Humboldt Lumber Handlers, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 22, 1954

108 N.L.R.B. 393 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

HUMBOLDT LUMBER HANDLERS, INC. 393
and buffers normally advance to the top job rate in a period of
12 months; 1 new employee, however, advanced to the top job
rate after only 2 months of employment. Although a maximum 1
year on-the - job training program is maintained for the em-
ployees in question , we find that the record in this case reveals
that the type of polishing and buffing work performed by them
is limited in scope and involves a restricted variety of metals.
The Board recognizes that employees in the metal- polishing and
buffing classifications sometimes possess true skills and in
those situations , as craftsmen are entitled ^o severance on a
craft basis . However, the employees sought herein do not, in
our opinion , exercise sufficiently the skills generally attribut-
able to employees in those craft classifications , and for that
reason we are constrained to deny the Petitiotler ' s request for
severance . As we have found the proposed unit inappropriate,
we shall dismiss the petition.
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
3George J Mayer Company, 77 NLRB 425 at 427. See also Kwikset Locks, Inc., 107 NLRB
247.
The Board announced in American Potash & Chemical Corporation , 107 NLRB 1418,
that it would "exercise great care in making certain that in the administration of [the craft
severance] rule only groups exercising genuine craft skills will be embraced within the ambit
of the rule."
HUMBOLDT LUMBER HANDLERS, INC. and JAMES J. KANE,
Petitioner
WES-CAL MFG.CO. and RICHARD D. GILLESPIE, Petitioner.
Cases Nos. 20-RD-93 and 20-RD-94. April 22, 1954
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before
Milen C. Dempster , hearing officer. The hearing officer's
rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error
and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this proceeding , the Board finds:
1. Humboldt Lumber Handlers, Inc., hereinafter called
Handlers , is a California corporation engaged in the business
of custom carloading of lumber. Its only plant is located at
Arcata, California. During the past year it rendered services
worth in excess of $180,000. Four of its principal customers
during this period were Diebold Mills , Inc., Paragon Plywood
Corporation, Cal Pacific Redwood Company, Inc., and Arcata
Lumber Services , Inc. Handlers furnished services valued at
approximately $ 82,000 to these 4 companies , each of which
annually shipped outside the State goods worth more than
108 NLRB No. 79.
394 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
$25,000. The parties agree , and we find , that Handlers is
engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act . We find
also that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert
jurisdiction over Handlers ,.'
Wes-Cal Mfg. Co., hereinafter called Wes-Cal, is a Cali-
fornia corporation engaged in the operation of a custom mill,
where it performs resaw and planing operations on lumber.
Its mill is located immediately adjacent to that of Handlers at
Arcata , California . During the past year Wes-Cal received in
excess of $ 164,000 for its services. However , during that
period, none of Wes - Cal's customers shipped products valued
at $25,000 outside the State.
It is clear therefore that there is no basis for asserting
jurisdiction over Wes-Cal , considered alone. Under these
circumstances , whether or not we would assert jurisdiction
in Case No. 20-RD - 94 would depend on whether Wes-Cal and
Handlers are to be treated as a single Employer,' or whether,
if they are separate Employers , the appropriate unit he rein is
one comprising the employees of both Employers .' Evidence
necessary to a determination of either of these questions is
lacking in the record .4 However , as we have determined, in
any case , to dismiss the petitions herein on other grounds,
we find it unnecessary to resolve at this time the jurisdictional
issue with regard to Wes-Cal.
2. Lumber and Sawmill Workers, Local 2799 , Redwood
District Council , United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners
of America . AFL, hereinafter called the Union , claims to
represent certain employees of the Employers.'
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the
representation of employees of the Employers within the
meaning of Section 916) (1) and Section 2 (6) and ( 7) of the Act,
for the following reasons:
The Union contends that its contract with the Employers,
executed on October 16, 1952 , to expire on April 1, 1954,with
,Hollow Tree Lumber Company . 91 NLRB 635. Chairman Farmer and Member Beeson
concur in the assertion of jurisdiction in this case , but are not to be deemed as thereby
adopting the Board ' s present jurisdictional standards as a permanent policy.
2 Although the record shows that the 5 stockholders who own Handlers also own 90 per-
cent of the stock of Wes-Cal , and that employees of both companies have been included in
the same bargaining unit since 1952 , the evidence in the record is insufficient to support
a fording that these 2 companies consitute a single employer within the meaning of the Act.
3 Where two or more employers have by joint bargaining established the appropriateness
of a multiemployer unit, the Board has considered the total operations of all such employers
in determining whether to assert jurisdiction . Pacific-Coast Shipbuilders and Ship Repairers,
98 NLRB 196 . The record herein shows that the Union was certified on October 13, 1952,
after a consent election , for a unit comprising the employees of both Employers , and that
the ensuing contract , although signed by Handler ' s alone, has been deemed by the parties
to this proceeding to apply to the employees of Wes-Cal , as well However , there is no
evidence that Wes-Cal participated in the negotiation of this agreement.
4See footnotes 2 and 3, above.
5 The Petitioners assert that the Union , the certified and recognized representative of
the employees involved herein , is no longer their exclusive representative as defined in
Section 9 ( a) of the Act.
HUMBOLDT LUMBER HANDLERS, INC. 395
a 60-day automatic renewal clause, constitutes a bar to this
proceeding. The petitions herein, filed on February 2, 1954,
and February 10, 1954, were both filed after the automatic
renewal date of the contract. Under these circumstances, the
contract would constitute a bar to this proceeding unless other-
wise defective.
The Petitioners contend, however, that the contract is nota
bar because it contains an illegal union-security provision.
Paragraphs C and E of Article I of the agreement read as
follows:
Within thirty (30) days of the effective date of this
contract, or within thirty (30) days from date of em-
ployment, whichever is the later, every employee under
the jurisdiction of this Agreement shall, as a condition
of employment, become and remain a member of the
Union in good standing.
Whenever any employee required by this Article to
become a member of the Union or to maintain his member-
ship therein fails to do so or is expelled from the Union
and the Union notifies the Company thereof in writing
requesting the discharge of such employee, the Employer
shall, within seven (7) days from the receipt of such
notice, discharge such employee unless the Company is
advised by the Union in writing that such employee has
been reinstated . . . . ( Emphasis added.)
The Petitioners contend that this clause is unlawful because
it permits discharge on grounds other than an employee's
failure to tender the periodic dues and initiation fees uniformly
required as a condition of acquiring or retaining membership
in the Union. We find no merit in this contention. This argu-
ment presumes illegality, whereas the proper presumption is
one of legality namely, that the obligation to discharge extends
only to situations recognized as valid by statute.' Moreover,
the record discloses that, although the Union's constitution
provides for expulsion on other grounds, the Employer and
the Intervenor have interpreted the phrase "is expelled by
the Union" to apply only to expulsion for failure to pay the
uniformly required initiation fees and periodic dues, and no
employee has been discharged for any other cause. We there-
fore find that the union-security clause is not unlawful.
In view of the foregoing, and upon the entire record in this
case, we find that the contract is a bar to an election at this
time. We shall, therefore, dismiss the petitions.
[The Board dismissed the petitions.]
Member Rodgers took no part in the consideration of the
above Decision and Order.
6 Spartan Aircraft Company, 98 NLRB 73; RCA Service Company, Inc., 94 NLRB 1122.