J. H. Baxter and Co.

682 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD cally, it alleges that Ryal exercises direct supervision over all organi- zational activities within his region, examines all contracts negotiated within the region, negotiates disputes with grievance committees, and approves all contracts negotiated by local union officers. But, as we have indicated previously, the Board has specifically rejected the functional test as a basis for determining who are a union's officers. As the constitution does not designate regional directors as officers, we find that they are not required to file Section 9 (h) affidavits. This is so even though other regional directors have seen fit volun- tarily to file such affidavits. Accordingly, we find that the Union at all material times has been in compliance with Section 9 (h) of the Act and that no sufficient cause has been shown to warrant a hearing to redetermine the com- pliance status of Boot and Shoe Workers' Union, AFL-CIO. We therefore deny the Petitioner's petition. J. H. Baxter and Company and International Woodworkers of America, AFL--CIO, Petitioner , J. H. Baxter and Company and International Brotherhood of Firemen & Oilers Local 193, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Cases Nos. 19-RC-1919 and 19-RC-1968. July P0, 1957 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before Rachel Stover, 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 Rodgers, Murdock, and Jenkins]. 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. Questions affecting commerce exist concerning the representation of employees of the Employer, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) -of the Act. 4. The International Woodworkers of America, AFL-CIO, herein called the Woodworkers, the Petitioner in Case No., 19-RC-1949, seeks Ilster11ationa1 Union of Operating Engineers, Local No. 843, AFL-CIO, herein called Engineers, intervened in both cases on the basis of an adequate showing of :interest. Lumber and Sawmill Workers Union, Local 2519, AFL-CIO, herein called Sawmill Work- ers, intervened in Case .No. 19-RC-1949 on the basis of a contractual interest. 118 NLRB No. 72. J. H. BAXTER AND COMPANY 683 to represent a unit of all production and maintenance employees em- ployed at the Employer's pole treating plant, located in Quendall, Washington. The International Brotherhood of Firemen and Oilers, Local 193, AFL-CIO, herein called Firemen, the Petitioner in Case No. 19-RC-1968, seeks to sever from the existing production and maintenance unit a unit of all treating engineers and maintenance employees, or in the alternative, a unit of all treating engineers. The Engineers, in agreement with the Firemen, favor severance of a unit of all treating engineers and maintenance employees, or in the alternative a unit of all treating engineers, but if the Board denies severance, wish to appear on the ballot in an election of all production and maintenance employees. The Sawmill Workers, the Woodwork- ers, and the Employer moved to dismiss the petition in Case No. 19-RC-1968, which seeks severance, on the ground that the Employer's operations fall within the "primary lumber industry" within the meaning of the Weyerhaeuser doctrine? The Employer purchases raw logs and processes them into various kinds of utility poles and piling. Some of the poles are received with the bark on them and have to be debarked. The processing of poles consists of trimming them to size with chain saws, cutting into them and drilling holes for yard arms and impregnating about one-third of them with creosote or a preservative, by one of two methods, either the open tank method (also referred to as butt-treating) or the retort method (also referred to as pressure chamber methods). The remaining two-thirds of the poles are stored in an open area for drying. The Weyerhaeuser case, as well as in the other cases .in which the Board found the employers engaged in the "primary lumber industry," such employers were principally in the business of cutting trees and proc- essing logs into finished lumber. However, the primary business of the Employer in the instant case is the processing of logs, purchased from various suppliers into utility poles and piling; unlike the em- ployer in Weyerhaeuser and similar employers, it is not engaged in the production and manufacture of lumber in logging and sawmill operations. As the Board found in Burke 11104vork Co. Inc., 100 NLRB 522, the two types of enterprises are clearly distinguishable. We therefore hold, for the reasons stated in the Burke case, that this Employer is not engaged in the portion of the "lumber industry" to which the Weyerhaeuser doctrine is applicable. Apart from the above considerations, the Employer, the Sawmill Workers, and the Woodworkers contend that the treating engineers and maintenance employees, or the treating engineers alone, do not constitute a unit appropriate for severance purposes. The Employer employs four treating engineers who perform functions usually performed by boilerroom or powerhouse employees. 2 Weyerhaeuser Timber Company, 87 NLRB 1076. 684 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD These employees tend and maintain boilers and boilerrooin equip- ment, they also tend the butt treating tanks and retort. The Employer employs a relief engineer who works one shift a week as a treating engineer and the remainder of his time as a production employee.. The Employer employs two maintenance employees who repair and maintain trucks, cranes, tugboats, chain saws, and buildings. Occa- sionally, they assist the treating engineers repairing the boilerroom or treating equipment. The treating engineers are under supervision different from those of the other employees; are the highest paid employees; and work round-the-clock in 8-hour shifts. The remaining employees work on an 81/2-hour day shift only with a half hour off for lunch. It is clear from the record that the primary unit sought to be severed by the Firemen and Engineers constitutes a hetero- geneous grouping of employees with differing skills who do not meet the criteria established for severance in American Potash d Chemical Corporation.' Accordingly, we find that this unit is inappropriate for severance purposes.' However, in the alternative, the Firemen and Engineers would sever from the existing unit the treating engineers alone. The treating engineers divide their time between the boiler- room and treating area. The boilerroom is located in a partitioned section of the building which houses the lunchroom. The treating area, encompassing the butt treating plant and retort, is located about 100 - -feet from the boilerroom. The boilerroom furnishes heat and pressure for the treating processes. At the boilerroom the treating engineers tend and maintain the boilers, checking temperatures, pressures, and. water level. They also test the water, perform minor repairs, and blow out the boilers. At the treating area, they charge the butt treat- ing tanks and retort with creosote or other preservative, open and close valves, and check temperature and pressures. Although the Employer's witness testified that it is not a requisite that the treat- ing engineers possess a license, the record shows that with the possible exception of one, they have at least third-grade licenses. Moreover,. the treating engineers do not interchange with any other employees. Accordingly, as the treating engineers perform functions normally performed by boilerroom or powerhouse employees, to whom the Board customarily permits severance from an existing plan twide unit as a functionally distinct group entitled to separate representation, and as the Firemen and Engineers, respectively, are affiliated with In- ternational Unions which traditionally represent such employees, we find that the treating engineers may constitute a separate appropriate unit, if they so desire.' The motions by the Sawmill Workers, the Woodworkers, and the Employer for the dismissal of the petition in -3107 NLRB 1418. 4 United States Smelting, Refining and Mining Company, 116 NLRB 661, 663. 13 otany Mills, Inc.,. 115 NLRB 1497 ; North American Aviation, Inc., 115 NLRB 1090. GRAND UNION CO. 685 Case No. 19-RC-1968 is therefore denied. As the relief treating en- gineer works only one shift a week as a treating engineer and the re- mainder of the time as a production employee, we find his interests are more closely allied with those of the production and maintenance employees, and shall include him in the production and maintenance unit. Accordingly, we shall direct an election in the following voting groups of employees employed at the Employer's Quendall, Washing- % ton, pole treating plant : A. All treating engineers, excluding all other employees, the relief treating engineer, maintenance employees, office clerical employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. B. All production and maintenance employees, excluding treating engineers, office clerical employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. If a majority of the employees in voting group A select either of the labor organizations seeking to represent them separately, those employees will be taken to have indicated their desire to constitute a separate bargaining unit, which the Board, under these circumstances, finds to be appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining and the Regional Director conducting the election is instructed to issue a cer- tification of representatives to the labor organization seeking such unit. On the other hand, if a majority of the employees in voting group A do not vote for one of the labor organizations seeking to represent them in a separate unit, that group will appropriately be included in the production and maintenance unit and their votes will be pooled with those in voting group B,e and the Regional Director conducting the election is instructed to issue a certification of representatives to the labor organization selected by a majority of employees in the pooled group, which the Board, in such circumstances, finds to be a single appropriate unit for purposes of collective bargaining. [Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.] 0 If the votes are pooled they are to be tallied in the following manner : The votes for the union seeking a separate unit shall be counted as valid votes , but neither for nor against any union seeking to represent the more comprehensive unit; all other votes are to be accorded their face value whether for representation in a union seeking the comprehensive group or for no union. Grand Union Co. and Robert E. Gray, Petitioner. Case No. 2-RC- 8620. July 12,1957 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 Samuel Korenblatt, 118 NLRB No. 83.