Georgia Creosoting Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 22, 1961

133 N.L.R.B. 349 (N.L.R.B. 1961)

GEORGIA CREOSOTING CORPORATION 349
for pages 3 and 4 of Exhibit No. 3, no longer constitutes a basis for the statements
contained in said portion of the Intermediate Report.
The Intermediate Report is further amended by inserting the following paragraph
after the first full paragraph on page 346.
Winders was Respondent 's chief witness as to its reasons for selecting Gies
in its reduction-in-force . Although he consulted others working under him, it
appears that it was Winders' responsibility and decision to select the day floor
man to be terminated . In view of Winders ' testimony with respect to Pressi's
raise which I have found casts doubt on his (Winders' ) credibility as a witness
in this proceeding and my observation of this witness in both hearings, I am
not disposed to give weight to his denial that Gies was terminated for union
activity or to the reasons which he advanced as the basis of the discharge.
Also I do not give weight to the corroborative evidence of Done and Simms
as to the reason for the decision . This is not only based on my observation
of these witnesses and on the fact that Winders , as their superior, was in a
position to lead them in their estimate of the employees , but also because of
Done's testimony . The gist of the dissatisfaction with Gies was that he had
a poor job attitude . However, Done testified that when he (Done ) became
foreman , Gies was very cooperative and was a fast worker which would appear
to cast considerable doubt on the contention that the estimate of Gies' attitude
was the motivating reason for his termination.
In all other respects the Intermediate Report and Recommended Order of August
30, 1960, remains unchanged.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Georgia.Creosoting Corporation i and Local Union 2591 , United
Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America, AFL-CIO,
Petitioner. Case No. 10-RC-4571. September 22, 1961
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER
On February 29, 1960, the Board 2 issued a Decision and Direction
of Election herein 3 finding appropriate a unit of "All production,
maintenance, and yard employees of the Employer at its Brunswick,
Georgia, operation, including the pole classifier, the pole inspector,
maintenance employees, retort operators, firemen, motormen, crane
operators, laborers, switchmen, and the pole mill operator, but exclud-
ing office clerical employees, the laboratory technician, watchmen,
guards, the shipping clerk, the pole yard foreman , the pole yard fore-
man trainee, the superintendent, the assistant superintendent, the as-
sistant to the superintendent, and all other supervisors as defined in
the Act."
Georgia Creosoting Company filed a motion for reconsideration on
March 7, 1960, requesting that the Board find appropriate two separate
1 In accordance with the decision herein , the Employer 's name appears as amended
Pursuant to the provision of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three -member panel [ Members Rodgers, Fanning,
and Brown].
a Not published in NLRB volumes.
133 NLRB No. 37.
350 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
units. Thereafter, American Creosoting Corporation, successor to
Georgia Creosoting Company, filed a motion to dismiss the petition
and cancel the election, alleging that the Brunswick, Georgia, plant
would cease operations on March 21, 1960. The Petitioner then
objected, contending that the plant would in fact continue in opera-
tion. Subsequently the Board, on March 29, 1960, postponed the
election date until such time as the Regional Director considered ap-
propriate. After the Petitioner on July 28, 1960, filed a motion to
amend the name of the Employer, Georgia Creosoting Corporation,
on August 11, 1960, requested a hearing to permit it to show that it
was not a proper substitute for Georgia Creosoting Company. There-
upon, on January 30,1961, the Board remanded the instant proceeding
to the Regional Director for further hearing. Upon the entire record,
the Board makes the following findings :
On March 22, 1960, the Brunswick plant of Georgia Creosoting
Company was sold by its owner, American Creosoting Corporation '4
to Escambia Treating Company and Lewis Wood Preserving Com-
pany. All real and personal property at the plant were purchased for
the price of $551,000, plus the value of inventories of materials on hand
at the plant on the closing date. Records, forms, and accounts receiv-
able were not sold, and no liabilities were assumed. Other than the
circumstances of the sale, there is no relationship between the purchas-
ing companies and the corporate organization of American Creosoting
Corporation.
Since the sale, except for the change in name from Georgia Creosot-
ing Company to Georgia Creosoting Corporation, the Brunswick plant
has continued to be operated substantially as before. Thus, although
all employees of Georgia Creosoting Company were terminated, ap-
proximately 75 percent of them were rehired by Georgia Creosoting
Corporation.' Further, production has changed only to the extent
that it now consists entirely of creosoting utility poles, whereas, prior
to the sale, 82 percent of production consisted of the treatment of poles,
and the remainder of cross ties and construction lumber. In this con-
nection, the adzing mill for the treatment of ties, an intermittent oper-
ation inactive prior to the sale, and the sizing mill for dressing lumber
have been eliminated. The employees engaged in such work have been
assigned to other duties. Except for the elimination of the categories
of shipping clerk, pole yard foreman trainee, and assistant to the super-
4 American Creosoting Corporation was owned , in turn , by Union Bag -Camp Paper
Company.
s Approximately 29 of the employees rehired were working in the unit of 60 employees
on February 1, 1961 . On March 21 , 1960, there were approximately 48 employees in
the unit.
GEORGIA CREOSOTING CORPORATION 351
intendent, the existing classifications are substantially the same as prior
to the sale. Supervision has been changed to the extent that McLeod,
formerly employed by Escambia Treating Company, has replaced the
former superintendent and, in addition, performs the duties of the gen-
eral foreman and the training and maintenance supervisor, the latter
two jobs having been abolished. McVeigh, former general foreman, is
now foreman of black stock and shipping. Brownley has continued to
be plant manager, and Logue has continued to be pole yard foreman.
The parties stipulated that these four individuals are supervisors as
defined in the Act.
The Board has previously held that where, after a direction of
election has been issued, the business involved is sold but there is no
change in any essential attribute of the employment relationship, the
direction is to be construed as providing for an election among the em-
ployees of the successor.' Under the circumstances of this case, we
are convinced that the relationship between the employees in the unit
and each of the two employers is essentially the same. Accordingly,
we find that Georgia Creosoting Corporation is a successor to Georgia
Creosoting Company, and that, as such successor, a question affecting
commerce exists concerning the representation of the employers of
Georgia Creosoting Corporation? In view of the foregoing, we grant
the Petitioner's motion to amend the name of the -Employer as shown
herein, and we deny the motion of American Creosoting Corporation,
successor to Georgia Creosoting Company, to dismiss the petition and
cancel the election.
We shall amend the unit description in the orginal Decision and
Direction of Election to reflect the unit changes noted above. As the
motion for reconsideration filed by Georgia Creosoting Company
raised nothing which the Board has not previously considered, and as
the evidence adduced at the second hearing established no justification
for changing our original unit finding, we deny this motion.
[The Board amended the Decision and Direction of Election herein,
by striking therefrom the words "the shipping clerk," "the pole yard
foreman trainee," and "the assistant to the superintendent," and by
adding after the words "the assistant superintendent" the words "the
plant manager, and the foreman of black stock and shipping."]
9 Barker Automation, Inc., et at., 132 NLRB 794 ; Allen W. Fleming, Inc., 91 NLRB 612.
7 Although the Trial Examiner found in American Creosoting Corporation, et at., 130
NLRB 150, and the Board adopted such finding , that Georgia Creosoting Corporation was
not liable for certain alleged unfair labor practices on the part of the predecessor com-
pany, we find that Georgia Creosoting Corporation is nevertheless a successor with respect
to the question concerning representation.