E. P. Logging Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 24, 1944

55 N.L.R.B. 1480 (N.L.R.B. 1944)

In the Matter of E. P. LOGGING COMPANY and LOCAL 384, INTER-
NATIONAL W OODWORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO
In Vie Matter of UMPQUA LUMBER COMPANY and LUMBER AND SAWMILL
WORKERS, LOCAL UNION 2713, AFL
In the Matter Of UMPQUA LUMBER COMPANY and LOCAL 7-384,
INTERNATIONAL WOODWORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO
In the Matter of E. P. LOGGING COMPANY and TEAMSTERS AND AUTO
TRUCK DRIVERS, LOCAL 57, AFL
Cases Nos . 19-R-1236,19-R-1280 , 19-R-1287 and 19-R-1290 respec-
tively.-Decided April 24,1944
Cllr. E. TV. Picco , of Myrtle Creek, Oreg., for the Logging Company
and the Lumber Company.
Mr. Kenneth McKee, of Roseburg , Oreg., for the C. I. O.
Mr. C. P. Richards , of Eugene , Oreg., and Mr. Oscar I. Slack, of
Roseburg , Oreg., for the AFL.
Mr. D. B. McFadyen , of Eugene ,. Oreg., for the Teamsters.
Mr. Seymour J. Spelman , of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon petitions duly filed by International Woodworkers of America,
Locals 384 and 7-384, 010, herein collectively called the CIO; Lum-
ber and Sawmill Workers Union, Local 2713, AFL, herein called the
AFL; and Teamsters and Auto Truck Drivers, Local 57, AFL, herein
called the Teamsters; alleging that questions affecting commerce
had arisen concerning the representation of employees of E. P. Log-
ging Company, Montesano, Washington, and Umpqua Lumber Com-
pany, Myrtle Creek, Oregon, herein collectively called the Coin-
panies, or respectively called the Logging Company and the Lumber
Company, the National Labor Relations Board consolidated the cases
and provided for an appropriate hearing upon due notice before
John E. Hedrick, Trial Examiner. Said hearing was held at Rose-
55 N. L. R. B., No. 274.
1480
E. P. LOGGING COMPANY 1481
burg, Oregon, on February 28, 1944. The Company , the CIO, the
AFL, and the Teamsters appeared and participated . All parties were
afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross -examine
witnesses , and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues. The Trial
Examiner reserved ruling upon the motion of the CIO to dismiss the
petition of the Teamsters. For reasons set forth in Section IV, infra,
said motion is hereby denied. The Trial Examiner 's rulings made at
the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
All parties were afforded an opportunity to file briefs with the
Board.
Upon the entire record, in the case , the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANIES
The E. P. Logging Company, a partnership consisting of two co-
partners, Edward and Margaret Picco, maintains its principal office
at Montesano, Washington, and conducts its principal operations at
Myrtle Creek, Oregon. It is engaged in the felling, bucking, yarding,
and loading of timber. At present, the Company produces about
1,800,000 board feet of logs per month, and when full production is
reached, it will produce approximately 3,000,000 board feet of logs
per month.
The Umpqua Lumber Company, an Oregon corporation with its
principal office at Myrtle Creek, Oregon, is presently engaged in the
business of transforming logs into rough lumber at its mill in Myrtle
Creek. Ninety percent of the finished product is shipped to points
outside the State of Oregon.
The Companies admit, and we find, that they are engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
H. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
International Woodworkers of America. Locals 384 and 7-384,
affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, are labor or-
ganizations admitting to membership employees of the Companies.
Lumber and Sawmill Workers Union. Local 2713, affiliated with
the American Federation of Labor, is a labor organization admitting
to membership employees of the Companies.
Teamsters and Auto Truck Drivers, Local 57, affiliated with the
American Federation of Labor, is a labor organization admitting to
membership employees of the Logging Company.
III. THE QUESTIONS CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The record discloses that the Logging Company and the Lumber
Company are unwilling to grant recognition to any of the labor or-
1482 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ganizations involved herein as the exclusive bargaining representative
of any group of their respective employees without certification by the
Board in an appropriate unit.
A statement of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing, indicates
that the CIO, the AFL, and the Teamsters each represent a substan-
tial number of employees in the unit it alleges to be appropriate.'
We find that questions affecting commerce have arisen concerning the
representation of employees of the Logging Company and the Lumber
Company, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and
(7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The CIO contends that the following two units are appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining: (1) all production and
maintenance employees of the Logging Company, including truck
drivers, but excluding clerical and supervisory employees; and (2)
all production and maintenance employees of the Lumber Company,'
excluding construction workers, and clerical and supervisory em-
ployees. The AFL is in general agreement with the units proposed by
the CIO, but it would exclude the truck drivers of the Logging Com-
pany and would include the construction workers of the Lumber Com-
pany. The Teamsters seeks a unit comprising the truck drivers of the
Logging Company. The Companies contend that the production,
maintenance, and construction employees of both Companies, exclud-
ing truck drivers, clerical and supervisory employees, constitute a
single appropriate unit.
The contentions of the parties raise the following three issues :
1. Should employees of both Companies constitute a single unit?
The Logging Company is a partnership consisting of two copartners,
Edward and Margaret Picco. The Lumber Company is a corporation,
with stock ownership divided between the White Star Lumber Com-
i The Trial Examiner reported that in Case No. 19-11-1236 the CIO submitted 46 appli-
cation for membership cards, all of which bore apparently genuine original signatures ;
that the names of 30 persons appearing on the cards were listed on the Company's pay roll
of February 1944, which contained the names of 48 employees in the appropriate unit;
and that the cards were dated from October 1943 to February 1944. The AFL submitted
12 application for membership cards, of which 5 bore names appearing on the aforesaid
pay roll.
In Case No. 19-R-1282, the AFL submitted 22 application for membership cards all of
which bore apparently genuine original signatures. The names of 14 persons appearing
on the cards were contained on the Company's pay roll of February 26, 1944, which con-
tained the names of 90 employees in the appropriate unit. The cards were dated from
September to December 1943.
In Case No 19-R-1287, the CIO submitted 44 application for membership cards, all of
which bore apparently genuine original signatures, the names of 31 persons appearing on
the cards were contained in the aforesaid pay roll.
In Case No. 19-R.-1290, the Teamsters submitted a list bearing the names of 4 persons
alleged to be members of the Teamsters. All of said names appeared on the Company's
pay roll for February 1944, which contained the names of 5 employees in the alleged
appropriate unit.
E. P. LOGGING COMPANY 1483
pany, whose ownership is not disclosed in the record, and Edward and
Margaret Picco, Edward Picco is the general manager of both Com-
panies. The employees of the Logging Company are engaged in fell-zn in
ing trees, cutting them into logs, loading the logs on trucks, and
transporting them a distance of 20 miles to the mill pond of the Lum-
ber Company. At present the employees of the Lumber Company are
engaged solely in transforming logs into rough lumber. Eventually,
when the construction of the mills is completed, the employees will
also finish the rough lumber. Both Companies maintain separate
offices, separate pay rolls, separate supervisory staffs (except for
Edward Picco who is over-all general manager) and in all ways are
separate entities except for the common ownership as described above.
There has not been, nor is there likely to be any interchange of em-
ployees between the two Companies. The Companies desire a single
unit chiefly as a matter of bargaining convenience, while the AFL and
the CIO contend that two separate traits are appropriate. In view
of the facts set out above, we are of the opinion, and find, that two
separate units are appropriate for the purposes of collective liargain-
ing.2
2. Should the construction workers be included in the Lumber Com-
pany's wnit? The Company and the AFL would include these em-
ployees in the unit, while the CIO is opposed. Of the approximate
96 employees of the Lumber Company, 22 are construction workers
engaged in completing the construction of a sawmill. The Company
expects that this construction will continue for another year, at which
time it hopes to absorb the construction employees into its production
and maintenance staff. Although from time to time the construction
workers substitute for absent production employees and also perform
maintenance work in and about the mill, their principal work is the
construction of the sawmill. They are classified as carpenters, assist-
ants, and laborers, while the production and maintenance employees
fall into the following classifications : sawyers, offbearers, lumber
pilers, crane operators, trimmer men, edger men, filers, setters, doggers,
and others. The skills required in various production jobs are sub-
stantially different from those required in construction work. Thus,
the general manager testified that a construction carpenter could not
perform the work of trimmer man, edger roan, sawyer, or filer, all key
jobs in production. There is evidence that there exists a differential
in rate of pay between construction and production work, and that
the rate of pay of those production jobs which could be performed by
construction carpenters is less than that now received by said em-
ployees. The evidence further reveals that the permanent maintenance
2 See Matter of Buckley Hemlock Mills , Inc., 15 N. L. R . B. 498; Matter of Schafer
Brothers Lumber and Shingle Company, 23 N. L. R. B. 1104.
1484 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
staff will not include more than 6 or 7 employees. The Company
states that it considers the 22 construction workers as permanent and
regular employees, since it intends to absorb them into production
and maintenance jobs when the present construction program is com-
pleted. However, we are of the opinion that notwithstanding the
Company's intention, the possible future employment status of the
construction workers with this Company cannot be relied on as criteria
for our present unit determination. Nor does their present status
justify, in our opinion, their inclusion in a unit of production and
maintenance employees. The differences in skill, rate of pay, and
nature of work between construction workers, on one hand, and pro-
duction and maintenance employees, on the other, is such that there
does not exist between them that degree of homogeneity and mutuality
of interest which we require in establishing an appropriate unit. Ac-
cordingly, we shall exclude the construction workers from the unit.
If, at some future date, any construction workers are, in fact, absorbed
into production or maintenance jobs, then such employees will of course
be included in the production and maintenance unit hereinafter found
appropriate.
3. Should truck drivers be included in the Logging Company unit?
The Teamsters petitioned for a separate unit of truck drivers of the
Logging Company. The AFL and the Company are in agreement
with the Teamsters' proposed unit, but the CIO contends that the
truck drivers should be included in the unit of production and main-
tenance employees. As of February 26, 1944, the Logging Company
employed 5 truck drivers who are engaged in hauling logs from the
logging operations of the Logging Company to the Lumber Com-
pany's mill pond, a distance of 20 miles. These drivers were trans-
ferred recently to the Logging Company from another company also
owned and operated by Edward Picco. When employed by the latter
company, they worked as truck drivers and were bargained for by
the Teamsters pursuant to contract. When transferred, they were
assured by Picco that they would operate under the same working
conditions as established in the aforesaid contract. Picco testified
that he intends to use the truck drivers as a mobile unit, dividing
their time, as the occasion demands, among the various companies in
which he has an interest. The evidence shows there has been no
transfer of truck drivers to other jobs. Included among the drivers
is one Earl Jackson who, in addition to driving, directs the work of
the other drivers, checks equipment to see that it is in proper operat-
ing condition, and can slake effective recommendations with respect
to hire and discharge of drivers under his direction. The facts show
that Jackson is a supervisory employee within the meaning of 0111-
usual definition and he will, therefore, be excluded from the unit as
such. On the basis of the foregoing facts we are of the opinion and
E. P. LOGGING COMPANY 1485
find that the truck drivers constitute a sufficiently homogeneous and
identifiable group to function as a separate appropriate unit.
The parties are agreed, and we find, that all clerical and supervisory
employees should be excluded from the units.
We find that the following three groups of employees constitute
separate units appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. There shall be
.excluded from each of said groups, in addition to the enumerated
.exclusions, all clerical employees, and all supervisory employees with
authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect
changes in the status of employees or effectively recommend such
action."
(1) All production and maintenance employees of the E. P. Logging
Company, excluding truck drivers.
(2) All production and maintenance employees of the Umpqua
Lumber Company, excluding construction workers.
(3) All truck drivers of the E. P. Logging Company.
V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
We shall direct that the question concerning representation which
has arisen be resolved by an election by secret ballot among the em-
ployees in the appropriate unit who were employed during the pay-
roll period immediately preceding the date of the Direction of Elec-
tions herein, subject to the limitations and additions set forth in the
Direction.
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National Labor
Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations
Act, and pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of National Labor Rela-
tions Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3, it is hereby
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain represent-
atives for the purposes of collective bargaining with E. P. Logging
Company, Montesano, Washington, and Umpqua Lumber Company,
Myrtle Creek, Oregon, separate elections by secret ballot shall be con-
ducted as early as possible, but not later than thirty (30) days from
3 The following persons are supervisory employees of the Logging Company • Manage.
(Edward Picco) Supeuntendent of Logging (John Blanche) ; Foreman of Cutting Crew
(D A. Halloway) Yarding and Loading Crew Foreman (C. E. Cook) ; Foreman of Road
Construction Crew ( Noble Ellison). The following persons are supervisory employees of
the Lumber Company : Constiuction Foreman (E J. Holland) ; Millwright Foreman (L R
McIntosh) I-lead Millwright (James B. Olenghouse) ; Planing Mill Foreman (Oscar B
Peterson) ; Chief Engineer (Bill Slag) ; and the Mill Superintendent The names in paren.
theses were the incumbents of the various supervisory positions at the time of the hearing
The record discloses that all these employees make effective recommendations with respect
to changes in status of employees under their direction. The above list is not necessarily
exclusive
1486 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the date of this Direction, under the direction and supervision of the
Regional Director for the Nineteenth Region, acting in this matter
as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject to Ar-
ticle III, Sections 10 and 11, of said Rules and Regulations, among
the employees in the units found appropriate in Section IV, above,
and set out below, who were employed during the pay-roll period im-
mediately preceding the date of this Direction, including employees
who did not work during said pay-roll period because they were ill
or on vacation or temporarily laid off, and including employees in
the armed forces of the United States who present themselves in
person at the polls, but excluding those employees who have since quit
or been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or reinstated
prior to the date of the election, and further excluding all clerical
employees and all supervisory employees with the authority to hire,
promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status
of employees, or effectively recommend such action :
(1) All production and maintenance employees of the E. P. Log-
ging Company, excluding truck drivers, to determine whether they
desire to be represented by International Woodworkers of America,
Local 384, CIO, or by Lumber and Sawmill Workers Union, Local
2713, AFL, for the purposes of collective bargaining, or by neither;
(2) All production and maintenance employees of the Umpqua
Lumber Company, excluding construction workers, to determine
whether they desire to be represented by International Woodworkers
of America, Local 7-384, CIO, or by Lumber and Sawmill Workers
Union, Local 2713, AFL, for the purposes of collective bargaining, or
by neither; and
(3) All truck drivers of the E. P. Logging Company, to determine
whether they desire to be represented by Teamsters and Auto Truck
Drivers, Local 57, AFL, or by International Woodworkers of America,
Local 384, CIO, for the purposes of collective bargaining, or by
neither.
CHAIRMAN MILLIS took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Elections.