Oettinger Lumber Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 11, 1949

81 N.L.R.B. 632 (N.L.R.B. 1949)

In the Matter of OETTINGER LUMBER COMPANY,1 EMPLOYER and UNITED
BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA, A. F. L.,
LOCAL No. 2482, PETITIONER
Case No. 34-RC-90.-Decided February 11, 1949
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before a hearing of-
ficer of the National Labor Relations Board. 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 national Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-man panel consisting of the undersigned Board
Members.*
Upon the entire record in this case the Board finds :
1. The Employer is a New Jersey Corporation engaged in the pro-
duction and sale of lumber products and mill work at its plant and
office at Greensboro, North Carolina. During the year ending April
30, 1948, the Employer purchased raw materials exceeding $362,000
in value, of which about $36,000 represented purchases made outside
the State of North Carolina. Its sales in the same period exceeded
$630,000, of which about $9,500 represented sales outside the State. The
Employer admits, and we find, that it is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. Although the vol-
ume of inflow and outflow is small, there is some of both, and the close
relationship between enterprises of this type and the building-con-
struction industry, over which we have felt compelled to assert juris-
diction, logically calls for our exercising jurisdiction in this case 2
2. The labor organization named below claims to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of certain employees of the Employer, within the meaning of
Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
1 The name of the Employer appears in the caption as corrected at the hearing.
* Chairman Herzog and Members Reynolds and Gray.
2 Matter of Akron Brick and Block Co., 79 N. L . R. B. 1175.
81 N. L. R. B., No. 111.
632
OETTINGER LUMBER COMPANY 633
4. The following employees of the Employer constitute a unit appro-
priate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9 (b) of the Act:
All production and maintenance employees at the Employer's
Greensboro, North Carolina, plant, including all employees doing such
work in the training program operated by the Employer under its
agreement with the Veteran's Administration,3 but excluding watch-
men or guards and all supervisors as defined in the Act.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
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 supt'r-
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 Re-
lations Board Rules and Regulations - Series 5 , as amended, among
the employees in the unit found appropriate in paragraph numbered
4, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately
preceding the date of this Direction of Election, including employees
who did not work during said pay-roll 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 reinstated prior to the date of the election, and also excluding em-
ployees on strike who are not entitled to reinstatement, to determine
whether or not they desire to be represented, for purposes of collective
bargaining, by United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of
America, A. F. L., Local No. 2482.
9 The Board 's practice is to include veteran trainees in the same unit with permanent
employees performing similar work under substantially the same condj ions. Matter of
Gullet Gin Company, 72 N. L . R. B. 1101 ; Matter of Lewiston Buick Company, 77 N. L. R. B.
58. The Employer contends , however, that its veteran trainees should be excluded because
the management ' s present intention is not to retain any of them as permanent employees
when their training is completed , as they have proved unsatisfactory . The Employer's
president testified at the hearing that the seven or eight veterans now in training are the
survivors of a weeding -out process and represent the "best of the crop." The only specific
complaint offered by the Employer to the work of the remaining veteran trainees was that
one or two of them appear to have less interest in the Employer 's production than in their
own outside work. Under all the circumstances , we are satisfied that the veteran trainees,
as a group , have a sufficient prospect of permanent employment to warrant their inclusion
in the unit. We shall therefore include them.