McDonald, McLaughlin & Deane

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 10, 1954

110 N.L.R.B. 1340 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

1340 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
stewards first spoke to him about his car on September 1, as reported below, he had
heard no complaints directly or indirectly about his ownership of an Oldsmobile either
from the men with whom he worked or from any union official. The Respondents
made no effort to contradict Kovach's testimony directly in that respect. On the
morning of September 1, Steward Spychalski and Chief Steward Zook called Kovach
to one side and asked him whether he was going to sell his 1953 Oldsmobile. Kovach
told them he was not. Zook and Spychalski testified that they were led to speak to
Kovach about his car that morning because a group of men had asked them that day
what they intended to do about Kovach. "After all," testified Zook, "we represent
the men in the department. If they want us to do something, that is what we do."
On the afternoon of September 1, Zook and Spychalskl again spoke to Kovach and,
along with him this time, to an employee named Quier who owned a 1953 Mercury.
They asked Kovach, and also Quier, whether they would sell their 1953 "off-brand"
cars. Quier agreed to sell Kovach flatly refused. The stewards then told Kovach
that they would give him until the Tuesday after Labor Day to sell. If he did not sell
his car within that time, they told him, "they couldn't help it if the men wouldn't work
with him."
Kovach did not sell his car within the period allowed him. On Tuesday, Septem-
ber 8, Spychalski and Zook again came to Kovach and asked him if he had sold
his Oldsmobile. Kovach replied that he had not and would not. At that time,
according to Kovach's credited testimony, the men were at work.72 After hear-
ing Kovach's reply, the stewards went into Foreman Butzbach's office and presently
returned with him to Kovach's place of work. Butzbach, in the presence of the
stewards, told Kovach, "You know what is going on; you will have to go to town
and see Mr. Beutlich." 23
Kovach refused to go to Beutlich's office unless he was afforded an opportunity
first to find out how many men would refuse to work with him. The stewards
thereupon called the men together, handed out slips of paper, and took a poll on
that question. The poll showed that 18 would not work with him while he had
the Oldsmobile, and 6 would.24
Kovach went to Beutlich's office with Zook and Spychalski. Divisional Repre-
sentative Lenyo also attended. The interview there followed the usual pattern.
Beutlich told Kovach that the Company did not have a policy requiring employees
to drive Studebakers, but that it could not have a shutdown on account of one
man, and that he could return to work when he could get along with the men.
Kovach asked whether it would be all right if he bought a 1954 Studebaker when
the model change came out in about a month. Zook said "No," that the men in
his department would not work with him unless he first sold his Oldsmobile, whether
or not he bought a Studebaker. Kovach's badge was removed. He has not
worked for the Company since.
sa Although Foreman 0 K. Butzbach testified there was a work stoppage that morning,
his testimony is not supported by Zook and Spychalski, and is not believed.
23 According to Kovach, Spychalski and Zook told him somewhere along the line, "This
isn't our doing ; we have orders from town." Both stewards vigorously denied making
the quoted statement attributed to them, although they stated that they might have said
they had orders or instructions from the men. According to them, the only reference
made to "town"-which usually denotes the plant-was contained in Butzbach's direction
to Kovach to see Beutlich. Although I consider Kovach's testimony generally credible,
I am not entirely persuaded that he was not mistaken or confused in his recollection in
this particular respect, and, accordingly, make no finding that the statement was made.
24 The findings in this paragraph are based on Kovach's credited testimony. The testi-
mony of Butzbach that the poll was taken at his request, and at Beutlich 's suggestion,
before Kovach was ordered to Beutlich's office is not credited. Butzbach's testimony in
that respect is not supported by the Union's witnesses.
MCDONALD , MCLAUGHLIN & DEANE and OLYMPIC PENINSULA INDE-
PENDENT WOODWORKERS UNION, PETITIONER . Case No. 19-RC-1529.
December 10,195,
Decision and Order
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Albert Gese, hearing officer.
110 NLRB No. 200.
McDONALD, McLAUGHLIN & DEANE 1341
The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from preju-
dicial error and are hereby affirmed.'
Upon the entire record, the Board finds that it will not effectuate
the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction in this case for the reasons
stated below :
The Employer, a partnership, was engaged in logging operations
in the State of Washington prior to June 21, 1954, when the north-
west lumber strike began. Operations had not been resumed at the
time of the hearing on September 13, 1954. During the year 1953,
the Employer performed logging services, valued at approximately
$107,000, for Bert Cole, an independent logging contractor and the
Employer's sole customer in 1953 and 1954. These logging services
consisted of falling, bucking, loading, and trucking. On instructions
from Bert Cole, the logging operations were performed on stumpage
which belonged to Peninsula Plywood Company and the logs were
delivered within the State to Peninsula Plywood Company' s mills.
Although Peninsula Plywood Company is engaged in interstate
commerce, there is no evidence that Bert Cole is engaged in anything
other than local operations. As the Employer is twice removed from
interstate commerce, we shall, under the rule announced in the Brooks
Wood Products case,' dismiss the petition. Accordingly, we find that
no question affecting commerce exists 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.
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
MEMBERS MURDocK and PETERSON, concurring :
We agree with our colleagues in dismissing this petition, but we
see no occasion arising out of this record for applying the rule of the
Brooks Wood Products case.
Until June 21, 1954, so far as here relevant, the partnership of
McDonald, McLaughlin & Deane, herein called the Employer, had
operated exclusively as a logging subcontractor of Bert Cole, cutting
timber owned by Peninsula Plywood Company and transporting the
logs to the latter's mill pond.
The Employer's operations were shut down, beginning June 21,
1954, by reason of the northwest lumber strike. By the date of the
hearing, September 13, 1954, they had not been resumed, although
the strike terminated, as far as Cole was concerned, about July 10,
1954. Indeed, at the time of the hearing the three partners compris-
ing the Employer were working as employees of Cole, as were also
about 50 percent of their former employees. The record plainly
' Local 23-90, International Woodworkers of America, CIO, was allowed to intervene
at the hearing on the basis of a claim of contractual interest.
2 107 NLRB 237.
1342 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
shows that the partnership was not then engaged in any logging
operations, and had no firm prospects of being so engaged at any
predictable time in the future. The contract between Cole and the
Employer, which had been continued on a verbal basis from January
1954 until the date of the strike, was canceled by Cole in July 1954,
when Cole and the Intervenor reached agreement. Cole then took
over the logging operation theretofore conducted by the Employer,
and also employed the employees formerly employed by the Employer.
In these circumstances, it seems plain to us that there is no present
question concerning the representation of employees of the Employer,
for the simple reason that the Employer has, no employees. We would
therefore dismiss the petition on this ground.
CHANCE VOUGHT AIRCRAFT, INCORPORATED and UNITED PLANT GUARD
WORKERS OF AMERICA, PETITIONER. Case No. 16-RC-1498. De-
cember 10, 1954
Decision and Order
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National La-
bor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Lewis T. Roebuck, hear-
ing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.'
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer 2 is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organization 9 involved claims to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the represen-
tation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section
9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act for the following
reasons:
The Employer is engaged in the manufacture of aircraft under
Government contract for the United States Navy at its plant located
in Dallas, Texas, where it employs approximately 14,300 employees.
The Petitioner seeks a guard unit of approximately 90 hourly rated
employees in the Employer's guard group. The requested unit is
identical to the one in which the Board directed an election at the
instance of the Petitioner on January 23, 1953,4 which resulted in a
majority vote for "no union." The Employer contends that approxi-
1 The Employer's request for oral argument is hereby denied as the record and briefs in
our opinion adequately present the issues and the positions of the parties.
z The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing.
The name of the Petitioner appears as amended at the hearing.
4 Chance Vought Aircraft Division, United Aircraft Corporation, 102 NLRB 556.
110 NLRB No. 204.