Weyerhaeuser Timber Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 7, 1949

85 N.L.R.B. 1170 (N.L.R.B. 1949)

In the Matter of WEYERHAEUSER TIMBER COMPANY, EMPLOYER and
SANTIAM DISTRICT LODGE 163, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MA-
CHINISTS, PETITIONER
Case No. 36-RC-143
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION
AND
ORDER
September 7,1949
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election issued by the Board
on April 6, 1949,1 an election by secret ballot was conducted in the
above-entitled proceeding, under the direction and supervision of the
Regional Director for the Nineteenth Region, among the employees in
the voting group described in the Decision. Upon conclusion of the
balloting, a Tally of Ballots was furnished the parties in accordance
with the Rules and Regulations of the Board.
The tally shows that there were approximately 27 eligible voters,
and that 27 votes were cast. Of these 27 votes, 10 were for the Peti-
tioner, 10 were for the Intervenor, 1 was for neither labor organization,
and 6 ballots were challenged.
As the challenged ballots could affect the results of the election, the
Regional Director, acting pursuant to the Board's Rules and Regula-
tions, investigated the issues raised by the challenges. On May 25,
1949, he issued and duly served upon the parties his Report on Chal-
lenged Ballots, in which he recommended that the challenges to five
ballots be sustained, that the challenge to the ballot of Erwin J. Rich-
mond be overruled, and that a run-off election be conducted. Inter-,
national Woodworkers of America, Local 5-246, herein called the
Intervenor, filed exceptions to the Report on Challenged. Ballots,
excepting only to the Regional Director's findings with respect to the
challenged ballot cast by J. C. Johnson, and to the Regional Director's
recommendation that a run-off election be held. The Petitioner filed
exceptions to the Report on Challenged Ballots only insofar as it
related to the ballot cast by Erwin J. Richmond.
1 82 N. L. R. B. 820.
85 N. L. R. B., No. 195.
1170
WEYERHAEUSER TIMBER COMPANY 1171
No other exceptions were filed to the Regional Director's Report
within the. time provided therefor. As no exceptions were filed to the
report on the challenged ballots of Harry M. Bradford, George W.
Brewster, Chester Dworaczyk, and Daniel M. Huff within the time
provided therefor, we shall. adopt the findings and recommendations of
the Regional Director as to these employees, and sustain the challenges
to these ballots.
Finding that material issues of fact had been raised with respect to
the eligibility to vote of Richmond and Johnson, the Board, on June 22,
1949, ordered that the Regional Director conduct a further hearing
to resolve these issues.2
Pursuant to the Board's order, a further hearing in this proceed-
ing was held on July 18, 1949, at Eugene, Oregon, before Robert J.
Wiener, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the
hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed .3
Upon the basis of the entire record, the Board finds :
1. Erwin J. Richmond: The Petitioner contends that Richmond's
work is dissimilar to that perfd'med by the other employees in the
unit, and that he is not properly a part of the unit found appropriate
by the Board. The Intervenor urges that Richmond's work is equiv-
alent to that of a machine shop progressive helper, and that he should
be found to be a. part of the unit.'
Richmond works on the day shift as a hog knife grinderman at
$1.60 an hour. He is supervised by the machine shop foreman.5 His
sole function is to grind knives, used in another machine, on a large
machine known as a hog knife grinder. The only skill involved in
' The Board 's order directing the hearing erroneously stated that the Regional Director's
Report on Challenged Ballots recommended that the challenges to five ballots be overruled,
and that the challenge to the ballot of Erwin J . Richmond be sustained.
3 The hearing officer denied a motion by the Employer to hear testimony with respect to
two challenges as to which no exceptions had been filed , on the ground that the matter lay
outside the scope of the order directing the hearing. The hearing officer's ruling is hereby
affirmed. The Employer did not file any exceptions to the Regional Director' s Report on
Challenged Ballots within the time provided therefor. In accordance with our established
practice , we will not entertain such an untimely exception . Cf. Matter of E. W. Bliss
Company, Toledo Works, 77 N. L. R. B. 1080.
The hearing officer referred to the Board the Employer ' s motion to dismiss the order
directing the hearing. The Employer challenged the necessity of the hearing upon the
ground that the results of the election , irrespective of the challenged votes , conclusively
disposed of the issue presented in the election . We do not agree . A hearing was necessary
to make a proper disposition of the challenged ballots, without which the results of the
election could not have been found conclusive . The Employer ' s motion is therefore denied.
4In its decision the Board found that "all journeyman machinists and auto mechanics
at the Employer' s Springfield , Oregon, plant , including those progressive helpers regularly
assigned to assist these employees , but excluding welders, supervisors and all other
employees ," may constitute a separate appropriate unit.
The blacksmith and welders, whom the Board excluded from the appropriate unit, also
work under the supervision of the machine shop foreman.
857829-50-vol. 85-75
1172 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
this job is to know when the grinding is completed, at which time
the machine is turned off and the knives removed from it.
Richmond works exclusively at his own machine. He is not a ma-
chinist, and is qualified to use only the simplest of the machine shop
equipment. If anything goes wrong with the hog knife grinder, he
reports it to the machine shop foreman or the day shift strawboss. He
is not qualified to, and does not, repair his machine.
In view of the foregoing facts, we are satisfied that Richmond is not
a journeyman machinist or auto mechanic, or a progressive helper
regularly assigned to assist these employees, and therefore was not
eligible to vote in the election. Accordingly, the challenge to the ballot
of Erwin J. Richmond is hereby sustained, and his ballot declared
invalid.
2. J. C. Johnson: The Petitioner contends that Johnson is a super-
visor and therefore not eligible to vote in the election. The Employer
and the Intervenor argue that Johnson is not a supervisor.
Johnson is strawboss in the machine shop on the night shifts Also
working on the night shift are 2 secolcd class machinists, 1 blacksmith,
1 welder, 2 tiremen and oilers, and 1 progressive helper.
Johnson's immediate supervisor is the strawboss on the day shift,
who in turn is responsible to the machine shop foreman. The latter
two men do not leave the machine shop until. after the first hour of the
night shift.' The machine shop foreman on the day shift is held
responsible for the work of the night shift employees.
Johnson spends about half of his time checking tools in and out of
the toolroom and filling requisitions for supplies from the supply
room." During the remainder of his time he works as a machinist,
helps the other men on the shift when they need it,9 runs a hoist truck
to lift heavy material, and at the end of the shift sees that everything is
in its proper place and locked up, and that certain lights are turned off.
Job orders are usually left by the day shift strawboss, who some-
times indicates the priority in which the work is to be done. Other
work orders; however, are brought into the machine shop during the
night shift. In such cases, the material to be worked on is customarily
given directly to the workers by the millwrights Who bring the material
Johnson works a regular 5-day week on the night shift. On Saturdays he works over-
time as an ordinary machinist. When he was assigned to the night shift as strawboss,
Johnson was told that it was a temporary job to last only until construction of the plant
was completed, at which time he would go back to his old job as a machinist in the machine
shop. Before his transfer, he was a second class machinist on the day shift.
4 The machine shop foreman and the plant superintendent both live near the plant, and
quite often come back to the plant in the evening.
8 On the day shift, employees other than machinists perform these functions.
9 Johnson testified that while the men on his shift seek his advice when they need It, be
never instructs them or tells them how to do their work.
WEYERHAEUSER TIMBER COMPANY 1173
to the machine shop. Johnson then distributes the work orders to the
appropriate workmen. Inasmuch as there are only two machinists.
working on the night shift, Johnson does not have much opportunity
for discretion as to the assignment of work orders. When an occasional*
major job is brought into the shop during the night shift, Johnson
sometimes has to take men away from their regular jobs to work on
the special job. Johnson, however, has no authority to make any deci-
sions on major problems. In such cases the plant superintendent is
notified ; he goes to the machine shop, lines up the work, and if neces-
sary, calls out additional men to get the work done.
Johnson receives $1.85 an hour, the same pay received by the straw-
boss on the day shift. Johnson receives 5 cents an hour more than the.
regular first class machinists on the day shift, and the welder and.
blacksmith on his shift. The second class machinists are paid $1.75,
an hour. Johnson has no authority to discipline, hire or discharge,,
or effectively to recommend a change in status of any of the employees
on the night shift.
We do not believe that Johnson exercises such a degree of inde-
pendent judgment or discretion in the performance of his duties;
as would warrant a finding that he is a supervisor within the meaning
of Section 2 (11) of the Act. Such authority as he possesses appears:
to be routine in nature, and is usually carried out under the guidance
of a superior. Under all the circumstances, we find that Johnson
is not a supervisor within the meaning of the Act. Accordingly, we
hereby- overrule the challenge to his ballot.
Inasmuch as the results of the election would remain inconclusive
regardless of how Johnson voted,10 we shall not direct that his ballot
be opened and counted. In accordance with the Board's Rules and.
Regulations, we shall direct that a run-off election be conducted, and
that the ballot provide for a selection between the Petitioner and the
Intervenor, as having received the largest and second largest number
of votes.1'
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Regional Director be, and he hereby
is, directed to conduct a run-off election to determine whether the em-
ployees in question desire to be represented by Santiam District
10 There were 22 valid ballots cast . Of these, 10 were for the Petitioner , 10 were for the
Intervenor , 1 was for neither labor organization , and 1 was challenged.
11 We find no merit to the contentions of the Employer and the Intervenor that no run-off
election should be conducted and that the petition should be dismissed , as a majority of the
employees did not vote for the Petitioner. Matter of J. I. Case Company, 81 N. L. R. B.
969 (Case No . 10-RC-103). Cf. Matter of United States Rubber Company, 83 N. L. R. B.
878.
1174 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Lodge 163, International Association of Machinists, or by Inter-
national Woodworkers of America, CIO, Local 5-246, for the purposes
of collective bargaining.
MEMBERS REYNOLDS and MURDOCK took no part in the consideration
of the above Supplemental Decision and Order.