Valsetz Lumber Co.

MOUNT EMILY LUMBER COMPANY 501 in the boilerroom and are not needed elsewhere in the plant, assist him in the garage for several hours a day. At that time and because of his greater skill and experience,' he tells these employees what work to perform in the garage. However, he does not assign these employees to the garage or to work elsewhere in the plant. Souligne is paid on a weekly basis 2 but is not the highest-paid employee in the unit and like other employees in the unit, he receives overtime pay, on a sliding-scale basis, for all hours worked in excess of 40. Souligne testified that 2 or 3 weeks before the election herein, the plant manager advised him that he was a foreman and gave him a pay increase, but despite that fact he has continued to perform the same duties. Souligne spends all his time on manual work, does not attend supervisory meet- ings, has never granted overtime or a raise, has never discharged an employee or recommended a layoff, and the record does not show that he otherwise has or exercises the authority of a supervisor as defined in Section 2 (11) of the Act. Under such circumstances we find that Souligne is not a supervisor and shall include him in the unit. Accordingly, the bargaining unit herein found appropriate, and for which the Petitioner was duly certified as the statutory representative, is.hereby clarified so as to include Ray Souligne therein. 1 Souligne has been employed by the Employer for approximately 29 years. 2 We find without controlling effect the fact that Souligne had been paid while absent because of illness in accord with an alleged policy of the Employer to pay supervisors when off duty because of sickness. The record shows that it is customary for the Employer to pay all regular help on the weekly payroll during such periods, and it appears that this payroll is not confined solely to supervisors. Mount Emily Lumber Company, a Division of Valsetz Lumber Company and Lumber and Sawmill Workers, Local Union 2851, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Cage No. 36-110 1300. April 18,1958 DECISION AND ORDER Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Robert J. Wiener, 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-mem- ber panel [Members Rodgers, Jenkins, and Fanning]. 1 The hearing officer referred to the Board ruling on Petitioner 's offer in evidence of an unpublished decision of the Board In a representation proceeding . As Petitioner offers the decision for the purpose of urging the principles of appropriate unit embodied therein, and as the Board takes judicial notice of its own decisions without requiring that they be introduced into evidence and formally proven, we shall not admit the decision offered by Petitioner into evidence but shall consider it a part of Petitioner 's brief and arguments to the Board. 120 NLRB No. 69. 502 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 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 em- ployees 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 Employer operates various sawmills, planers, and lumber re- manufacturing plants and conducts logging operations in the adjoin- ing counties of Union and Wallowa, Oregon. Petitioner seeks to represent the logging department employees who work in Union County but would exclude from the unit those who work in Wallowa County. The Employer contends that only its entire logging depart- ment, which encompasses employees working in woods operations in both counties, constitutes an appropriate unit. The history of collective bargaining for similar operations of the Employer's predecessor indicate the feasibility of the broader unit; for several years prior to the Employer's purchase of these operations, a sister local of Petitioner, now defunct, represented logging em- ployees working in both counties in a single unit. That history of bar- gaining is not controlling, however, in view of the Employer's dis- continuance of logging operations for a time shortly after acquisition of the operations in 1955 and the consequent lapse of collective bar- gaining for logging employees which has continued to the present despite the Employer's resumption of logging operations. Woods operations in each county are directed by a superintendent and crew foremen responsible to the superintendent. In Union County, logging department employees are divided into two crews, a road and a logging crew. Nevertheless, the greater part of the Em- ployer's logging operations-cutting, limbing, bucking, skidding, and transporting timber-in Union County is performed by independent contractors or "gyppos." In Wallowa County in an area approxi- mately 100 miles to the northeast of Union County operations, logging department employees are assigned to a road crew which is principally engaged in the construction of roads for access to more extensive log- ging operations in recently acquired timber. At present, logging op- erations in Wallowa County-apart from right-of-way logging-are conducted entirely through gyppos, although the Employer contem- plates use of its own employees for this purpose in the near future and expects to secure the greater part of its log supply from this area within 5 years. Wallowa County woods and mill employees are carried on a payroll separate from that of Union County mill and woods employees. RA-RICH MANUFACTURING CORPORATION 503 The separate supervision and geographical separation of the woods operations in Union and Wallowa Counties weigh in favor of the unit Petitioner requests. But in almost all other significant aspects of their employment, logging department employees in the two counties have interests in common. Not only are the road-building functions of the Wallowa crew comparable to those of the Union County road crew, but the Wallowa County crew has logged substantial quantities of timber in conjunction with right-of-way clearance. Job classifications and content for the Wallowa County crew are identical or quite similar to those for the Union County crew and carry comparable rates of com- pensation. There is substantial interchange and transfer of both per- sonnel and equipment between woods operations in the 2 counties; some employees shift back and forth between the 2 operations regu- larly and in the spring of 1957 the entire Union road crew was trans- ferred to Wallowa County operations for more than 2 months. The Employer's personnel policies, fringe benefits programs, and work methods are uniform throughout the logging department. On the basis of the above facts and the entire record in this case, we find that the employment interests which all logging department em- ployees have in common outweigh those separate interests which might otherwise warrant exclusion of Wallowa County logging employees from the unit Petitioner seeks. Accordingly we find the unit requested by Petitioner to be inappropriate. As Petitioner does not desire the direction of an election in the broader unit of all employees in the Em- ployer's logging department in both Union and Wallowa Counties which we have found appropriate, we shall dismiss the petition. [The Board dismissed the petition.] Ra-Rich Manufacturing Corporation and Aluminum Metal Al- loys, Aircraft Components & Allied Trades, Local 142, Coopers International Union, AFL-CIO. Case No. 2-CA-518. April 21, 1958 DECISION AND ORDER On October 31, 1957, Trial Examiner John H. Eadie issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative 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 other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and recommended dismissal of those allegations. Thereafter, the General Counsel and the Respondent filed 120 NLRB No. 73.