Inyo Lumber Co. of California

INYO LUMBER COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA 79 therein, and shift employees from one job to another for the purpose of speeding up the work or allocating work priorities. They spot check the work of employees in their divisions for accuracy, answer their questions, and instruct them in their duties. A minor portion of the division heads' time is spent in personally handling unusual cases. They are responsible for the maintenance of discipline in their divi- sions, and administer verbal reprimands for improper conduct. In addition, they make effective recommendations to their department head as to whether probationary employees are to be retained on a permanent basis, and are paid substantially more than any of the employees in their divisions. In view of the fact that the authority exercised by the above-named division heads in directing the work of their divisions is not of merely routine or clerical nature but requires the use of independent judg- ment,' as they have the authority to make effective recommendations, and on the record as a whole, we find that they are supervisors within the meaning of Section 2(11) of the Act. We shall, therefore, ex- clude them from the certified unit. [The Board clarified the certification by specifically excluding, in the description of the appropriate unit, the following classifications : In the insurance membership department-supervisor, insurance re- ceiving division; chief, insurance adjustment division; supervisor, new insurance applications processing division; supervisor, filing di- vision; and supervisor, benefit certificate issuing division; in the tabulating department-head, keypunch division.] G Sears, Roebuck and Company, 127 NLRB 582; Mt. Clements Metal Products Company, 126 NLRB 1297, footnote 4. Inyo Lumber Company of California 1 and General Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers Union , Local 982, Petitioner Inyo Lumber Company of California and Eastern Sierra Timber Workers Association, Petitioner and Lumber and Saw Mill Workers Union, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America? Cases Nos. 20-RC-4204 and 920-RC-4234. Septem- ber 20, 1960 DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the Na- tional Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before 1 The Employer's name appears as amended at the hearing. 9 Lumber and Saw Mill Workers Union, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, herein called Carpenters, was permitted to Intervene at the hearing on the basis of a separate showing of interest. 129 NLRB No. 13. :80 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Harry C. Kessel, 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 National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with these cases to a three-member panel [Chairman Leedom and Members .Jenkins and Fanning]. Upon the entire record in these cases, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. At the hearing the Petitioner in Case No. 20-RC-4204, General Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers Union, Local 982, herein called Teamsters, and the Carpenters, Intervenor in Case No. 20-RC-4234, asserted that Eastern Sierra Timber Workers Associa- tion, herein called the Association, the Petitioner in Case No. 20-RC- 4234, is not a labor organization because it elected its officers in a manner contrary to Title IV of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 and has failed to file any of the reports required of labor organizations under Title II of said Act. We find no merit in this contention. The Association, an organization not affiliated with any labor organization, with 73 members among the Employer's employees, was formed to obtain better working conditions for em- ployees. By letter dated April 1, 1960, the Association notified the Employer that it desired to be recognized as an organization of em- ployees, but no meetings have as yet been held with the Employer, nor are any scheduled. In this connection, the Board is concerned only with whether an organization falls within the definition of a labor organization in Section 2(5) of the Act.' Any question as to the alleged illegality of the establishment of a labor organization is an internal union matter and does not necessarily affect the capacity of the organization to act as a bargaining representative.' Neither the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 nor the Labor Management Relations Act, as amended at the same time, re- quires compliance with any of the requirements of the former Act as a condition precedent to the filing of a petition 5 And, recently, we held that the Board is not the proper forum in which parties may litigate issues arising under Section 304(e) of Title III of the Labor- Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959.6 As the Associa- tion is an organization admitting employees to membership and existing for the purposes of dealing with the Employer on matters relating to working conditions, we find that the Association is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. We Terminal System, Inc., at at., 127 NLRB 979 Silvino Gianna8ca, d/b/a Imperial Reed & Rattan Furniture Co., 117 NLRB 495. e The Wright Line, Inc, 127 NLRB 849. e Terminal System, Inc., et at., supra, footnote 3 INYO LUMBER COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA 81 further find that the labor organizations involved claim to represent certain employees of the Employer. 3. For the reasons indicated below, a question affecting commerce exists 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 in Case No. 20-RC-4234; and no such question exists in Case No. 20-RC-4204. 4. In Case No. 20-RC--4204, the Teamsters seeks a unit confined to truckdrivers, including so-called logging truckdrivers and line- haul truckdrivers. In Case No. 20-RC-4234, the Association seeks a unit consisting of all production and maintenance employees, in- cluding therein all truckdrivers. As to the unit question, the Em- ployer agrees with the Association while the Carpenters agrees with the Teamsters. The Employer is engaged in cutting timber in a radius of 75 miles from its sawmill near Bishop, California, and in processing logs into merchantable lumber, of which a portion is used in its own box factory for the manufacture of box shook. It utilizes its own employees and company-owned equipment to ship its products to points in California and Nevada. It has approximately 115 employees, including 12 super- visors, who work in the logging operation, sawmill, box factory, maintenance shop, and yard, and as drivers of logging and line-haul trucks. There are nine drivers, of whom five work in the woods department driving logging trucks on the Employer's premises and four are line-haul drivers who transport the finished products from the Employer's mill to points designated by customers. The logging operations are normally shut down from 3 to 5 months each winter. During this period, the logging personnel, including the logging drivers, perform maintenance and repair work. None of the regular production and maintenance employees do any truckdriving. The truckdrivers and the production and maintenance employees are paid on an hourly basis. The Employer maintains uniform employ- ment conditions for all employees regardless of department or work classification. The record shows no collective-bargaining history. It is apparent from the above facts, and we find, that the Employer is engaged in a primary lumber manufacturing operation. In such cases, the Board has held that the only appropriate unit for this type of operation is a production and maintenance unit,7 and has denied separate units of drivers in the lumber industry,8 even where, as here, there has been no history of collective bargaining on a broader basis.' 7 See, for example, Seattle Cedar Lumber Manufacturing Company, 112 NLRB 54, 55, and cases cited therein. 8 See, for example, Magnolia Lumber Corporation, 88 NLRB 161 ; White River Lumber Company, 88 NLRB 158. B Magnolia Lumber, supra, footnote 8. 586439-61-vol. 129-7 82 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Accordingly, as the unit requested by the Teamsters is inappropriate, we shall dismiss the petition filed by the Teamsters in Case No. 20-RC-4204. In Case No. 20-RC-4234, we find the following unit is appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act: All production and maintenance employees of the Employer, in- cluding all truckdrivers, but excluding all office clerical employees,, professional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. [The Board dismissed the petition filed in Case No. 20-RC-1204J- [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] University Overland Express , Inc. and Robert H. Connor. Case No. 02-CA-438. September 21, 1960 DECISION AND ORDER On May 18, 1960, Trial Examiner Sidney Lindner issued his Inter- mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had not engaged in and was not engaging in any of the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and recommending that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the General Counsel and Respondent filed exceptions and supporting briefs to the Intermediate Report. 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 Leedom and Members Rodgers and Jenkins]. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter- mediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the Trial Examiner's findings, con- clusions, and recommendations, except as noted below.' [The Board dismissed the complaint.] ' We agree with the Trial Examiner that Robert H. Connor was discharged for cause and not for protected union activity Therefore , it is unnecessary for us to pass on the Trial Examiner ' s findings regarding whether the Joint Committee panel constituted an "arbitration panel" as that term has been used by the Board and whether the award of the panel would Le acceptable to the Board as an " arbitration award " INTERMEDIATE REPORT AND RECOMMENDED ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE This proceeding, brought under Section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (61 Stat. 136) was heard at Paramus, New Jersey, on January 6, 129 NLRB No 14.