diamond Bros. Company, supra. v Granite Textile Mills, Inc., 76 NLRB 613:; John F. McLeod and Eva T. McLeod, Go- partners d/b/a John F. McLeod Veneer Company, 62 NLRB 540. IOWA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 944, PETITIONER. Case No. 18-RC- 1699. January 27,1953 Decision and Direction of Elections Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Max Rotenberg, 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 [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Murdock]. 102 NLRB No. 61.