Boise Cascade Corp.

BOISE CASCADE CORPORATION 491 collective bargaining is ever to mature it should be allowed to function in this case without the Board's intervention . I, therefore, recommend dismissal of the complaint.15 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondent is an employer within the meaning of the Act and is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of the Act. 3. It will not effectuate-the policies of the Act to find that Respondent has violated Section 8(a) (1) and ( 5) of the Act in the circumstances of this case. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the basis of the foregoing findings and conclusions , and upon the entire record, it is recommended that the Board issue an order dismissing the complaint. 15 Subsequent to the events of January and February 1962 , involving Shaw's job as -crane operator and subsequent to his original requests for job point data, the Union, on August 23, 1962 , presented detailed contract proposals to Respondent . Negotiations apparently extended over a period of months since the new contract was entered into on December 12, 1962. Neither in the August 23 contract proposals of the Union nor in subsequent contract negotiations did the Union ask for or raise the issue of the Company furnishing job evaluation points to the Union This failure to make such contract de- mands cannot be attributed to a desire not to prejudice the grievance of Crane Operator Shaw since Shaw had been restored to his former classification in February 1962. There being no personal loss of Shaw involved thereafter , it must be assumed that all that re- mained was the principle of the Union being entitled to receive job point data. If such a demand had been made in contract negotiations and the Company adamantly refused to accede to the furnishing of such data , the legal outcome might well have been otherwise. Boise Cascade Corporation, Employer and Teamsters, Chauf- feurs, Helpers & Delivery Drivers Local 690, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware- housemen and Helpers of -America, Petitioner. Case No. 19-RC-3350. August 26, 1964 DECISION AND ORDER Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Hearing Officer Robert E. Tillman. The Hearing Officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.1 1 At the request of the Petitioner , the Regional Director issued two subpoenas duce8 tecum, requiring the Employer to produce certain of its records . Thereafter, the Em- ployer indicated that it would not comply with certain items in the subpena and it peti- tioned for the revocation of the subpena as to those items. This petition was denied by the Regional Director The Employer then filed with the Board an emergency appeal from the ruling by the Regional Director and the Board remanded this appeal to the Hearing Officer for decision . The Hearing Officer then denied the Employer 's petition to revoke and the Employer filed a second emergency appeal from the Hearing Officer's rul- ing The Board reserved ruling on this appeal pending a review of the record, as, in our view , the record , including the briefs of the parties, adequately presents the facts in this proceeding, and as the Petitioner does not now complain that the record is in any way inadequate, we shall reverse the Hearing Officer's ruling and grant the Employer's petition for revocation. 148 NLRB No. 53. 492 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 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 McCulloch and Mem- bers Leedom and Brown]. Upon the entire record in this case,2 the Board finds : 1. The Employer is' engaged in., commerce within the meaning of the Act. - 2. The labor organizations 3 involved claim to represent employees of the Employer. 3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion of the employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9(c) (1)'andSection 2(6) and (7) of the Act.' The Employer is a Delaware corporation with headquarters in Boise, Idaho. The Petitioner seeks to represent a unit of approxi- mately 35 long-line truckdrivers in the Employer's trucking division at Boise, Idaho.5 The-Employer and the Intervenor, relying on the Board's decision in Weyerhaeuser 6 and on cases following that de- sion, contend that, as the Employer is engaged in the basic lumber industry, the severance of the truckdrivers from the historic produc- tion and maintenance unit is inappropriate. The Petitioner contends in effect that the Employer is not engaged in the basic lumber indus- try and therefore that the Weyerhaeuser rule is inapplicable here. In the event the Board finds to the contrary, however, the Petitioner urges that it reexamine its established precedent as to unit determina- tions in the basic lumber industry. The Employer has operated through five major divisions : lumber and plywood, paper, merchandising, manufacturing, and concrete products.? While lumber and plywood is the Employer's oldest di- vision, its paper division is presently the largest in terms of sales. The truckdrivers sought by the Petitioner are employed in the Employer's trucking division, which is part of the traffic department 8 The trucking division is It "segment" of the Emmett, Idaho, region of the Employer's lumber and plywood division. Eighteen of the thirty- five long-line drivers sought by the Petitioner are engaged in hauling 2 Timber Products Manufacturers Association was permitted to file a brief as amicus curiae The Petitioner's request for oral argument is denied as, in our opinion , the en- tire record in this case , including the briefs of the parties and the amicus curiae, ade- quately presents the issues and relevant positions. 8 Lumber and Sawmill Workers Union, Local 2816, AFL-CIO , and Blue Mountain Dis- trict Council, Lumber and Sawmill Workers Union , were permitted to intervene at the hearing on the basis of a contract interest in the employees involved 4 In view of our determination herein , we find it unnecessary to decide whether, as con- tended by the Employer and the Intervenor, their contract constituted a bar to the petition 6 The Petitioner indicated at the hearing that it would be willing to represent a unit including mechanics if the Board found such unit appropriate. 8 Weyerhaeuser Timber Co., 87 NLRB 1079. v At the time of the hearing , the Employer had sold its concrete products division. 8 The traffic department handles transportation to and from the Employer ' s various operations , including truck, rail, water, and air transportation. BOISE CASCADE CORPORATION 493 finished lumber from the Employer's Emmett, Idaho,' sawmill to customers throughout the Western--States as well as in -the Midwest and East.' In order to make the operation 'financially feasible, on their return haul these trucks usually bring back supplies for the merchandising • division or haul grain and other cargo for outside customers. Ten of the long-line drivers carry rough lumber from the Employer's Lincoln, Washington,' sawmill to its Spokane, Wash- ington, finishing mill. Their trucks are usually empty on the return trip. One driver hauls lumber from the Employer's sawmill at Bel- grade, Montana. The six remaining drivers in the trucking division are engaged in hauling, in addition to lumber, nonlumber products for other divisions of the Employer. However, the record establishes that lumber constitutes 95 percent of the cargo hauled by all the truckdrivers sought herein. The. trucking division is under the ultimate supervision of the manager of the Emmett, Idaho, region of the Employer's lumber and sawmill division and under the im- mediate supervision of the manager of the trucking division.10 The trucking division also operates independently of the Employer's other divisions." The Intervenor has represented the employees in the Employer's Emmett region for about 25 years. The most recent contract at the time of the hearing between the Employer 'and the Intervenor expired on October' 1, 1963, and covered "all employees en- gaged in production and maintenance in the manufacturing and ship- ping department" and specifically included "all truckdrivers, me- chanics and maintenance employees in the employ of the Employer's Trucking Division, Boise, Idaho." The Employer has other drivers in its lumber operations who are covered by this agreement, and all employees in the unit have the same benefits. In Weyerhaeuser, supra,. the Board held that separate craft rep- resentation was not appropriate for employees in the basic lumber in- dustry.12 The Board there applied' to the basic lumber industry the policy established in National Tube Company, 76 NLRB 1199, of deny- ing craft severance in certain integrated _industries where the.prevail- ing pattern of bargaining was industrial in character. While not denying that the Employer's lumber and plywood division is engaged in the basic lumber industry, for purposes of the Weyerhaeuser prin- ciple, the Petitioner contends that,the Weyerhaeuser rule is inapplic- able here because the Employer in its various other divisions is.pre- The Employer also employs drivers ^ in its other operations who are not part 1of' the trucking division. These drivers are primarily engaged in local hauling and are not in- volved in this case to The record indicates that the manager of the trucking , division also. reports on occa- sion to the manager of the Employer's traffic department. 1, i u Thus, for example, other divisions - aie -billed by the trucking ' division for services rendered. r 12 See also, White River Lumber Company, 88 NLRB 158, in which the Board held that this principle precluded severance of units of truckdrivers from production 'and mainte- nance units in the basic lumber industry. 494 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD dominantly engaged in nonlumber operations. The Petitioner further relies on the fact that the drivers sought also haul nonlumber cargoes. We find no merit in these contentions. We find it unnecessary to decide whether the Employer, as an entity, is engaged in the basic lumber industry, since, in our view, the truck- drivers sought herein functionally and administratively are in the basic lumber industry.13 In reaching this conclusion, we rely on the facts that virtually all of the work of these drivers involves the Employer's basic lumber operations; these drivers are organizationally a "seg- ment" of the lumber and sawmill division, which is concededly in the primary lumber industry, and they are under the ultimate supervision of the manager of that division; and these drivers are and have been represented in a unit comprising employees engaged in the basic lum- ber industry. In view of the foregoing, we do not believe that the facts that the Employer, in its other divisions, is engaged in nonlumber op- erations and that a small percentage of the cargoes hauled by the drivers involved consists of nonlumber products are sufficient to destroy the otherwise integrated nature of the Employer's basic lumber operations or to negate the prevailing industrywide bargaining pat- tern. Nor do we find persuasive the Petitioner's contention that the Board should abandon the Weyerhaeuser principle. We therefore find that the only appropriate unit in the Emmett region of the Employer's lumber and sawmill division is a production and maintenance unit and that the unit sought by the Petitioner is not appropriate. We shall accordingly dismiss the petition herein. [The Board dismissed the petition.] 33 See Ingo Lumber Company of Californtia, 129 NLRB 79, holding that a separate unit of over-the-road drivers whose duties, like a majority of the drivers in this case , involved the hauling of finished lumber products from the Employer's sawmill to points designated by customers, was inappropriate. Electra Manufacturing Company, Employer and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 17-RC-4357. August 26, 1964 DECISION AND ORDER DIRECTING REGIONAL DIREC- TOR TO ISSUE SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT ON OBJEC- TIONS Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election, an election by secret ballot was conducted on January 22, 1964, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for Region 17, among the employees in the unit described below. Subsequent to the election, the parties were furnished with a tally of ballots which estab- 148 NLRB No. 57.