C. F. Williams Lumber Co.

C. F. WILLIAMS LUMBER CO. AND WINDSOR CORP. 135 2. United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, is and has been, at all times ma- terial hereto, a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By discharging and otherwise discriminating in regard to the hire or tenure of employment of William Holton to discourage membership in the Union and because he has given testimony under the Act, thereby interfering with, restraining and, coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a)(1), (3), and (4) of the Act. 4. By interrogating and otherwise interfering with the activities of other of its employees, the Employer, the Respondent herein, has interfered with, coerced, and restrained other employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. [Recommendations omitted from publication.] C. F. Williams Lumber Company and Windsor Corporation' and Chattahoochee Valley District Council, United Brother- hood of Carpenters and Joiners of America , AFL-CIO, Petitioner C. F. Williams Lumber Company, Petitioner and Millmen's Local 2768, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO. Cases Nos. 10-IBC-4771 and 10-RM-298. February 10, 1961 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9(c) of the Na- tional Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before James P. Swann, Jr., 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 this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Rodgers and Jenkins]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. C. F. Williams Lumber Company, hereinafter called the Em- ployer, is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. Chattahoochee Valley District Council, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, herein called the Pe- titioner, claims to represent certain employees of the Employer. 3. Millmen's Local 2768 was certified in March 1959 as bargaining agent for a production and maintenance unit covering the mill and yard employees of the Employer and, between June 1959 and June 'The names of the parties in the caption appear as amended at the hearing. 130 NLRB No. 13. 136 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1960, was the contractual representative of those employees. The Em- ployer's petition in Case No. 10-RM-289, filed on July 14, 1960, names as appropriate a unit covering these same employees. Local 2768 did not enter a, separate appearance at the hearing held on August 2, 1960, and the Petitioner, of which Local 2768 is a constituent part, stated at the hearing that Local 2768 claimed no separate and independent interest in the Employer's employees. As appears below, the Pe- titioner in Case No. 10-RC-4771 seeks a larger unit than is named in the RM petition. We find that 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 the instant cases. 4. In Case No. 10-RC--4771, the Petitioner seeks a unit of the Em- ployer's mill and yard employees previously covered by Local 2768's contract, which is the unit alleged to be appropriate in Case No. 10- R1VI-298, together with the Employer's truckdrivers and helpers, and certain employees at jobsites of the Employer and of Windsor Cor- poration. The Petitioner contends that the Employer and Windsor constitute a single employer within the meaning of the Act. The Em- ployer and Windsor contend that they are separate employers, and that all but five of the jobsite employees are employed by sub- contractors. It is the Employer's position that the contract unit is the appropriate one. The Employer operates a mill and lumberyard where it manu- factures millwork and sells paint and lumber. It also is engaged in housing project development and constructs houses. Its truckdrivers deliver lumber products to consumers and to its own and other con- struction jobsites. Its jobsite employees are carpenters and laborers engaged in building houses. Windsor is engaged in housing con- struction. At its jobsites are employed a maid who cleans its model homes several times a week and construction employees who are alleged by the Employer and Windsor to be employees of a subcontractor. The Employer's mill and yard employees and truckdrivers work a 40-hour week and receive the same employment benefits such as hos- pitalization, group life insurance, paid vacations, and holidays. On the other hand, the jobsite employees are hired when needed and work on a "weather permitting" basis under separate supervision from, do not interchange with, and do not receive the same benefits as, the mill and yard employees and truckdrivers of the Employer. Construction workers at the jobsites are paid at a higher wage rate than the other employees involved. Even assuming, without deciding, that the Employer and Windsor constitute a single employer, and that all the employees involved, including those alleged to be employees of subcontractors, are, in fact C. F. WILLIAMS LUMBER CO. AND WINDSOR CORP. 137 employees of such single employer, we find that jobsite employees do not have a sufficient interest in common with the mill and yard employees to be joined in the same unit .2 With respect to the truck- drivers and helpers who were excluded from the production and maintenance unit of mill and yard employees, covered by the recently expired contract, they plainly have interests and conditions of em- ployment in common with the production and maintenance employees. However, in the circumstances of this case, we believe that they should not now be joined with those employees without an opportunity to vote separately on whether they desire to become part of such a pro- duction and maintenance unit? We shall therefore direct elections in the following voting groups of employees at the Employer's Columbus, Georgia, operation as described below, excluding from each voting group, jobsite construc- tion workers, office clerical employees, salesmen, professional and technical employees, guards, and all supervisors as defined in the Act : Voting group 1: All production and maintenance employees at the Columbus, Georgia, mill and lumberyard of C. F. Williams Lumber Company, including working leadmen, mill employees, and yard em- ployees, but excluding truckdrivers and helpers. Voting group 2: All truckdrivers and helpers at the Columbus, Georgia, mill and lumberyard of C. F. Williams Lumber Company, excluding all other employees. If a majority of the employees in each of the above voting groups vote for the Petitioner, both groups will be merged into a single overall unit which, under the circumstances, we find to be appropriate. In the event a majority of the employees in voting group 1 selects the Petitioner and a majority of the employees in voting group 2 votes against the Petitioner, the employees in voting group 1 shall constitute an appropriate unit and may be represented by the Petitioner, and those employees in voting group 2 shall remain unrepresented. How- ever, as the Petitioner does not seek to represent the employees in voting group 2 in a separate unit, if a majority of the employees in voting group 1 do not select the Petitioner, and a majority in voting group 2 votes for the Petitioner, the latter shall not constitute a sep- arate appropriate unit and in these circumstances likewise shall re- main unrepresented.' The Regional Director is instructed to issue the appropriate certification or certifications as directed by the out- come of the elections. [Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.] 2 See York Coe porateon, 87 NLRB 613, Marble Conti actors' dssociatwn, et at., 99 NLRB 217; Southern Iron & Metal Company, 115 NLRB 434 8 Hope Webbing Company, Inc, 119 NLRB 145 A sufficient showing of interest ha& been made to warrant an election among the drivers and helpers. 4 See The Waikiki Biltmore Hotel, 127 NLRB 82