Hamilton Bros. Logging Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 23, 1950

89 N.L.R.B. 1549 (N.L.R.B. 1950)

In the Matter of EDWARD P. HAMILTON, HALDON L. HAMILTON, AND
KENNETH B. HAMILTON, D/B/A HAMILTON BROS. LOGGING Co., EM-
PLOYER and LUMPER AND SAWMILL WORKERS LOCAL UNION No. 598,
AFFILIATED WITH UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS
or AMERICA, AFL, PETITIONER
Case No. 00-RC-799.-Decided May 23, 1950
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 V. Magor, hearing
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 Herzog and Members Reynolds and Styles].
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 organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
8. 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 seeks a unit of all employees in the Employer's
logging operations in and about Crescent City, California. The Em-
ployer contends that only a unit embracing both its logging and mill
employees is appropriate.
The Employer has been engaged in the production of lumber in
Crescent City since the summer of 1948. It conducts logging opera-
tions at a site 5 miles distant from Crescent City where its sawmill
i The Employer moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that the Petitioner's showing
of interest is insufficient . As we have frequently held that the showing of interest is an
administrative matter, not subject to collateral attack, we hereby deny the Employer's
motion. Norther, Redwood Lumber Company, 88 NLRB 272.
89 NLRB No. 207.
1549
1550 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and planing mill are located. All logs felled at the logging site are
transported by truck to the mill for processing into lumber. Opera-
tions are year-round, although logging is curtailed considerably in
the winter due to weather conditions.
There are approximately 24 logging employees and 34 mill employ-
ees. Each operation is separately supervised, supervisors in one opera-
tion having no authority over the other.2 Although all employees are
listed:on a single payroll and are paid at the mill, the Employer main-
tains separate time and cost records for each operation.
With few exceptions, the work classifications, functions, and duties
of the logging crew are different from those of the mill crew. The two
groups exercise different skills. A breaking-in period of training is
required to prepare a logging employee for employment at the mill.
There is very little interchange of employees.3 Hours of employment
for the loggers are different from and shorter than the mill employees.
Because of weather conditions and hazards incurred, wage rates are
higher at the logging site than at the mill.
There has been no history of collective bargaining among those
employees of the Employer.4
We agree, as the Employer contends, that all its employees at Cres-
cent City could appropriately be included in a single bargaining unit,
if they so desire, on the basis of the degree of integration shown in the
entire operation. Indeed, we have on occasion refused to separate
logging from mill employees, where the factors pointing to common
interests among them were greater than the reasons advanced in sup-
port of separate units.' On the other hand, we have also found sepa-
rate units of mill or logging employees appropriate, where the evidence
showing a separate community of interest in working conditions out-
weighed the evidence of over-all integration.'
In the instant situation, we believe that the factors favoring a sepa-
rate unit of logging employees are preponderant. Significant in this
respect are the differences in function, skills, and working conditions
between the two groups, their completely separate supervision, the
independent hiring arrangements for each, the negligible interchange
of employees between them, and the fact that no labor organization
7 Only in the absence of the logging superintendent does the mill superintendent take
charge of the logging operations.
3 The maintenance man and handyman employed at the logging operations spend 50
percent of their time working at the mill . Occasionally , logging rippers will work at the
mill.
4 The Employer has a union contract covering employees at its separate logging operation
at Otis, Oregon.
5 lVeycrhaeaser Timber Company (Springfield Lumber Division), 87 NLRB 1076.
a Flodin Lumber Company, 82 NLRB 889; Willamette National Lumber Company, 74
NLRB 569.
HAMILTON BROS. LOGGING CO. 1551
seeks to represent both groups in a single unit. These facts, added to
the absence of bargaining history among any of the employees in-
volved, strongly indicates the appropriateness of a unit limited to
logging operations employees. We conclude, therefore, that the unit
requested by the Petitioner is appropriate in this instance.
In view of the foregoing, and as the parties apparently agree to
the composition of the proposed unit, we find that all employees en-
gaged in the logging operations of the Employer, in and about Cres-
cent City , California , including peelers, fallers , cat operators , riggers,
choker setter, logging truck drivers, head loader, loading engineer,
handyman and road maintenance man, but excluding office and clerical
employees , professional employees , guards , and supervisors as defined
in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION 7
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining with the Employer , an election by secret
ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than 30
days from the date of this Direction, under the direction and super-
vision of the Regional Director for the Region in which this case was
heard, and subject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62 of National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations, among the employees in the
unit found appropriate in paragraph numbered 4, above, who were
employed during the payroll period immediately preceding the date
of this Direction of Election, including employees who did not work
during said payroll period because they were ill or on vacation or
temporarily laid off, but excluding those employees who have since
quit or been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or rein-
stated prior to the date of the election, and also excluding employees
on strike who are not entitled to reinstatement , to determine whether
or not they desire to be represented , for purposes of collective bargain-
ing, by Lumber and Sawmill `Yorkers Local Union No. 598, affiliated
with United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL.
T Apparently for the purpose of deferring any election , Mill Superintendent Hamilton
testified that the Employer planned to increase the number of its logging employees within
30 to 60 days . However, he further testified that the proposed expansion was dependent
upon weather and market conditions . As the extent and time of the contemplated increase
in personnel is uncertain, we shall , in accordance with our usual practice , order an im-
mediate election . McCarthy Chemical Company , 86 NLRB 14.