Miller Shingle Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 29, 1955

114 N.L.R.B. 1217 (N.L.R.B. 1955)

MILLER SHINGLE CO. 1217
decisions depend on the results of the cost analysis.which has not been
completed. Accordingly, in the absence of more definite plans- for a
reduction in the Employer's working force, we shall conduct the elec-
tion in accordance with our usual policies as set forth in the Direction
of Election below.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
MEMBER MURDOCK. took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Election.
Miller Shingle Co., a partnership composed of P. D . Miller and
Bruce L. Miller,' Petitioner and Local 23-93, International
Woodworkers of America, CIO and Puget Sound District
Council , Lumber and SawmilI'Workers Union, AFL.2 Case No.
19-RM-170. November 29, 1955
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 Melton Boyd, hearing officer.
The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prej-
udicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board fords :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
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 Employer alleges that the appropriate unit is confined to its
production and maintenance employees engaged in logging operations
at Granite Falls, in Snohomish County, Washington. The Council
is in accord with the Employer's unit position. Local 93 contends that
a single-employer unit is inappropriate on the ground that, as a mini-
mum, the Employer is associated in multiemployer bargaining with
six other employers having operations in Snohomish County.
The Employer's logging operations are within the Douglas fir area
of Washington and Oregon. In Jones & Anderson Logging Com-
pany, Inc., 114 NLRB 1203, we outlined the bargaining pattern
which existed prior to 1954 between employers in the lumber industry
1 The Employer' s name appears as amended at the hearing.
2 The Unions are herein called Local 93 and the Council, respectively.
114 NLRB No. 187.
1218 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of this area and District 23, International Woodworkers of America,
CIO, with whose locals the employers had bargaining relations. The
Employer and six other companies who operate in Snohomish County,
and who until 1954 had given negotiating authorizations to Tri-County
Loggers Association, herein called Tri-County, were associated with
the regional pattern of bargaining with District 23. However, on
July 15, 1954, the last day of negotiations in Portland, the employers
for whom Tri-County had authority to negotiate withdrew their au-
thorizations.
Shortly thereafter, on August 2, Tri-County notified Local 93 that
the employers holding contracts with it in Snohomish County had
organized the Snohomish Operators Committee, and that the negotiat-
ing authorizations formerly held by Tri-County had been given to the
new committee. On September 13 and October 1, 1954, this commit-
tee, represented by Studebaker, the secretary-manager of Tri-County
and legal counsel to the committee members, met with Local 93 rela-
tive to the question of signing the governors' stipulation, the nature
of which has been noted in the Jones d Anderson case above referred
to.. The first of these meetings foundered on the local union-shop
issue. However, at the second meeting the parties signed the gov-
ernors' stipulation without resolving union-security issues. The Em-
ployer, on September 27, had terminated its contract with Local 93.
After the governors' fact-finding committee issued its report on the
strike issues in December 1954, the seven Snohomish operators, through
Studebaker, arranged for a negotiating session with Local 93 to be
held on January 11, 1955. At the outset of this meeting, the em-
ployers informed Local 93 that they intended to bargain on an in-
dividual-employer basis and not as a group. After a series of similar
meetings through May 1955, the Snohomish employers declared an
"impasse." Thereupon, Local 93 rejected their last offers. However,
in June 1955, a basis of agreement was reached between six of the em-
ployers and Local 93, resulting in contracts signed by these parties.
The Employer did not sign and at no time since has signed an agree-
ment with Local 93.
Upon the basis of the foregoing and the entire record, without decid-
ing whether or not the 1955 negotiations between the Snohomish em-
ployers and Local 93 were multiemployer in scope, we do not believe
that the Employer has engaged in conduct inconsistent with its pres-
ent intent, as evidenced by its filing of an RM petition,3 to bargain on
an individual-employer basis 4 The unit alleged by the Employer is
therefore appropriate.
We find that all production and maintenance employees engaged
in logging operations at the Employer's Granite Falls, Washington,
' See Owens-Illinois Glass Company, 112 NLRP. 172.
See Read Murdock, et at., 107 NLRB 155; Bagley Produce Company, 108 NLRB 1267.
UNITED CIGAR-WHELAN STORES CORPORATION 1219
operations, excluding sawmill employees, office clerical employees,
guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute an appropriate
unit for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9 (b) of the Act.5
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
MEMBER MURDOCK took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Election.
5 The unit description was stipulated by the parties.
United Cigar-Whelan Stores Corporation and Whelan Drug Com-
pany, Inc. and United Transport Workers of America, Ind.
Case No. 10-CA-2023. Novemaber 30,1955
DECISION AND ORDER
On July 1, 1955, Trial Examiner George Bokat issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Re-
spondent Whelan Drug Company, Inc., herein called Whelan, had en-
gaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and rec-
ommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirma-
tive action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached
hereto. The Trial, Examiner also found that Respondent Whelan had
not engaged in certain other unfair labor practices and that Respond-
ent United Cigar-Whelan Stores Corporation, herein called United,
had not violated the Act, as alleged in the complaint, and recom-
mended that these allegations be dismissed. Thereafter, Respondent
Whelan filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report, and a supporting
brief. Whelan's request for oral argument is denied, as the record,
including the exceptions and briefs, adequately presents the issues and
the positions of the parties.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Interme-
diate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the
case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner, with such modifications as are reflected
below.
1. The General Counsel contended in the complaint and at the hear-
ing that Respondents United and Whelan constituted a single em-
ployer under the Act, which, if true, would concededly bring both
Respondents within the Board's standard for assertion of jurisdiction
114 NLRB No. 185.
387644-56-vol. 114-7 8