Plum Creek Lumber Co., Inc.

PLUM CREEK LUMBER CO., INC. Plum Creek Lumber Co., Inc. and Local Union 768, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case 19-RC-7087 November 4, 1974 DECISION ON REVIEW AND ORDER BY MEMBERS FANNING, KENNEDY, AND PENELLO On June 10, 1974, the Regional Director for Re- gion 19 issued a Decision and Direction of Election in the above-entitled case denying the Employer's motion to dismiss the petition as untimely filed and directing an election in a unit consisting of "all elec- tricians employed by the Employer at its fibreboard plant at Columbia Falls, Montana." Thereafter, in accordance with Section 102.67 of the National La- bor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, the Employer filed a timely request for review of the Regional Director's Decision contend- ing, inter aha, that the Regional Director's finding that the present employee complement is representa- tive of the projected complement is factually and le- gally erroneous and represents a departure from Board precedent. On July 11, 1974, the National Labor Relations Board by telegraphic order granted the request for review and the election was stayed pending decision on review. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has reviewed the entire record in this proceeding, including the Employer's brief on re- view, with respect to the issues under review, and makes the following findings: The Employer is a Minnesota corporation engaged in the manufacture of lumber and related wood products. In the fall of 1972 the Employer com- menced construction of a fibreboard plant in Colum- bia Falls, Montana, involved herein, and hired its own construction electricians for the construction work. On April 15, 1974, the Petitioner filed its peti- tion to represent the construction electricians em- ployed by the Employer. As of the hearing date, the Employer had a complement of 17 nonsupervisory electricians and expected the construction of the plant to be completed as of July 15, 1974. The Employer's brief on review, filed on July 22, states that the projected date was not met, but that the plant was 60-percent operational as of that date and the construction phase would be completed during the week of August 9, a date preceding the issuance 619 of this Decision. The Employer states that when the construction phase is completed only 3 of the 17 non- supervisory electricians employed on the date of the hearing will be retained as maintenance electricians. It urges that this number represents approximately 18 percent of those within the unit petitioned for and is therefore insufficient for the purpose of an elec- tion, citing Douglas Motors Corp., 128 NLRB 307 (1960). We agree. It is clear from the foregoing that as of the present time the size of the unit will have become substantial- ly contracted and the nature of the work of the three remaining electricians will have changed from elec- trical construction work to electrical maintenance. As this change was imminent at the time the Region- al Director directed an election, we granted review because we did not believe it would effectuate the policies of the Act to hold an election in a unit which was about to undergo an imminent substantial con- traction with a resultant change in the job classifica- tion and work performed by the few remaining em- ployees originally sought by Petitioner. Accordingly, we find that an election is not warranted here and we shall therefore disnuss the petition.' Douglas Motors Corp., supra. ORDER It is hereby ordered that the petition filed herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed. MEMBER FANNING, dissenting: I would affirm the Regional Director's Direction of Election in this case. Because the Employer pre- dicts that the bargaining unit sought by the Peti- tioner will substantially contract in the near future, the majority concludes that no election should be conducted. However, it is interesting to note that the Employer's initial prediction regarding the comple- tion of its construction phase proved "somewhat op- timistic" and that in the middle of July 1974, the construction phase was not completed and the elec- trician complement still included 18 electricians. The majority's rationale provides for dismissing a petition based on an employer's inaccurate prediction that the unit will contract. Contrary to the majority, I would not dismiss the petition herein. Rather, I con- clude that the holding of a prompt election in this case would have afforded the employees their collec- tive-bargaining rights during a critical period in which bargaining would be most useful. If the Em- ployer, in fact, decreases its work force, it is impor- 1 In view of our disposition of the petition herein we find it unnecessary to reach the issue raised by the Employer as to whether a separate unit of its maintenance electricians would be appropriate 214 NLRB No. 72 620 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tant and consistent with the purposes of the Act that the employees be allowed to bargain about the Employer's changes in its operation. Further, the majority is misapplying Douglas Mo- tors in this case. In Douglas Motors, the work force underwent a "fundamental change" because of the changed nature of the Employer's business. In that case, the production unit sought by a petitioner was being changed to a distribution-warehousing unit. Here, although the Employer's complement of elec- tricians will decrease, there is no such "fundamental change" taking place as to the petitioned-for unit. Rather, the construction electricians are to become maintenance electricians at the Employer's facility. While this change may result in somewhat different responsibilities for the electricians, it is nonetheless not a "fundamental change" and it is clear that the electricians will continue to perform the traditional skills of their craft. Accordingly, I conclude that an election at this time would be proper, and I dissent from the majority's dismissal of the petition.