United States Plywood Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 28, 1964

146 N.L.R.B. 1148 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

1148 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
[The Board ordered that a hearing be held before a Trial Examiner
on the issues raised by the 421 challenged ballots and that the Trial
Examiner serve upon the parties a report containing resolutions of
the credibility of witnesses, findings of fact, and recommendations to
the Board as to the disposition of said issues. Within 10 days from
the date of issuance of such report, any party may file with the Board
in Washington, D.C., an original and six copies of exceptions thereto.
Immediately upon the filing of such exceptions, the party filing shall
serve copy upon each of the other parties, and shall file a copy with
the Regional Director. If no exceptions are filed the Board will adopt
the recommendations of the Trial Examiner.]
[The Board further ordered that the above-entitled matter be re-
ferred to said Regional Director for the purpose of conducting a
hearing, and issuing early notice.]
United States Plywood Corporation, Petitioner and Interna-
tional Woodworkers of America , Local 3-140, AFL-CIO. Case
No. 36-RM-322. April 28, 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
E. G. Strumpf. 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 McCulloch and Members Leedom and
Fanning].
Upon the entire record in this case,2 the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act and it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert juris-
diction herein.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
1 We find no merit in the Union's motions that this case be dismissed or held in abeyance
because at the time of the hearing there was pending before the General Counsel its appeal
from the Regional Director's dismissal of its charge alleging the Employer unlawfully
failed to bargain in good faith with the Union concerning certain employees involved in
this proceeding . See Louisville Cap Co., 120 NLRB 769.
Y We find no merit in the Union 's contention that a new hearing is warranted because the
Employer 's witnesses used allegedly confusing and unclear terms in describing its opera-
tions. The record is adequately clear with respect to the nature of. such operations despite
the varying terminology employed by the parties' witnesses.
146 NLRB No. 141.
UNITED STATES PLYWOOD CORPORATION 1149
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of certain employees of the Employer within the ,meaning of
Section 9(c) (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, for the follow-
ing reasons:. .
At the Employer's-Reedsport, Oregon, operations, the Union repre-
sents and has a contract which expires in 1966 covering. specifically
employees in the green veneer department. It now contends that em-
ployees in the recently added dry and layup (plywood) department
are an accretion to its existing unit and covered by the current con-
tract. The Employer disputes the Union's representation claim with
respect to the plywood employees, and seeks an election in either a
plantwide or. plywood department production and maintenance unit
to resolve it. .
The Employer, purchased the Reedsport plant in February 1962.
At that time the operations consisted, insofar as we are here con-
cerned,.of the green veneer plant and a stud mill. The Union repre-
sented employees in both operations in separate units, and the Em-
ployer assumed, and later renegotiated; the then existing contracts
covering each unit. In August 1962,.the Employer shut down the
stud mill and discharged the employees- working there. However,
it had in the meantime started construction on the plywood, layup mill
which began operations late in the year. .
The plywood building, unlike the old stud mill, is in'effect an exten-
sion of. the building housing- the veneer operations. The different
arrangement is not fortuitous, for while veneer and studs are un-
related wood products-both having been sold on the open market-
green veneer is the "raw" material from. which plywood is. made.
Consequently, the Employer's operations are'now, unlike in the past,
essentially continuous with all the veneer produced in the green end
used in the manufacture of plywood in the dry end,- from which it is
shipped to purchasers.
In manning the plywood end, the Employer hired all new employees
who at the time of, the hearing numbered approximately. 107 as com-
pared- with 47 in the- veneer operations. A "floating" maintenance
crew serves both .ends; otherwise there appears. to be only moderate,
if any, employee. interchange .1 ' Further, the record shows that- the
8 The Union moved that the case be remanded for additional hearing on the issue of em=
ployee transfers . and interchange in view of the Employer witnesses ' denial of union wit-
nesses' assertion that such transfer and interchange 'existed . More specifically , the Union
assertedly wishes to introduce in evidence testimony by employees who have, it argues,
been interchanged to support its more general evidence to that effect'.. However, the
Union has failed to show that it was improperly precluded from fully presenting-its case
with respect to employee transfer and interchange : .- Furthermore, even were its general
testimony fully accepted it would . not-warrant a- result different from that. reached -below.
Accordingly , the Union 's motion is denied. , , . . . .
1150 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
kinds of operations in each end differ in many respects and thus that
the skills required reflect distinguishing, if not major, differences.
Both veneer and plywood are under the direction and supervision of
the same shift foreman, but there are in the plywood end leadmen who
report to the foremen but have no authority over veneer employees.
Finally, hours of work and other conditions of employment vary be-
tween the veneer and plywood ends.
As noted, the Union has represented the veneer employees in a
separate unit since before the Employer purchased the Reedsport op-
erations and its contracts, including the one currently in effect, and
define the unit as one covering "all production and maintenance em-
ployees . . . veneer operation." The Union nevertheless contends, in
opposition to the Employer, that the contract covers the plywood em-
ployees. The Union's contention is without merit. First, it is ap-
parent that despite the continuous nature of the manufacturing proc-
ess and some interchange, the plywood employees have not been
merged with the veneer employees but rather are a readily identifiable
group engaged in work distinct from that of the veneer employees.
Second, although plywood employees use veneer in their work, they
are quite literally engaged in making plywood and not engaged in a
veneer operation which is specifically the only operation the exist-
ing unit and current contract embrace. Third, although an overall
veneer-plywood unit might be appropriate, as the parties seem to agree,
and might in fact be preferred, this being the lumber industry, there
is, nevertheless, in the circumstances no basis for holding the com-
prehensive unit to be alone appropriate. On the contrary, it is ap-
parent to us, and we find, especially in view of the bargaining history
for a separate veneer unit and the delimited scope of the contract-unit
language, that the plywood employees are not an accretion to the ex-
isting unit 4 and would in fact be entitled to a self-determination elec-
tion before being merged in that unit. Consequently, a single election
in an overall unit of veneer and plywood employees would not now be
appropriate. Furthermore, the Union does not claim and has never
claimed to represent a majority of the plywood employees, and thus,
there is no basis for directing, over the Union's objection, a self-
determination election among the plywood employees at this time.-'
Accordingly, as no basis exists for directing an election 'in either
unit sought by'the Employer, we shall dismiss the petition.
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
6 See Pacific States Steel ' Corporation, 134 NLRB 1325; Fleming Sons, Inc., 118
NLRB 1451 ; Byron -Jackson Division, Borg-Warner Corporation , 117 NLRB 1613.
5 The Union's representative status among the veneer employees is not questioned.
Moreover, an election among a unit of such employees would at this time be barred by
the current contract between the Employer and Union.