J. H. Baxter and Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 12, 1957

118 N.L.R.B. 682 (N.L.R.B. 1957)

682 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
cally, it alleges that Ryal exercises direct supervision over all organi-
zational activities within his region, examines all contracts negotiated
within the region, negotiates disputes with grievance committees, and
approves all contracts negotiated by local union officers. But, as we
have indicated previously, the Board has specifically rejected the
functional test as a basis for determining who are a union's officers.
As the constitution does not designate regional directors as officers,
we find that they are not required to file Section 9 (h) affidavits.
This is so even though other regional directors have seen fit volun-
tarily to file such affidavits.
Accordingly, we find that the Union at all material times has been
in compliance with Section 9 (h) of the Act and that no sufficient
cause has been shown to warrant a hearing to redetermine the com-
pliance status of Boot and Shoe Workers' Union, AFL-CIO. We
therefore deny the Petitioner's petition.
J. H. Baxter and Company and International Woodworkers of
America, AFL--CIO, Petitioner ,
J. H. Baxter and Company and International Brotherhood of
Firemen & Oilers Local 193, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Cases Nos.
19-RC-1919 and 19-RC-1968. July P0, 1957
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before Rachel Stover,
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 [Members Rodgers, Murdock, and Jenkins].
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. Questions affecting commerce exist concerning the representation
of employees of the Employer, within the meaning of Section 9 (c)
(1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) -of the Act.
4. The International Woodworkers of America, AFL-CIO, herein
called the Woodworkers, the Petitioner in Case No., 19-RC-1949, seeks
Ilster11ationa1 Union of Operating Engineers, Local No. 843, AFL-CIO, herein called
Engineers, intervened in both cases on the basis of an adequate showing of :interest.
Lumber and Sawmill Workers Union, Local 2519, AFL-CIO, herein called Sawmill Work-
ers, intervened in Case .No. 19-RC-1949 on the basis of a contractual interest.
118 NLRB No. 72.
J. H. BAXTER AND COMPANY 683
to represent a unit of all production and maintenance employees em-
ployed at the Employer's pole treating plant, located in Quendall,
Washington. The International Brotherhood of Firemen and Oilers,
Local 193, AFL-CIO, herein called Firemen, the Petitioner in Case
No. 19-RC-1968, seeks to sever from the existing production and
maintenance unit a unit of all treating engineers and maintenance
employees, or in the alternative, a unit of all treating engineers. The
Engineers, in agreement with the Firemen, favor severance of a
unit of all treating engineers and maintenance employees, or in the
alternative a unit of all treating engineers, but if the Board denies
severance, wish to appear on the ballot in an election of all production
and maintenance employees. The Sawmill Workers, the Woodwork-
ers, and the Employer moved to dismiss the petition in Case No.
19-RC-1968, which seeks severance, on the ground that the Employer's
operations fall within the "primary lumber industry" within the
meaning of the Weyerhaeuser doctrine?
The Employer purchases raw logs and processes them into various
kinds of utility poles and piling. Some of the poles are received with
the bark on them and have to be debarked. The processing of poles
consists of trimming them to size with chain saws, cutting into them
and drilling holes for yard arms and impregnating about one-third
of them with creosote or a preservative, by one of two methods,
either the open tank method (also referred to as butt-treating) or the
retort method (also referred to as pressure chamber methods). The
remaining two-thirds of the poles are stored in an open area for drying.
The Weyerhaeuser case, as well as in the other cases .in which the Board
found the employers engaged in the "primary lumber industry," such
employers were principally in the business of cutting trees and proc-
essing logs into finished lumber. However, the primary business of
the Employer in the instant case is the processing of logs, purchased
from various suppliers into utility poles and piling; unlike the em-
ployer in Weyerhaeuser and similar employers, it is not engaged in
the production and manufacture of lumber in logging and sawmill
operations. As the Board found in Burke 11104vork Co. Inc., 100
NLRB 522, the two types of enterprises are clearly distinguishable.
We therefore hold, for the reasons stated in the Burke case, that this
Employer is not engaged in the portion of the "lumber industry" to
which the Weyerhaeuser doctrine is applicable.
Apart from the above considerations, the Employer, the Sawmill
Workers, and the Woodworkers contend that the treating engineers
and maintenance employees, or the treating engineers alone, do not
constitute a unit appropriate for severance purposes.
The Employer employs four treating engineers who perform
functions usually performed by boilerroom or powerhouse employees.
2 Weyerhaeuser Timber Company, 87 NLRB 1076.
684 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
These employees tend and maintain boilers and boilerrooin equip-
ment, they also tend the butt treating tanks and retort. The Employer
employs a relief engineer who works one shift a week as a treating
engineer and the remainder of his time as a production employee..
The Employer employs two maintenance employees who repair and
maintain trucks, cranes, tugboats, chain saws, and buildings. Occa-
sionally, they assist the treating engineers repairing the boilerroom or
treating equipment. The treating engineers are under supervision
different from those of the other employees; are the highest paid
employees; and work round-the-clock in 8-hour shifts. The remaining
employees work on an 81/2-hour day shift only with a half hour off
for lunch. It is clear from the record that the primary unit sought
to be severed by the Firemen and Engineers constitutes a hetero-
geneous grouping of employees with differing skills who do not meet
the criteria established for severance in American Potash d Chemical
Corporation.' Accordingly, we find that this unit is inappropriate
for severance purposes.' However, in the alternative, the Firemen and
Engineers would sever from the existing unit the treating engineers
alone. The treating engineers divide their time between the boiler-
room and treating area. The boilerroom is located in a partitioned
section of the building which houses the lunchroom. The treating area,
encompassing the butt treating plant and retort, is located about 100 -
-feet from the boilerroom. The boilerroom furnishes heat and pressure
for the treating processes. At the boilerroom the treating engineers
tend and maintain the boilers, checking temperatures, pressures, and.
water level. They also test the water, perform minor repairs, and
blow out the boilers. At the treating area, they charge the butt treat-
ing tanks and retort with creosote or other preservative, open and
close valves, and check temperature and pressures. Although the
Employer's witness testified that it is not a requisite that the treat-
ing engineers possess a license, the record shows that with the possible
exception of one, they have at least third-grade licenses. Moreover,.
the treating engineers do not interchange with any other employees.
Accordingly, as the treating engineers perform functions normally
performed by boilerroom or powerhouse employees, to whom the
Board customarily permits severance from an existing plan twide unit
as a functionally distinct group entitled to separate representation,
and as the Firemen and Engineers, respectively, are affiliated with In-
ternational Unions which traditionally represent such employees, we
find that the treating engineers may constitute a separate appropriate
unit, if they so desire.' The motions by the Sawmill Workers, the
Woodworkers, and the Employer for the dismissal of the petition in
-3107 NLRB 1418.
4 United States Smelting, Refining and Mining Company, 116 NLRB 661, 663.
13 otany Mills, Inc.,. 115 NLRB 1497 ; North American Aviation, Inc., 115 NLRB 1090.
GRAND UNION CO. 685
Case No. 19-RC-1968 is therefore denied. As the relief treating en-
gineer works only one shift a week as a treating engineer and the re-
mainder of the time as a production employee, we find his interests
are more closely allied with those of the production and maintenance
employees, and shall include him in the production and maintenance
unit.
Accordingly, we shall direct an election in the following voting
groups of employees employed at the Employer's Quendall, Washing-%
ton, pole treating plant :
A. All treating engineers, excluding all other employees, the relief
treating engineer, maintenance employees, office clerical employees,
guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
B. All production and maintenance employees, excluding treating
engineers, office clerical employees, guards, and supervisors as defined
in the Act.
If a majority of the employees in voting group A select either of
the labor organizations seeking to represent them separately, those
employees will be taken to have indicated their desire to constitute a
separate bargaining unit, which the Board, under these circumstances,
finds to be appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining and the
Regional Director conducting the election is instructed to issue a cer-
tification of representatives to the labor organization seeking such unit.
On the other hand, if a majority of the employees in voting group A
do not vote for one of the labor organizations seeking to represent
them in a separate unit, that group will appropriately be included in
the production and maintenance unit and their votes will be pooled
with those in voting group B,e and the Regional Director conducting
the election is instructed to issue a certification of representatives to
the labor organization selected by a majority of employees in the
pooled group, which the Board, in such circumstances, finds to be a
single appropriate unit for purposes of collective bargaining.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.]
0 If the votes are pooled they are to be tallied in the following manner : The votes for the
union seeking a separate unit shall be counted as valid votes , but neither for nor against
any union seeking to represent the more comprehensive unit; all other votes are to be
accorded their face value whether for representation in a union seeking the comprehensive
group or for no union.
Grand Union Co. and Robert E. Gray, Petitioner. Case No. 2-RC-
8620. July 12,1957
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 Samuel Korenblatt,
118 NLRB No. 83.