Elberta Crate and Box Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 27, 1953

102 N.L.R.B. 699 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

ELBERTA CRATE AND BOX CO ., INC. 699
ELBERTA CRATE AND Box Co., INC. and INTERNATIONAL WOODWORKERS
or AMERICA , CIO , PETITIONER . Case No.10 RC-129. January 97,
1953
Decision and Direction of Election
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before John Garver, 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-member
panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Styles and Peterson].
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
employees of the Employer.2
3. A 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.
4. The Petitioner contends that a unit of production and mainte-
nance employees at the Employer's wood crate and box manufacturing
plant at Bainbridge, Georgia, is appropriate for bargaining purposes.
The Petitioner would exclude as supervisors from its proposed unit
the plant superintendent, assistant plant superintendent, foreman of
the lathe department, foreman of the sawmill, night foreman, dryer
operators, and the millwright. The Employer does not directly chal-
lenge the status of these employees, but asks the Board to determine
their unit placement. The uncontradicted testimony indicates that
persons in these categories possess authority responsibly to direct the
I After the close of the hearing, and while the case was pending before the Board for
decision , the Petitioner filed a motion to reopen the record and to remand the case for
further evidence with respect to the status of certain individuals in issue. It appears that
the evidence now sought to be introduced was available at the time of the hearing. The
motion is therefore denied.
2 At the hearing the Employer contended that it did not know whether the Petitioner
and the CIO were labor organizations within the meaning of the Act. The Petitioner, an
international labor organization , and the CIO, a confederation of labor unions with which
the Petitioner is affiliated , exist for the purpose of dealing with employers on matters
relating to wages, hours , and other working conditions on behalf of employees . The Peti-
tioner admits the Employer 's employees to membership . Accordingly , we find that the
Petitioner and the CIO are labor organizations within the meaning of the Act . Peerless
X-Ray Laboratories & Manufacturing Corp ., 89 NLRB 1432 ; N. L. R. B . v. Highland Park
Mfg. Co., 341 U. S. 322.
The Petitioner has not as yet issued any charter to a local union to represent the em-
ployees sought . The Employer alleges, in its brief, that the Petitioner is in fact "fronting"
for a "noncomplying " local which the employees may join in the future . There is no
evidence to support this allegation . The speculative possibility that the Petitioner, if
certified , may bargain through a local union to be established in the future does not justify
a refusal to proceed with the determination of representatives at this time . Bentwood
Products, Inc., 81 NLRB 635.
102 NLRB No. 60.
700 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
work of other employees and to hire and discharge subordinates in
their respective departments. Accordingly, we find that they are
supervisors as defined in the Act, and we exclude them from the unit.
The Petitioner would include the crane operator (vat foreman),
2 sizer machine operators, the lumberyard grader, and 7 wire-bound
machine operators. In its brief the Employer contends that they
should be excluded from the unit as supervisors. The Petitioner would
exclude the Employer's log checker from the unit as an office clerical
employee; the Employer would include him as a plant clerical
employee.
The crane operator (vat foreman) operates a vat loading crane in
the lathe department. He is paid at a higher hourly rate than the 8
employees whose work he responsibly directs. He has the authority
effectively to recommend the discharge of these 8 employees and has
exercised this authority. He also can effectively recommend overtime
work for these employees. Under these circumstances, we conclude
that the crane operator is a supervisor as defined in the Act 8 and we
exclude him from the unit.
The 2 sizer machine operators, who work with 9 material handlers
in the sizing department, receive their working orders directly from
the plant superintendent. Although they are paid at a slightly higher
hourly rate than the other employees in the sizing department, the
record does not indicate that these operators possess or have exercised
any supervisory authority. They primarily transmit instructions
given by the plant superintendent, who has the real authority as to
discipline and other personnel matters in the sizing department. Un-
der these circumstances, we find that the sizer machine operators are
not supervisors as defined in the Act,4 and we include them in the unit.
The lumberyard grader, with 4 or 5 other stackers, grades, stacks,
and places lumber in the plant lumberyard. Although he is paid a
few cents more an hour than the other stackers, there is no evidence
in the record that he spends any time on personnel matters. He re-
ceives his orders from the foreman of the sawmill department and
spends most of his time grading lumber and in manual work. He
gives instructions rather than responsibily directs. He merely tells
the stackers where to pile the graded lumber. Accordingly, we find
that he is not a supervisor as defined in the Act,5 and we shall include
him in the unit.
The 7 wire-bound machine operators work in the wire-bound depart-
ment under the supervision of the plant superintendent. Each wire-
bound machine has 1 operator and 8 other employees as a crew. The
operators start and stop the machines and instruct the crews. They
e Kennecott Copper Corporation , 98 NLRB 7S ; Diamond Bros. Company, 96 NLRB 1420.
* Wm. Cameron & Co., Inc ., 98 NLRB 969.
Wm. Cameron & Co., Inc. , supra.
IOWA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY 701
are paid at a higher hourly rate than the other employees in that
department. The record indicates that they possess, and have exer-
cised, the authority effectively to recommend the discharge of the
crew members. Accordingly, we find that the wire-bound machine
operators are supervisors as defined in the Act,e and we exclude them
from the unit.
The log checker works directly under the supervision of the Em-
ployer's office manager and vice president. Although he is hourly
paid and works in the plant logyard, he does no manual labor. He
checks logs and makes entries of amounts and sizes of logs in a record
book which he turns into the office. Inasmuch as his duties are purely
clerical in nature and he is under the supervision of-the Employer's
office manager, we exclude him from the unit as an office clerical
employee.'
We find that the following employees constitute a unit appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9 (b) of the Act:
All production and maintenance employees at the Employer's wood
crate and box manufacturing plant at Bainbridge, Georgia, includ-
ing sizer machine operators and lumberyard grader, but exclud-
ing office clerical employees, the log checker, professional employees,
guards, watchmen, the plant superintendent, assistant plant super-
intendent, foreman of the lathe department, foreman of the saw-
mill, night foreman, dryer operators, millwright, crane operator (vat
foreman), wire-bound machine operators, and all ' other supervisors
as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
Diamond Bros . Company, supra.
v Granite Textile Mills, Inc., 76 NLRB 613:; John F . McLeod and Eva T . McLeod, Go-
partners d/b/a John F. McLeod Veneer Company, 62 NLRB 540.
IOWA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL 944, PETITIONER. Case No. 18-RC-
1699. January 27,1953
Decision and Direction of Elections
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Max Rotenberg, 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-member
panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Murdock].
102 NLRB No. 61.