Colonial Cedar Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 13, 1958

119 N.L.R.B. 1613 (N.L.R.B. 1958)

COLONIAL CEDAR COMPANY, INC. 1613
Colonial Cedar Company, Inc. and Cele 0. McVay, et al., Peti-
tioners and Washington-Oregon Shingle Weavers Local 2630,
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America,
AFL-CIO. Case No. 19-RD-110. February 13,1958
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 Rachel Storer, hear-
ing officer. 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 Leedom and Members Rodgers and Bean].
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 Petitioners assert that the Union, the recognized representa-
tive of employees herein concerned, is no longer their exclusive repre-
sentative as defined in Section 9 (a) of the Act.
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 only issue in this case relates to the scope of the unit. The
Employer and the Petitioners contend that a unit confined to the Em-
ployer's employees is alone appropriate. The Union contends that
the single-employer unit in which an election is sought is inappropriate
because of a history of collective bargaining on a multiemployer basis.
For a number of years prior to 1952, the Union had negotiated con-
tracts with two separate groups of employers in the shingle and shake
manufacturing industry : (1) A group of employers who comprised the
Red Cedar Shingle Industry, Inc., hereinafter called Red Cedar, and
.(2) a group of so-called "independent" operators, including the Em-
ployer, who were not members of Red Cedar. . Negotiations were first
conducted with Red Cedar, and, after tentative agreement had been
reached with that group, negotiations were opened with the "inde-
pendent" operators. The "independent" operators, including the
Employer, had uniformly adopted the agreement which the Union had
negotiated with Red Cedar.
However, in 1952, the Employer and other "independents" noti-
fied the Union that thereafter they wished to negotiate an agreement
different from that made with Red Cedar, and a different agreement
was in fact reached with. the "independents" in 1952. In 1954 and
119 NLRB No. 199.
1614 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1955, however, employees of the Employer rejected the terms of the
agreement negotiated with the "independents." Thereupon, the Em-
ployer met with the Union and stated that in the future it would
adopt the agreement negotiated by the Union with Red Cedar. The
Employer did not attend any bargaining meetings of either the in-
dependents or Red Cedar in 1956 and 1957. However, in July 1956
the Employer signed the identical agreement theretofore negotiated
with Red Cedar. On April 1, 1957, in response to a letter from the
Union requesting a meeting concerning a 19.57 contract, the Em-
ployer stated, in effect, that it would continue to abide by the Red
Cedar contract.'
We find that there is no history of bargaining on a multiemployer
basis affecting the Employer such as to preclude a finding that its em-
ployees constitute a separate, appropriate unit.
As to Red Cedar, the Employer admittedly has not been a member
thereof or participated in its negotiations with the Union, or dele-
gated to it authority to bargain for the Employer. While it has at
various times adopted contracts negotiated by Red Cedar, that alone
is not a sufficient basis for including it in the nniltielnployer unit.'
As to the "independents," it is clear that the Employer has, at least
since 1955, not participated in joint negotiations with that group, but
has unequivocally manifested its intent not to be bound by such negoti-
ations in the future.3 Under these circumstances, we find that the in -
elusion of the Employer's employees in either the Red Cedar unit or a
unit of the employees of the "independents" would be inappropriate.
We find, instead, that the following employees of the Employer consti-
tute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within
the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act :
All production and maintenance employees at the Employer's shake
mill and stain plant in Seattle, Washington, excluding office clerical
employees, professional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined
in the Act.
5. Pursuant to the agreement of the parties, we shall provide for
an election herein to be held on such date, to be selected by the
Regional Director, as it shall appear that a substantial and representa-
tive number of employees are employed.'
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
I The Employer has continued to observe the 1956 contract of Red Cedar , extending it
on a day - to-day basis since its termination in April 1957.
2 Associated Shoe Industries of Southern Massachusetts , Inc., et at., 81 NLRB. 224.
3 See Pacific Metals Company, Ltd., at at ., 91 NLRB 696 , 699, 700 and cases cited
therein.
4Eligibility shall be determined by the payroll period immediately preceding the issu-
ance of a notice of election.