Safrit Lumber Co., Inc.

SAFRIT LUMBER COMPANY, INC. 657 SAFRIT LUMBER COMPANY, INC. and INTERNATIONAL FUR & LEATHER WORKERS UNION OF THE U. S. AND CANADA, PETITIONER. Case No. 11-110-583. February 17,1955 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 Lewis Wolberg, a hearing officer. Thereafter on April 23, 1954, a Decision and Direc- tion of Election' was issued subject to a notice to show cause con- cerning the compliance status of the Petitioner. Pursuant to the notice to show cause, an order dismissing petition in this case was issued on June 1, 1954. Thereafter, on September 13, 1954, the Board issued an order reinstating the petition herein and remanding the proceeding to the Regional Director for the purpose of reopening the record to further data with respect to the Employer and its business. Pursuant thereto, a hearing was held before Robert Cohn, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the original: hearing and at the reopened hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. Since May 1, 1953, the Employer has been engaged in manufactur- ing and retailing lumber at Beaufort, North Carolina. All pur- chases of timber are confined to the State of North Carolina. All lumber shipped out of the State is sold to a wholesaler, South Atlantic Lumber Co., of Greensboro, North Carolina, and is shipped as directed to the customers of the wholesaler. The Employer's sales for the period from May 1, 1953, to January 1, 1954, total $344,254.62. Of this amount, shipments totaling $75,374.55 were sent out of State at the direction of the wholesaler. Actual sales figures for the period from January 1, 1954, to May 1, 1954, were not given at the hearing. A projection of the figures given for the 8-month period over a 12-month period, shows the Employer's annual out-of-State ship- ments to be more than $100,000.2 As the Employer's out-of-State shipments at the direction of its customer meet the indirect outflow test of the Board's recently established jurisdictional standards 2 the 1 108 NLRB 550. 2 See UMW of America, District 2, 96 NLRB 1389, 1390-91. ' See Jonesboro Grain Drying Cooperative, 110 NLRB 481. Member Murdock would find that the Employer 's out-of-State shipments at the direction of its customer constitute direct outflow within the meaning of the jurisdictional standards as set out in the Jonesboro decision. That decision describes the direct outflow standard as applicable to "an enterprise which produces or handles goods and ships such goods out-of-state, or performs services outside the state in which the enterprise is located." 111 NLRB No. 117. 658 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Board finds that it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction over the Employer's operations. 2. The Petitioner is a labor organization which claims to represent certain employees of the Employer. The Petitioner was represented at the first hearing by its Interna- tional representative, John Russell, who also has the title of director of District 5, International Fur & Leather Workers Union of the United States and Canada. Russell stated that no organization sub- ordinate to the Petitioner was involved in this proceeding. He gave testimony, however, concerning District 5 and District Council 5. This testimony reveals that District 5, when first established, func- tioned as a labor organization, holding conferences and conventions, electing its own officers and making its own policies, receiving per cap- ita tax from various local unions which were part of the District, and acting to negotiate contracts and organize workers. District Council 5 was the governing body of the District between yearly conventions, and the Council's officers were, in effect, an executive committee for District 5. The position of district director was filled by appointment by the International president; and the position of secretary-treasurer of the District was filled by election at district conventions. Accord- ing to Russell, however, District 5 went out of existence as a function- ing organization about 1951 or 1952 and is now merely a geographical designation of part of the Petitioner. District Council 5, too, Russell testified, is defunct and met last in 1949 or 1950. The locals in the Dis- trict now pay per capita tax directly to the Petitioner and the Peti- tioner finances District 5. Russell's further testimony shows, however, that the charter issued to District 5 has not been revoked; that an active bank account exists in the name of District 5 on which Russell and Nathaniel Long may execute checks in their respective capacities as director and secretary- treasurer of District 5; that an International representative and or- ganizer is paid by check drawn on the District 5 bank account; that District 5 receives rent for office space which it lets to a local union; that District 5 carries out the policies of the Petitioner as far as or- ganizing or negotiations are concerned ; and that Russell, as Interna- tional representative, continues to organize workers, negotiate con- tracts, and settle grievances for employees, using his title of district director; that Russell uses District 5 letterheads in communciations to employers; and that there have been conferences inside the District since 1949 or 1950 of groups of locals for the purpose of discussing wage negotiations involving the locals. In view of the above, we conclude that District 5 continues to func- tion as a labor organization as it did in its earlier period. We find that District 5 and District Council 5 are the same entity and consti- tute a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the DELTA FINISHING COMPANY 659 Act which is required to comply with the filing provisions of Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) of the Act for the petitioning International to be deemed in full compliance.' The Board is administratively satisfied that District 5 is now in full compliance. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (ii) and (7) of the Act. 4. The Employer is engaged in cutting, buying, processing, and selling lumber. The Petitioner seeks a unit of all maintenance and production employees. Although the Employer stated that it would take no position concerning the appropriate unit, there was agreement between the parties on exclusions from the unit. We find that all main- tenance and production employees at the Employer's lumber opera- tion located at Beaufort, North Carolina, including the wood em- ployees, truckdrivers, caterpillar drivers, firemen, sawyers in the woods, and sawman, but excluding the woods foreman, the officers of the Employer, officer clerical employees, employees of contractors, guards, professional employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (h) of the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] 4 See United Tanner's Inc , 103 NLRB 760 ; Franklin Tannang Company, 104 NLRB 192. DELTA FINISHING COMPANY ( DIVISION OF eJ . P. STEVENS & CO., INC.- PLANT No. 3) and UNITED TEXTILE WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL DELTA FINISHING COMPANY ( DIVISION OF J. P . STEVENS & CO., INC.- PLANT No. 3 ) 1 and TEXTILE WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, CIO. Cases Nos. 11-CA-558 and 11-CA-713. February 18,1955 Decision and Order On May 20, 1954, Trial Examiner Albert P. Wheatley issued his Intermediate Report in Case No. 11-CA-558, finding that the Re- spondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act, and recom- mending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirma- tive action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report at- tached hereto. The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other alleged unfair labor practices and recommended that the complaint be dismissed with respect to such al- legations. Thereafter, the General Counsel and the Respondent 1 The name of the Respondent appears as amended at the hearing. 111 NLRB No. 114. 344056-55-vol. 111--43