Cyprus Mines Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 25, 1967

164 N.L.R.B. 1060 (N.L.R.B. 1967)

1060 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL
Timber Products Company Division of Cyprus
Mines Corporation and International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local
Union No . 659, AFL-CIO, Petitioner, and
International Woodworkers of America,
AFL-CIO; International Woodworkers of
America , Western States Regional Council
No. 3, AFL-CIO; and International
Woodworkers of America , Local Union
No. 3-6, AFL-CIO, Intervenors .' * Case
36-RC-2072.
May 25,1967
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition2 duly filed under Section 9(c) of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a
hearing was held before Hearing Officer
Robert E. Tillman of the National Labor Relations
Board. The Hearing Officer's rulings made at the
hearing are free from prejudicial error and are
hereby affirmed. Following the hearing and pursuant
to Section 102.67 of the National Labor Relations
Board Rules and Regulations and Statements-of
Procedure, Series 8, as amended, by direction of the
Regional Director for Region 19, the case was
transferred to the Board for decision. Briefs have
been filed by the Employer, the Petitioner, and by
Intervenors IWA; Western Council of Lumber and
Sawmill Workers, United Brotherhood of
Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO;
Lumber Products Manufacturers Association; and a
consolidated brief filed on behalf of a majority of the
remaining Intervenors.3
' Intervenor International Woodworkers of Amenca,
AFL-CIO; International Woodworkers of Amenca, Western
States Regional Council No. 3, AFL-CIO, and International
Woodworkers of Amenca, Local Union No. 3-6, AFL-CIO,
hereinafter collectively referred to as IWA, was permitted to
intervene on the basis of its certification and its status as
bargaining representative of certain of the Employer's employees
,The remaining Intervenors were permitted to intervene on the
ground that a Board review of the Weyerhaeuser doctrine (87
NLRB 1076) might, in effect , directly affect their respective labor
relation policies and collective-bargaining agreements
*The remaining Intervenors are as follows Western Council of
Lumber and Sawmill Workers, United Brotherhood of Carpenters
and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, Weyerhaeuser Company,
Timber Operators Council, Inc ; Crown Zellerbach Corporation;
Georgia-Pacific Corporation ; International Paper Company;
Simpson Timber Company; Timber Products Manufacturers
Association, United States Plywood Corporation ; Pine Industrial
Relations Council, St. Regis Paper Company, Forest Product
Division; Northwest Forest Products Association (comprised of
Crown Zellerbach Corporation ; International Paper Company,
Rayonier Incorporated; United States Plywood Corporation, and
Weyerhaeuser Company); American Forest Products
Corporation, Trinity Lumber Company; General Box and Lumber
Company, Harbor Box and Lumber Company, Arizona Box
Company; Wetsel-Oveatt Lumber Company; Central California
Pine Operators, Michigan-Cahfornia Lumber Company,
Pickering Lumber Corporation; Fibreboard Paper Products.
8 The instant case arose as the result of a petition filed by the
Petitioner on August 30, 1965, seeking a unit of all electrical
maintenance employees employed by the Employer at its
Medford, Oregon, operation . On September 20, 1965, the
Regional Director dismissed the petition on the ground that the
LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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 employees of the Employer.
3. No question affecting commerce exists
concerning the representation of employees of the
Employer within the meaning of Sections 9(c)(1) and
2(6) and (7) of the Act for the following reasons:
The Unit Sought
Petitioner seeks a unit composed of all
maintenance electricians employed by the Employer
at its Medford, Oregon, operation. The Employer
contends that because of the highly integrated
functional and operational nature of its timber
products business, the only appropriate unit is an
overall maintenance and production unit, and that,
therefore, the petition seeking a craft unit should be
dismissed. Alternatively, the Employer and
Intervenors contend that the unit sought by
Petitioner is nevertheless inappropriate because the
employees sought are not true craftsmen' but are
merely skilled specialists, no more skilled or trained
than many other of the Employer's employees.
The Petitioner contends, in effect, that National
Tube Company, 76 NLRB 1199, and Weyerhaeuser
Timber Company, 87 NLRB 1076, which applied the
National Tube rule to the primary lumber industry,
were incorrectly decided and should be overruled.s
Petitioner also contends that the Employer's
maintenance electricians constitute a true craft
group.
requested unit was inappropriate because the Employer is
engaged in the basic lumber industry within the meaning of the
Weyerhaeuser doctrine. Petitioner thereafter submitted to the
Board a request for review of the Regional Director's action. On
September 4, 1965, IWA filed a petition (Case 36-RC-2085)
seeking certification in a unit comprised of "all production and
maintenance employees employed at the Employer's Medford
operation." An agreement for a consent election was thereafter
entered into by the Employer and IWA. Accordingly, on
October 28, 1965, pursuant to the consent-election agreement and
while the Petitioner's request for review was still pending before
the Board, an election was held which resulted in the certification
of IWA in its requested unit. On December 14, 1965, the Board
reinstated Petitioner's petition and directed the Regional Director
to issue a notice of hearing. It was stipulated at the instant hearing
that the consent -election agreement was entered into and
approved by the Employer and IWA with due notice that
Petitioner' s petition was at that time then pending on appeal
before the Board and "might have an effect upon the final unit
description " In addition, the record shows that although the
Employer and IWA have engaged in collective bargaining, these
parties have not bargained on behalf of the electrical maintenance
employees because of the pending petition They have agreed,
however, to include the maintenance electricans in any contract
reached if the instant petition is dismissed
3 The request for oral argument by a majority of the intervening
employers and by IWA is hereby denied, as the record and briefs
adequately present the issues and positions of the parties
Cf. American Potash and Chemical Corp , 107 NLRB 1418
The contentions of the parties respecting National Tube and
Weyerhaeuser were, of course, made prior to the Board's decision
in Mallinckrodt Chemical Works, Uranium Division , 162 NLRB
387
164 NLRB No. 109
TIMBER PRODUCTS CO. 1061
The Employer's Operation
The Employer manufactures finished lumber,
plywood,6 and particleboard' from timber which is
owned by the Employer, but which is logged and
transported by independent contractors. Following
receipt of the logs, they are graded, dumped into a
log pond, and floated to the barker where the bark is
removed. The logs are then regraded and cut into
lengths (in the barker) for processing in the plywood
mill, the gang mill, and the sawmill. Plywood logs are
floated from the barker to the plywood mill where
they are peeled by lathes into veneer, laminated, and
then sent to the panel finishing and shipping
department . Gang mill logs, which are logs of low
quality, are floated from the barker to the gang mill
where a series of saws cut the logs into forms of
rough lumber which is then sorted and transported
to the planing mill where the lumber is smoothed to a
finished state, graded, cut to lengths, sorted, and
sent to the shipping department for transportation to
market. High quality logs, which also are made into
finished lumber, are likewise floated from the barker
to the sawmill where they are subjected to
substantially the same process as the gang mill logs,
but in addition are kiln dried.
The waste materials from the plywood and lumber
mills-chips, shaving, and sawdust-are pneumati-
cally conveyed to the particleboard mill where these
materials are converted into particleboard. Both
particleboard and plywood products end up in the
panel finishing and shipping department where they
6 Plywood is a type of wood panel made by peeling logs into thin
sheets of work known as veneer , gluing the sheets of veneer
together into layers , and pressing them under heat.
Particleboard is a type of wood panel made by using sawdust,
chips, and shavings-waste material from the Employer's lumber
and plywood mills-reduced to wood fibres, applying wax and
glue to the fibres, and pressing them under heat
8 As some support for his position that the 11 maintenance
electricians are a typical group of journeymen craftsmen, our
dissenting colleague has found that "The Employer ordinarily
hires (maintenance electricians ) with electrical experience, as
their job applications prove," and as is shown by certain
testimony given by Hood, Respondent 's plant manager As to the
job applications , we do not agree that these documents are proof
of craft status , proof of the positions for which these employees
were actually employed, proof that the Employer ordinarily hires
experienced electricians , or any substantial indicia thereof.
However, for such evidentiary value as the applications may have
per se, these documents show that of the 10 job applicants
submitted in evidence, two (Graves and Doland) had previously
performed only electrical work, six (Myers, Rice, LaValley,
Hargis, Anderson , and Bass) had performed other work in
addition to electrical , such as pipefitting, welding , carpentry,
stevedoring , millwright work, maintenance mechanics work, and
so forth, and two (Hicks and Chandler) had no electrical
experience whatsoever In addition, uncontroverted affirmative
testimony establishes that at least four of the electricians were
originally employed in classifications other than that of
maintenance electrician Thus, Hargis, Hicks, and Black were
originally employed by the Employer in production jobs and
Chandler as a mecham0 or millwright. Moreover, Hicks, Black,
and Chandler had no previous electrician's experience prior to
joining the Employer and obtained such experience "in the
plant "
are sawed to proper size, sanded, and then shipped
to market.
The plywood and particleboard mills operate on a
three-shift basis, 7 days a week. The barker operates
on a three-shift daily basis, and the gang mill and
sawmill on a two-shift daily basis. The
manufacturing processes are continuous , starting
with the receipt of the logs and continuing to the
shipping department. A breakdown at any point in
the process almost immediately halts the
continuation of production from the point of the
breakdown, except in the particleboard mill which
could operate for only a few days without the waste
materials from the other mills.
The Employer has a total of 485 employees.
Included in this number is its 65-man mechanical
department which is located in the machine shop
portion of the central maintenance building and
which is composed of, among others, millwrights,
carpenters , automotive mechanics , machinists, and
11 maintenance electricians classified as lead
electrician, electrician, and electrician helper or
trainee. None of these classification groups is
partitioned off from the others, and all are under the
common supervision of the mechanical department
superintendent and three mechanical department
foremen. These employees are in no way treated
differently from any of the Employer's other
employees.
An electrical background is not a prerequisite for
employment in the classifications requested by
Petitioner,8 and, consequently, many of the
Nor do we agree that Hood's testimony, upon which our
colleague relies, establishes that the Employer does not
ordinarily hire persons without experience The entire sequence
of the examination of Hood pertinent to the point is as follows, by
Employer's counsel
Q. Do you ordinarily hire electrical maintenance
employees who have had no electrical expenence9
A. No.
Q Do you require electrical experience for every
electrical maintenance employee you hire9
A No We have transferred people from the plant to the
electrical maintenance.
Q. Perhaps you have misunderstood my previous
question.
A. Perhaps I did. Would you repeat it?
Q Yes, I will Do you ever hire electrical maintenance
employees who have had no electrical experience?
A. The answer to that question is: yes
Q So, your previous answer to the question was not
correct?
A That's right . That should be stricken . I didn't hear the
question
While we agree with our dissenting colleague that the answers
given here by Hood are not necessarily inconsistent , we cannot
conclude, in light of Hood's disavowal of his answer to the first
question and in the light of the lack of experience shown by the
job applications noted above , that the Employer ordinanly hires
only persons with electrical experience. Moreover, the
Employer's position that electrical experience is not a hiring
prerequisite , ordinary or otherwise , is sufficiently illustrated by
the fact that the Employer 's electrical maintenance foreman had
been a fisherman-"a person that goes out and catches
fish"-pnor to his employment with the Employer
1062 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
maintenance electricians were originally employed
by the Employer in classifications other than that of
maintenance electricians, such as millwright,
sweeper, and production line employee, and
obtained their electrical experience by working on
the job with experienced maintenance electricians.
The Employer does not maintain a formal training
program for maintenance electricians, or for any
other classification, although maintenance
electricians must complete a State-sponsored
apprenticeship program and obtain a license which
entitles them to perform the work of an industrial
electrician. The Employer, however, does not
participate in, and has no connection whatsoever
with, this program. Moreover, the record shows that
a licensed "journeyman" industrial electrician has
only a limited license to perform only certain
designated electrical work and is further restricted
by being allowed to perform this work only 9n the
premises of the industrial plant in which he is
employed. Thus, an industrial electrician is
prohibited from installing an electrical service
(bringing electrical power from an outside source
into a plant) even in an industrial plant, and is
further prohibited from performing any electrical
work in the construction industry.9 Through the
testimony of one of Petitioner's International
representatives, the record also establishes that "the
very hallmark of a journeyman's card in the IBEW
means that that is a man sufficiently skilled so that
he can take that card and do electrical work of any
kind, anywhere and everywhere, of ... every nature
..." and that "that is the very purpose for the
establishment of the IBEW electrical work as a
craft, and that is the very thing which IBEW has
long sought to establish and maintain in the high
standards of its organization throughout the world."
In this connection, it should be noted that while a
majority of the Employer's maintenance electricians
have obtained the State-sponsored industrial
electricians' license and two other employees within
this classification are in the apprenticeship state, the
record discloses that "probably" only three
employees in this subgroup are capable of
performing electrical work in the construction
industry.
These limiting qualifications are further
emphasized by evidence indicating that while the
Employer has no facilities for rewinding motors and
consequently contracts out this electrical work, not
one of the Employer's electricians is capable of
performing this work. In addition, while the
maintenance electricians install relatively uncompli-
cated control panels, some of the employees are
unable to install large control panels, which work is
also contracted out.10
The maintenance electricians, who work on a
three-shift basis are directly supervised by an
electrical maintenance foreman during the first
shift. This foreman, however, works on this shift
only and is present for a short time at the beginning
of the second shift, at which time he verbally issues
such instructions as may be necessary to the second
shift and writes out such instructions as he may have
for the third shift. Thus, during the second and third
shifts, the electricians are actively supervised by
mechanical foremen or production foremen. It is
under the foregoing arrangement that the
electricians perform their normal, routine preventive
maintenance work, and their shop work, the latter
being performed in an unsegregated corner of the
machine shop.
Routine electrical maintenance and shop work,
however, account for only 10 to 15 percent of the
electricians' time. The balance of their time and
their work is spent in production areas carrying out
their main function of doing everything necessary
not only to keep production machinery operating,
but, also, in the event of machine breakdown, to
effectuate repairs and reestablish operations as soon
as possible." In furtherance of these objectives, all
maintenance employees present in any production
area are subject to the direct supervision of the
production foreman. These same objectives,
moreover, are shared in common not only by all
members of each subgroup within the mechanical
department, but also by the machine operators and
the mechanical and production foremen. While it is
true that millwrights, for example, tend to specialize
in maintenance and repair of a mechanical nature
and electricians tend to perform work within their
own specialty, such as installing, replacing, and
repairing fuses, starters, switches, motors (except
rewinding), and other electrical equipment, these
two groups, among others, work together on a team
9 By partial definition , a limited journeyman industrial
electrician is "any person who performs electrical work limited to
the extending of existing branch circuits, maintenance , repair,
and replacement of existing electrical wiring and electrical
products on the premises of an industrial plant."
10 The outside contractor's electricians worked a total of 12,633
hours during 1965 installing large control panels in the Employer's
plant The record does not disclose the number of large panels
installed, the amount of time required for such installations, or the
number of the Employer's electricians capable of making such
installation Consequently , it cannot be assumed , as contended by
Petitioner, that because of the "sheer amount of additional
electrical work to be done " the Respondent 's staff of electricians
"was not large enough to do this work in addition to their regular
electrical maintenance duties "
11 While the record is not absolutely clear as to how mechanical
department employees are notified of production line problems, it
would appear that production foremen notify the mechanical
department superintendent of their needs, and the
superintendent , through his channels, supplies the requirements
TIMBER PRODUCTS CO. 1063
basis to solve major maintenance problems.12 Thus,
when machinery difficulties threaten or curtail the
continuity of the production processes, it is a matter
of routine for millwrights, electricians, carpenters,
machinists, and anyone else necessary, to be called
to aid in diagnosis and repair. If, for example,
investigation discloses the difficulty to be electrical,
the electrician assumes primary responsibility and
the millwright, or whoever else proves to be
necessary and is called, becomes in effect the
electrician's helper, and vice versa if the problem is
mechanical and thus the millwright's primary
responsibility.
In addition to teamwork efforts, the record also
discloses the broader-than-craft scope of individual
effort in that electricians often perform mechanical
work, although of a minor nature, and millwrights
likewise perform minor electrical work. Similarly,
the testimony of a maintenance electrician
establishes that at least once weekly he performs
production jobs such as unloading the hot press,
unplugging chippers, unplugging a machine known
as a hog, and also relieves production employees
during their lunch hour. In like vein, testimony also
establishes that machine operators also perform
such electrical jobs as replacing fuses and using
voltage testers.
Unit Findings
The Employer contends that the highly integrated
operational nature of its production processes
requires a similarly high degree of functional
coordination between production employees and
maintenance electricians, and that, therefore, an
overall production and maintenance unit is alone
appropriate.
As set forth in Mallinckrodt Chemical Works,
Uranium Division, 162 NLRB 387, the Board now
considers the integrated aspects of an employer's
operation as but one relevant factor in determining
the appropriateness or inappropriateness of a
proposed unit, regardless of the industry involved.
Accordingly, we find that neither the integrated
operational nature of the production processes nor
the concomitant high degree of functional
coordination between production employees and
maintenance electricians, although relevant to the
issue before us, are in and of themselves enough to
preclude consideration of other relevant factors
bearing on whether the unit sought by Petitioner is
appropriate.
We note at the outset that at the time of the filing
of the petition herein there was no history of
bargaining at the Employer's Medford operation and
that while the Petitioner is not seeking a broader
unit of employees, Intervenor IWA desires to
include the employees involved in a broader
production and maintenance unit. We note
additionally that the pattern of bargaining in this
industry has been almost exclusively on an industrial
rather than craft basis, and that such bargaining has
been conducive to a substantial degree of stability in
labor relations.
We therefore turn to the merits of the Employer's
further contention that the unit sought by Petitioner
is inappropriate because the disputed employees
sought do not form a functionally distinct and
homogeneous group of true craftsmen, but are,
rather, skilled specialists who exercise a
conglomeration of skills not limited to a specified
craft.
As indicated above, the record reveals that
maintenance electricians spend only 10 to 15
percent of their time in prescheduled, routine
preventive maintenance and shop repair work under
the supervision of an electrical maintenance
foreman; that 85 to 90 percent of their time is spent
in production areas under production supervision
carrying out their main function of doing whatever is
necessary, including on-the-job repair work, to
insure a continuous and uninterrupted production
flow; and that production repairs are made by
interlocking terms of electrical and machanical
employees, production employees, foremen,
supervisors, or whoever may be necessary to
diagnose and repair the difficulty. Although each
subgroup in the maintenance department tends to
specialize in the field it knows best, there is neither
administrative nor functional craft separation as
such in the Employer's plant, but instead each
subgroup aids other subgroups in making repairs,
and some maintenance electricians routinely
perform certain production operations, including the
temporary assumption of the duties of a production
operator. Finally, we note that while possibly three
of the maintenance electricians may be capable of
performing electrical work in the construction
industry, none of the three in fact performs such
work for the Employer, and the remainder do not
meet the standards which Petitioner itself has
established for journeymen electricians. We give
little weight to the fact that some of the Employer's
maintenance electricians have been conferred an
12 A maintenance electrician testified , i n effect, that
electricians and millwrights have not worked together as a team
since December of 1965, and that he had not observed or heard
any foreman but the electrical maintenance foreman give "job
assignments" during the " last two months" (January and
February 1966) The record shows, however, that teamwork and
the assigning of jobs by other than the electrical maintenance
foreman were matters of routine until the advent of Petitioner's
union activity, it was only thereafter that electricians and
millwrights have been reluctant to work together as formerly
Moreover, there is no evidence to indicate whether the "job
assignments" adverted to by the aforesaid witness consisted of
routine maintenance , which constitutes 10 to 15 percent of the
electricians ' work, or of work which constituted the remaining 85
to 90 percent of their duties.
1064 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
industrial maintenance electrician 's license under
the State-sponsored apprenticeship program, a
program in which the Employer does not participate.
That license is limited in both scope and application
and admittedly falls below the journeymen
electrician standards established by Petitioner. It
appears, therefore, that the Employer' s maintenance
electricians are essentially no more than specialized
workmen with limited skills and training adapted to
the particular processes of the Employer's
operation.13 Specialists, however, unlike craftsmen,
are not entitled to separate representation on a craft
unit basis.14
Based on all of the foregoing, we find that these
maintenance electricians do not constitute a craft
unit appropriate for purposes of collective
bargaining.15 Accordingly, we shall dismiss the
petition. 16
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the petition filed herein
be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
19 An examination of the relevant cases cited and relied on by
our dissenting colleague (E. I DuPont de Nemours and Company,
162 NLRB 413, and Georgia-Pacific Corporation, 156 NLRB 946),
readily reveals that each contained distinguishing factors which
are not recited in the dissenting opinion. Furthermore, it is
obvious from a reading of those decisions that the Board was
persuaded in each instance that the electricians involved, unlike
those in the instant case , exercised to a substantial extent true
craft skills . In any event , we do not deem prior cases necessarily
controlling , but must decide each case on the record facts As
stated in fn 14 of the Mallinckrodt decision , "Our dissatisfaction
with the Board 's existing policy stems [inter alta] . from
... the loose definition of a true craft . which may be derived
from the decisions directing severance elections pursuant to the
American Potash decision " Having thoroughly considered the
entire record in the present case to determine whether the
maintenance electricians are within the definition of a true craft,
we are persuaded that they are not We see no relevance to this
case in the fact that in another pre-Mallinckrodt case cited in the
dissent the Board granted a severance election to a group of
plumber-pipefitters and welders and to a group of instrument
repairmen.
14 E. L Dupont de Nemours & Company (Savannah River
Plant), 119 NLRB 723, 726, Saco-Lowell Shops, 94 NLRB 647
15 Subsequent to the close of the hearing in the instant case,
Petitioner submitted to the Board a motion to reopen record for
purpose of including an additional exhibit, which exhibit,
Petitioner avers, establishes the "true craft character of the unit
sought." The exhibit is a letter from the Employer to both
Petitioner and Intervenor IWA in which the Employer, in effect,
merely seeks from these unions approval of proposed wage
increases for the unrepresented maintenance electricians that the
MEMBER JOHN H. FANNING, dissenting:
I do not agree with my colleagues' conclusion that
the 11 maintenance electricians whom the IBEW
seeks to represent as a unit of craft electricians lack
the craft characteristics required for such separate
representation. Indeed, the record is replete with
evidence establishing their craft qualifications,
particularly when such qualifications are matched
against those possessed by the electricians in the
DuPont case" where my colleagues and I directed a
self-determination election for electricians involved
in maintaining a much more highly integrated
production process than that existing at this
Employer 's plant.
These maintenance electricians are a typical
group of journeyman craftsmen and their
apprentices. An exhibit prepared by the Employer
identifies them as such.18 Their work is the usual
sort of electrical maintenance work encountered in
today's mechanized industrial plants. The Employer
ordinarily hires them with electrical experience, as
Employer did not wish to effectuate by unilateral action. As the
exhibit was unavailable at the time of the hearing , we shall grant
Petitioner 's motion However, we do not agree that the exhibit
tends, in any sense, to establish the status of these employees as
electrical craftsmen
16 Although we have dismissed the petition herein because the
unit sought is generally inappropriate , our action in so doing is
based solely on the facts of the instant case and should not be
construed as foreclosing the severance or the initial establishment
of appropriate craft units in this industry . Mallinckrodt Chemical
Works, Uranium Division , 162 NLRB 387, E I Dupont de
Nemours and Company (May Plant, Camden, South Carolina),
162 NLRB 413; Union Carbide Corp., Chemicals Division, 156
NLRB 634.
11 E. I DuPont de Nemours and Company (May Plant,
Camden, South Carolina), 162 NLRB 413
ift Petitioner's Exhibit 8 is the following list of "electrical
maintenance employees" showing their State licenses, the exhibit
being identified by Mechanical Superintendent Sines
Gerald M Anderson
Paul A. Bass
Clarence B. Black
Wilbur W Chandler
Robert S. Doland
Duane T. Graves
Danial R Hargis
Millard R. Hicks
Fredrick A LaValley
Harry G. Meyers
Fred J. Rice
Journeyman-Industrial
Journeyman-Industrial
Journeyman-Manufacturing plant
Journeyman-Industrial
Journeyman-Wireman
Journeyman-Industrial
Apprentice
Apprentice
Journeyman- Indu s tnal
Journeyman-Wireman and Supervisor
manufacturing plant
Journeyman- Wireman
TIMBER PRODUCTS CO. 1065
their job applications prove.19 Nine of them are
licensed as journeymen by the State of Oregon.
Their two apprentices are licensed as apprentices by
the State and indentured under the State's
apprenticeship program . Unless this Board is about
to require that craftsmen must now be "craftsmen-
plus" as a prerequisite to granting them the
opportunity to be separately represented, it is idle
for the majority opinion to advert to the fact that
these journeymen electricians do no construction
work and rewind no motors.20 Contemporary
industrial plants frequently dispense with those
skills, and neither skill has been considered by the
Board as indispensable to craft status as an
electrician. The Employer's mechanical super-
intendent considers this group of electricians skilled,
as well as the Employer's mechanics and machinists,
and it should not be overlooked, as the majority
does in this case, that these electricians and these
machinists are among the Employer's highest paid
rank-and-file employees.21
My colleagues emphasize that these electricians
spend 85 to 90 percent of their time in routine
maintenance work. But clearly that factor did not
deter them from finding a craft unit of electricians
appropriate in the recent DuPont case, 162 NLRB
413, where the Employer' s operation was a
continuing one, in the chemical industry.22 Here, as
there, the electricians and other highly skilled
classifications are among the highest paid
employees in the plant; significant electrical work is
performed solely by the electricians and subject to
direction and supervision by their own electrical
supervisor and not by a production foreman except
with respect to minor matters; other employee
classifications, who may at times perform some of
the skilled functions of electrical work, do so
infrequently; and, although this Employer does not
have its own training program for electricians as
DuPont does, Timber Products not only hires with
experience23 but the licensing and apprenticeship
requirements of the State of Oregon applicable to
the Medford facility are calculated to insure craft-
type electricians.24
19 Eight of the 11 had previous electrical experience , ranging
from 1 year to 22 years
My colleagues suggest that electrical experience is somehow
less significant when accompanied by experience in additional
fields, and would assign these job applications little evidentiary
value To aver that there are no "substantial indicia," in this case,
that this Employer hires maintenance electricians with
experience seems frivolous . Every one of the seven men actually
hired for that work stated in his application where and when he
had electrical experience . The other four now working in the unit
were first hired by the Employer for other plant work , not for
electrical maintenance work, and were later transferred to
electrical work , three via electrical apprenticeship as the
testimony shows-and one of those actually had previous
electrical experience The fourth man originally hired for
nonelectrical work is the only unit employee whose job
application is missing. (He, Black , now holds a journeyman
license from the State .) Moreover , these job descriptions were
offered in evidence by the Petitioner , early in the hearing, and
were received as the business records of the Company they
purport to be The parties thereafter had ample opportunity to
attack the validity of their content but did not do so As to Plant
Manager Hood 's testimony , which bears the earmark of a plant
manager's anxiety to cooperate with company counsel, just what
meaning would my colleagues sign to it? If Hood's negative
response to "not ordinarily " hiring without electrical experience
is disregarded because of his obedient retraction of it, the
unretracted part is an affirmative response to "ever" having hired
without electrical experience , plus an explanation that people
have been transferred from the plant to electrical maintenance
work-which under the statutes of this State , as I have pointed
out, necessitates apprenticeship . Also, the electrical foreman
-who did not testify-is said to have been a fisherman before he
was hired . This is refreshing , but hardly of moment in a State
where the qualifications of electrical workers are as strictly
regulated as they appear to be in Oregon , whose fishing
opportunities are known to be superb
29 Three of the 9 licensed journeymen are considered capable
by the Employer's mechanical superintendent of "holding down"
a construction job, while the remainder are not, but only in the
sense of "immediately filling the bill " This witness also testified
that he did not actually know whether any of the electricians
could rewind a motor, but went on to say, "but we haven't the
facilities We can get it done cheaper and faster by sending it
out "
21 In addition , it appears that the wage scale for electricians
was not negotiated in connection with the existing IWA contract.
22 There were 40 electricians in Dupont , about one-fourth
assigned to each of 4 separate plant locations and each group
having its own electrical foreman . The groups assigned to the
electrical shop of Plant I and of Plant II spend over 90 percent of
their working time in production areas, largely on prescheduled
maintenance A third group maintains electrical equipment in the
power house , and the fourth is housed in the project shop together
with mechanics and instrument men, these later electricians
being used primarily for "construction and installation work on
power motors , relay boxes , and switches " This appears to be a
restricted use of the term "construction ," not thereafter adverted
to in the Board's Decision.
22 The plant manager answered "no" to the question, do you
ordinarily hire without experience , and "no" to the question, do
you require experience from every electrical employee you hire
His own counsel then implied that he had misunderstood the first
question , and counsel repeated it as. Do you ever hire electrical
maintenance employees who have no electrical experience? The
answer was "yes." As the answers above were not inconsistent, it
is a fair inference from the manager 's testimony that the
Employer does not ordinarily hire electricians without electrical
experience , and the job applications in evidence bear this out
1066 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The dismissal here is also quite inconsistent with
the position my colleagues took in Georgia-Pacific
Corporation, 156 NLRB 946, where the Employer's
operation was a new pulp and paper mill in
California, without history of bargaining. That too
was an integrated, continuous type operation but,
unlike DuPont, another union was seeking a
production and maintenance unit , as here. The 10
maintenance electricians involved were mostly hired
on the basis of experience in electrical maintenance
work,25 had separate electrical supervision, worked
alongside other maintenance employees on
problems involving more than one trade, and were
required to be familar with the maintenance of
motors, generators, electrical controls, and other
electrical equipment. Nevertheless, their craft skills
were recognized by my colleagues, and they were
given the opportunity of determining whether they
did, in fact, wish to be represented as a separate
craft group despite the presence of a union ready
and willing to include them in an overall unit.
Similarly, in Union Carbide Corp., Chemicals
Division, 156 NLRB 634, my colleagues recognized
the craft skills of two groups of employees with 18
months' on-the-job training-one of the plumber-
pipefitters and welders, and the other of instrument
repairmen including shift instrument repairmen
attached to the production department-and
granted them self-determination elections though
they were also sought as a part of a production and
maintenance unit .26 The craft status of these
electricians is amply supported by the record as'
indistinguishable from that of the electricians in
DuPont and Georgia-Pacific.
The plant complex here involves a sawmill,
plywood plant, particleboard plant, and pres-to-log
plant. There is no established bargaining , though
24 Note that the Board in evaluating the employees ' electrical
training program in the DuPont case spoke of it thus "Although
the program is not approved as a formal State apprenticeship
program . " Here the majority drops the apologetic appraisal of
apprenticeship programs not approved by the State and describes
the Oregon program as of limited scope and application, and
admittedly below the standards for journeymen established by the
petitioning Union In so doing, the majority not only disregards
testimony by the Petitioner that under its own standards
maintenance electricians and construction electricians have
training programs of "comparable duration and intensity" but
ignores the statutory import of the Oregon licensing and
apprenticeship systems These licenses are required by Oregon's
Electrical Safety Law and issued annually pursuant to it Oregon
Revised Statutes 479 630 . An objective of that law is to assure the
public that persons making "electrical installations " in the State
are "qualified by experience and training ," and "electrical
installations" are defined to include maintenance and repair of
electrical wiring and equipment as well as construction and
installation In addition, Oregon statutory policy encourages the
development of apprenticeship systems (Oregon Revised Statutes,
660 002, et seq ) and requires that any person performing
electrical work as a helper, learner , or trainee shall have an
apprentice license and "be indentured" under the State-
sponsored apprentice system, as Timber Products ' two electrical
earlier attempts to achieve bargaining representa-
tion of these employees have been made. The IBEW
filed its petition for maintenance electricians on
August 30, 1965, some weeks before the IWA filed
for a production and maintenance unit. At the time
the TWA filed, the IBEW's craft request had been
dismissed by the Regional Director based on the still
existent Weyerhaeuser doctrine exempting the
lumber industry from craft and departmental
units.27 The Employer consented to an election in
the overall unit, the IWA was soon certified, and a
contract was executed as of February 1, 1966. On
December 14, 1965, the Board reinstated the IBEW
petition which it is now dismissing. Thus there can
be no question that my colleagues are denying this
craft unit in the context of initial organization: this is
not a severance case. What is more, viewing this
denial of a craft unit on initial organization in
conjunction with the recent Mallinckrodt decision,
with its emphasis on prior bargaining history
whenever severance is requested, it seems quite
unlikely that a unit of maintenance electricians has
any possibility of being found appropriate at this
plant at any future time. This type of craft employee,
foreclosed generally "in lumber" from separate
representation during the 18-year sway of
Weyerhaeuser, is still foreclosed despite the
apparent demise of Weyerhaeuser. My colleagues
note that their decision is not to be construed as
foreclosing appropriate craft units by way of initial
organization or severance "in this industry," but, if
they do not recognize these licensed journeymen
maintenance electricians and their apprentices as
craftsmen, will they ever find that craftsmen are
employed in "this industry"? It seems obvious that
the instant decision puts craft representation in an
even less desirable position in the lumber and
apprentices concededly are.
The Oregon apprenticeship system is expressly concerned with
"assuring proper training and an adequate skilled labor force,"
and applicable to trades requiring a State license for journeymen,
such as the electrical trade , and which require not less than 4,000
hours of reasonably continuous employment to learn Apprentice
agreements undertaken thereunder are required to specify the
hours to be spent at work in the particular trade or craft, as well as
those to be spent in related and supplemental instruction, the
latter being 144 hours a year, or as determined by the appropriate
trade apprentice committee
2' No employer-training or State - sponsored training program
supplemented the hiring with experience
26 My colleagues describe this as a "severance " case and deem
it irrelevant , emphasizing that it involves crafts other than
electrical They overlook the fact that the Union Carbide case is,
on the contrary , one of initial organization in any industry as
integrated as the lumber industry As they do not see the case's
relevance, I can only conclude-in line with my discussion
herein-that they really do mean to have a different standard for
craft status in the former National Tube industries than in other
industries
27 Weyerhaeuser Timber Company, 87 NLRB 1076 , 1082, citing
National Tube Company, 76 NLRB 1199. The Weyerhaeuser
operation involved logging as well as a sawmill and planing mill.
TIMBER PRODUCTS CO. 1067
lumber products field than it had under
Weyerhaeuser -less desirable because the basic
lumber exception meant logging and sawmill
operations but never plywood manufacturing. After
this decision, which involves manufacturing
facilities for plywood and other lumber byproducts,
the prospect of a craft unit in any aspect of lumber is
illusory.
In my opinion, a comparison of the cases cited
supra is bound to suggest that the result reached by
the majority herein is dictated more by consideration
of the history of bargaining in this industry than by a
consideration of whether these employees qualify as
craftsmen under our recent Mallinckrodt28 and
DuPont decisions. The decision to deny them an
opportunity to seek separate representation because
they fail to meet a more restrictive definition of craft
status than is applied in other industries, including
those as integrated as this one, precludes craft
representation in this industry, as effectively, and as
arbitrarily, as did the National Tube doctrine. I fear
that my colleagues have substituted one arbitrary
rule for another,29 and, in so doing, they ignore the
statutory admonition "to assure [these] employees
the fullest freedom" in exercising the Section 7 right
to bargain collectively through a representative of
their own choice.
I would direct the self-determination election
which was sought by the Petitioner prior to entry of
any other union in this plant.
21 Mallinckrodt Chemical Works, Uranium Division, 162 NLRB
387, in which I concurred in the new policy of not excepting any
industry as such from craft severance , though dissenting from the
denial of severance to skilled instrument mechanics
29 It is improper to arbitrarily discriminate between industries
in the application of its general rules Mallinckrodt Chemical
Works , Uranium Division , supra, N L R B v Pittsburgh Plate
Glass Company , 270 F 2d 167 (C.A 4)