Wildwood Lumber Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 14, 1955

114 N.L.R.B. 986 (N.L.R.B. 1955)

986 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Board has held that where under similar circumstances there is
prima facie evidence of supervisory authority, the Board has no
alternative but to direct a hearing to resolve this issue, despite a spe-
cific agreement to include such persons in the unit, because supervisors'
are_ expressly excluded from the coverage of the Act, and therefore a
serious issue is raised which the Board cannot obviate because of
technical, procedural, or other considerations." It is clear, therefore,''
under this Board precedent, that despite the original agreement of
the Petitioner to,include Pressley and Roth in the unit, and despite any
other technical -or procedural considerations,12 the newly discovered
prima facie evidence submitted by the Petitioner requires the Board
to reopen the record for further evidence on the supervisory status
of Pressley and Roth, and if such evidence reveals that they were in
fact supervisors or directors of the corporation prior to the election
to sustain the challenges to their ballots. Accordingly, I would grant
the petitioner's motion to reopen the record for this purpose.
II New York Shipping Assoaeation, 109 NLRB 791.
32 Such as the fact, which is relied on by the majority , that the Board in the course of
its regular procedure has already twice considered and determined the status of Pressley
and Roth on limited and different evidence ; or the fact , also relied on by the majority,
that the Board has made its determination of the challenges and a certification of the
results of tire election has been issued on the basis of such limited and different evidence.
Although the new evidence was earlier discovered and presented in the two cited cases,
as noted by the majority , the principle laid down in them is none the less apposite here.
Wildwood Lumber Company and International Woodworkers of
America, CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 20-RC-2818._ November 14,
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 Robert J. Scolnik,
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 case, the Board finds :
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.
I As set forth in the Decision , the Employer operates an integrated enterprise. For
the first 6 months of 1955 the Employer made shipments directly out-of- State from its
Red Bluff operations of products amounting in value to approximately $50,000. Project-
ing this amount for the entire year, it is clear that the direct outflow requirement estab-
lished in the case of Jonesboro Grain Drysng Cooperative, 110 NLRB 481 , is met.
114 NLRB No. 159.
WILDWOOD LUMBER COMPANY 987
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 and Northern California District Council Lum-
ber and Sawmill Workers, AFL, the Intervenor, agree that the ap-
propriate unit includes production, maintenance, and transportation
employees at the Employer's logging and sawmill operation at and
near Wildwood, California, about 12 miles west of Platina, Cali-
fornia. The Employer contends that the unit must also include em-
ployees at its planing mill, drying yard, and storage shed near Red
Bluff, California, about 55 miles east of Platina. The parties also
fail-to agree' as to the unit placement of certain categories at Wild-
wood, which are discussed below.
The Employer is engaged in the lumbering business. At Wild-
wood, the Employer cuts lumber and sends it by independently owned
trucks to other plants for further processing. About 55 percent of
the lumber cut at Wildwood is sent to Red Bluff which, since December
1954, has received about 90 percent of its raw material from this
source. At Wildwood, the logging operation runs from about April
1 until sometime in November; the sawmill runs from about March
1 until December 25. Red Bluff operates for approximately the same
time, although it may run longer because of its storage facilities. Ap-
proximately 130 employees at Wildwood and 30 at Red Bluff work
under the overall supervision of the Employer's resident manager but
under separate immediate supervision. The resident manager, with
the advice of the Emmployer's president, determines wages and work-
ing conditions at both plants. Sometime after December 1954, the
Employer put into effect the salve general wage increase at both plants.
Of the approximately 30 employees at Red Bluff, only about 9 have
jobs which are substantially similar to jobs held by employees at
Wildwood and have similar wage rates. Employees at both loca-
tions are under the same workmen's compensation program and re-
ceive vacation pay at the same rates but at different times. The Em-
ployer maintains an office and issues pay checks at each plant, but the
office at Red Bluff is the Employer's main office, and the Employer
keeps all its records there. Each plant does its own normal main-
tenance work. There is little or no employee interchange between the
two locations.
There is no bargaining history covering employees at Wildwood.
As to Red Bluff, however, the bargaining history is extensive. On
September 13, 1951, following a consent election held in consolidated
Cases Nos. 20-RC-1510 and 20-RM-84, the Regional Director certi-
2 Because we find appropriate a unit of employees limited to Wildwood, it is clear that
a contract allegedly still in effect and covering employees at Red Bluff could not be a
bar to an election in this proceeding.
988 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
fled Local 2850 of the Intervenor as the exclusive collective-bargaining
representative of production and maintenance employees at Red Bluff.
Thereafter, on October 15, 1951, the Employer and Local 2850 en-
tered into a contract covering these employees, effective to May 1,
1952, and from year to year thereafter in the absence of notice. By
written agreement, this contract was renewed so as to be effective from
May 1, 1953, to May 1, 1954. On January 28, 1954, Local 2850 served
notice of reopening with respect to certain items in the contract, and
thereafter the parties conducted bargaining negotiations. However,
no written agreement resulted and on June 21, 1954, Local 2850 began
a strike at the Red Bluff plant., On October 5, 1954, the Intervenor
filed a civil action in a State court, alleging that the last contract
between the parties was still in effect, and seeking its enforcement.
As noted, the Wildwood and Red Bluff plants are separated by a
substantial distance. Employees at each plant work under separate
immediate supervision. Each plant does it own normal maintenance
work. There are differences in job categories, and there is virtually
no employee interchange between the plants. The Employer and
Local 2850 have bargained for employees at Red Bluff on a single-
plant basis. No labor organization presently seeks to represent em-
ployees at both plants in a single, overall unit. In view of all these
circumstances, and the entire record herein, we are persuaded that
a unit of employees limited to the Employer's Wildwood operation is
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining .4
There remains for consideration the unit placement of the categories
at the Wildwood plant.
Cleanup men : The Petitioner and the Intervenor would include
cleanup men. The Employer apparently agrees with the other parties
on this point. These employees perform the usual duties of their
classification. We shall include them in the unit.'
Foresters : The Petitioner and the Intervenor would exclude forest-
ers. The Employer does not take a contrary position. These em-
ployees are graduates in forestry from the University of California.
They mark timber, "supervise" construction, work at road locations
and with the Forest Service, and engage in "professional forestry
matters." In these circumstances we shall exclude foresters from the
unit.
Watchmen: The Petitioner and the Intervenor would include watch-
men. The Employer takes no clear position. The watchmen make
rounds and punch clocks. Although they are not armed or uniformed,
8 At the hearing a former president and general manager testified that the strike at
the Red Bluff plant caused the closing of the Wildwood plant.
* Cf. Ivory Pine Company of Catafornia, 107 NLRB 19.
Ross Lumber Company, 94 NLRB 636, relied on by the Employer in support of its
position is clearly distinguishable from the instant case.
5 The Stoll Lumber Company , 96 NLRB 682.
WILDWOOD LUMBER COMPANY 989
it is there responsibility to protect plant property. We find that
watchmen are guards within the meaning of Section 9 (b) (3) of the
Act and exclude them as such from the production and maintenance
unit.6
The foreman of the skidding crew and the night shift foreman: The
Petitioner and the Intervenor would include the foreman of the skid-
ding crew. The Employer takes no clear position. In the absence
of the logging superintendent, the foreman of the skidding crew is in
charge of the logging, which consists of the skidding and loading of
logs. He directs the crew, may shut down the operation and correct
any difficulty that may arise, and may remove a man from the crew
until the superintendent or resident manager makes a final disposition
of the matter. At the time of the hearing, he had not exercised his
power to shut down the operation or to remove a man from the crew.
He has no authority to discharge employees. He also works as a
hoister. In all the circumstances, particularly in view of his apparent
exercise of independent judgment in directing employees, we conclude
that the foreman of the skidding crew has authority responsibly to
direct employees.
The Petitioner would exclude the night shift foreman. The posi-
tions of the Employer and the Intervenor are not clear. The night
shift foreman is in charge of a crew of approximately 25 employees.
He "supervises," sees to it that the lumber is processed correctly and
that all the Employer's equipment is running, and assists in doing
repair work. He also does millwright's work and has the tools of a
millwright. He has the authority to discipline, hire, and discharge
employees working under him.
In these circumstances, we find that both the foreman of the skidding
crew and the night shift foreman are supervisors as defined in Sec-
tion 2 (11) of the Act, and we exclude them as such from the unit.
Upon the entire record herein, we find that the following employees
of the Employer constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act:
All production, maintenance, and transportation employees at the
Employer's logging and sawmill operation at and near Wildwood,
California, including cookhouse employees and cleanup men, but ex-
cluding clerical employees, foresters, watchmen, and the foreman of
the skidding crew, the night shift foreman, and all other supervisors
as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
MEMBER MURDOCK took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Election.
6Walterboro Manufacturing Corporation, 106 NLRB 1383.