Oroply Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 26, 1958

121 N.L.R.B. 1067 (N.L.R.B. 1958)

OROPLY CORPORATION 1067
the work of pulling telephone wire or cable through conduits to mem-
bers of Local No 90 rather than to employees of the Company 9
DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings, and the entire record in
the case, the Board makes the following determination of dispute
pursuant to Section 10 (k) of the Act
1 International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local No 90,
AFL-CIO, and its agents, including Bernard Gilbride and Philip E
Reilly, are not and have not been lawfully entitled to force or require,
by means proscribed by Section 8 (b) (4) (D), any employer within
the geographical jurisdiction of Local No 90 to assign pulling of tele-
phone wire or cable through conduits to members of Local No 90,
rather than to employees of The Southern New England Telephone
Company
2 Within ten (10) days from the date of this Decision and Deter-
mination of Dispute, the Respondents shall notify the Regional Direc-
tor for the First Region, in writing, whether or not they will refrain
from forcing or requiring any employer within the geographical jur-
isdiction, of Local No 90, by means proscribed by Section 8 (b) (4)
(D) of the Act, to assign the work described in paragraph 1, above,
to members of Local No 90 rather than to employees of The Southern
New England Telephone Company.
')By this action , however„ we are not to be deemed as making an assignment of the
-disputed work to the Telephone Workers, or to any other trade , craft, or class of
employees See, for example, Los Angeles Building and Construction Trades Council,
etc, 83 NLRB 477, 482 In declining to make such an affirmative award, we respect
fully disagree with the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit in N L R B v United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices, etc
{Frank W Hake ), 242 F 2d 722 ( C A 3) Cf Local 16, International Longshoremen's
and Warehousemen's Union ( Denela McCray Construction Company ), 118 NLRB 109,
footnote 4
Oroply Corporation i and Local 13-428, International Wood-
workers of America, AFL-CIO 2 and International Associa-
tion of Machinists, AFL-CIO,3 Petitioners . Cases Nos 20-RC-
3586 and 220-RC-8614 September °26, 1958
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held be-
fore David Karasick, hearing officer The hearing officer's rulings
I The Employer 's name appears as amended at the hearing
2 The name of this Petitioner , hereafter called the IWA, appears as amended at the
hearing
8 Hereafter Called the IAM
121 NLRB No 136
1068 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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 is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. Petitioner IWA moved to dismiss the IAM's petition on the
ground that the latter's petition was barred by a prior consent-election
agreement. The IWA filed its petition on May 21, 1958. Thereafter,
it entered into a consent-election agreement with the Employer, which
was approved by the Regional Director on June 12,1958. On June 26,
before an election could be held, the TAM filed its petition. On
July 2, 1958, the Regional Director issued an order revoking approval
of the consent-election agreement and consolidating both petitions.
for a hearing. The IWA contends that the Regional Director ex-
ceeded his authority in revoking the consent-election agreement and
consolidating the petitions for hearing, and that the election should
have been conducted in conformity with the agreement. We find'na
merit in this contention. The Regional Director's approval of the
consent-election agreement was based upon the assumption that the,
only question involved was that of the employees' choice of a bargain-
ing representative, which could be resolved by an election. However,
the IAM's petition raised a unit issue which could be resolved only
by a determination of the Board. Implicit in the Regional Director's
authority to approve consent-election agreement is his authority to
revoke his approval where changed circumstances warrant such revo-
cation. The Rules and Regulations of the Board provide for a hear-
ing where there is reasonable cause to believe that a question of repre-
sentation affecting commerce exists, and for consolidation where such
action will effectuate the purposes of the Act and avoid unnecessary
costs or delay .5 We find that the Regional Director did not exceed
his authority in this matter; accordingly, the IWA's motion to dis-
miss is hereby denied.
A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representation
of certain employees of the Employer within the meaning of Sec-
tion 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. Petitioner IWA and the Intervenor, Central California District
Council, Lumber & Sawmill Workers, AFL-CIO, seek to represent a
unit of the Employer's production, maintenance, construction, and
• Oral argument has been requested by Petitioner IWA, the Intervenor, and amw
Plywood and Door Manufacturers Industrial Committee and Western Council of Lumber
and Sawmill Workers, AFL-CIO. The request is hereby denied as the record and the
briefs of the parties , the amici above, and amicus Lumbermen 's Industrial Relations
Council , Inc., adequately present the issues and the positions of the parties.
5 Sections 102.63 and 102.72 ( b), Rules and Regulations of the National Labor Relations
Board , Series 7, as amended.
OROPLY CORPORATION 1069
transportation employees. The Employer agrees with this unit con-
tention. Petitioner IAM seeks to represent, in a separate unit, all
maintenance employees. The IWA, the Employer and the Intervenor
contend that the unit sought by the IAM is inappropriate on the
ground that the Weyerhaeuser Timber doctrine 6 is applicable to the
plywood industry. There is no history of collective bargaining.
The Employer, a California corporation, was formed, and is owned,
by five companies engaged in logging and sawmill operations in Cali-
fornia. Its plant recently began operations. The Employer is en-
gaged solely in the manufacture of plywood. It obtains its logs from
the five owner companies and pays for them on the basis of grade and
volume. After the bark has been stripped from the logs, the logs are
run through a lathe and peeled into veneer. The veneer thus produced
is cut to the desired width, dried, glued together cross-grain, and
inserted in a hot press for a specified time. The finished plywood thus
obtained is shipped to customers by rail from the plant. The Em-
ployer engages in no logging or sawmill operations.
The Weyerhaeuser Timber doctrine has been applied only to those
companies engaged in logging and/or sawmill operations.7 In the
circumstances of this case, to apply this doctrine to the manufacture of
plywood would constitute an extension of Weyerhaeuser Timber to an
area not heretofore covered by that case. In the American Potash case,
the Board held that the National Tube " doctrine would not be further
extended." We adhere to that determination and find, contrary to the
contentions of the Employer, Petitioner IWA, and the Intervenor,
that the Employer is not engaged in that portion of the "lumber indus-
try"10 to which the Weyerhaeuser Timber doctrine is applicable."
There are approximately 19 employees in the unit sought by the
IAM, all under the supervision of the master mechanic. The 8 mill-
wrights and 1 millwright helper perform maintenance and repair
work on machinery in the plant. The leadman millwright 12 assists
Weyerhaeuser Timber Company, 87 NLRB 1076.
7 See, e g., Northern Redwood Lumber Company, 88 NLRB 272 f'nyo Lumber Com-
pany , 92 NLRB 1267; E C. Olson Lumber Company, 106 NLRB 856; Seattle Cedar
Lumber Manufacturing Company, 112 NLRB 54; Pike Lumber Co., Inc., 114 NLRB 172.
s National Tube Company , 78 NLRB 1199.
9 " . . the National Tube doctrine will not be further extended , and . .. the practice
.of denying craft severance in industry after industry on the so-called integration of opera-
,dons theory will not be further followed ." American Potash & Chemical Corporation,
107 NLRB 1418. 1422
10 See Springfield Plywood Corporation, 61 NLRB 1295, where , at page 1296, footnote 1,
.the Board said :
The AFL contends that the manufacture of plywood should not be recognized as a
separate industry apart from the lumber industry as a whole . However, while ply-
wood manufacturing is dependent upon forest products for its raw materials, it is,
nevertheless , a specialized operation , distinct from the manufacture of lumber as
defined by ordinary and commercial use.
-See also Standard Industrial Classification Manual (Bureau of the Budget, 1957), pp.
'65-67 , Industry Groups No . 241, 242, and 243.
11 Arcata Plywood Corporation , etc., 120 NLRB 1648.
"The parties agree, and we find, that this employee does not exercise supervisory
authority.
1070 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the master mechanic and lays out work for the maintenance employees-
The maintenance oiler greases and oils the bearings in the plant ma-
chinery, and the maintenance filer-grinder files and grinds saws and
lathe blades used in the plant. The chief electrician, whose title is
honorary, is responsible for the plant's entire electrical source, supply,
and equipment.13 The 4 firemen work in the boilerroom and tend the
boilers which supply the plant's heat and steam; and the 2 fuel punch-
ers work in the fuel room feeding the wood scraps and shavings into,
the boilers.14 The maintenance employees perform no production
work; only occasionally will a production employee work as a fuel
puncher, and then only for a short time, as needed."
The Board has held that, in the absence of bargaining history, main-
tenance employees may constitute a separate appropriate bargaining
unit. Accordingly, we find, contrary to the contentions of the Em-
ployer and the IWA, that the Employer's maintenance employees con-
stitute a functionally distinct, homogeneous group of employees who,
may, if they so desire, constitute a separate appropriate unit.16
There remains for consideration the unit placement of three em-
ployees, the plant cleanup man, the log deck cleanup man, and'the glue
room cleanup man. In its brief, Petitioner IWA contends that the
cleanup men are custodial employees who ought to be included in the
maintenance unit. Petitioner IAM and the Employer take no position
as to these employees, all of whom are under the supervision of the
plant superintendent who supervises the production employees.
The plant cleanup man cleans up refuse in the plant wherever di-
rected to do so. The log deck cleanup man cleans the log deck area,,
which is part of the plant. Both have occasionally helped main-
tenance employees in the performance of their work. The glue room
cleanup man works the graveyard shift cleaning the spreaders, the
machinery used for spreading glue. As janitors and cleanup men are
maintenance employees, and as no reason appears for excluding them,
we shall include them in the maintenance voting group."
We therefore find that the maintenance department employees may
constitute a separate appropriate unit if they so desire. It is also•
clear, and we fiild, that the production and maintenance unit requested
by the IWA and the Intervenor may also be appropriate. And finally,
we find that if the maintenance employees desire separate representa-
tion, as determined by the elections directed herein, a separate unit of
production employees may also be appropriate."' Accordingly, we
13 The record indicates that the Employer has recently hired a second electrician whose
duties will be the same as those of the chief electrician
14 The Employer contends that the firemen and the fuel punchers are production em-
ployees and seeks to exclude them from the maintenance unit. We find no merit in this
contention The Board has customarily included boilerhouse operators in maintenance
units where no other labor organization seeks to represent such employees separately.
Dierks Paper Company, 120 NLRB 290; Mississippi River Chemical Co., 119 NLRB 1371.
15 The only interchange occurred when two fork -lift operators were promoted to the
classification of millwright and permanently transferred to the maintenance unit.
16 Hecblein, Inc., 119 NLRB 1337; Union Carbide Chemicals Company, 11P NLRB 954.
n Heublein, Inc, supra; Magma Copper Company, 115 NLRB 1
Is United States Gypsum Company, 116 NLRB 1939, 1941.
OROPLY CORPORATION 1071
shall direct self-determination elections in both the maintenance and
production voting groups.
We shall direct elections in the following voting groups of em-
ployees at the Employer's Oroville, California, plant, excluding from
each voting group the employees in the other voting group and all office
clerical and professional employees, guards,19 and supervisors as de-
fined in the Act.
(1) All maintenance employees including the cleanup men; (2) all
production, construction, and transportation employees.
If a majority of the employees in the maintenance voting group se-
lect the IAM as their representative, they will be taken to have indi-
cated their desire to constitute a separate bargaining unit, and the
Regional Director conducting the election is instructed to issue a
certification of representatives to the IAM for such unit, which the
Board, under these circumstances, finds to be appropriate for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining. And in that event, should a majority
of the employees in the production voting group select the IWA or
the Intervenor as their representative, the Regional Director is in-
structed to issue a certification of representatives to such labor organi-
zation for a unit of production employees, which the Board, in these
circumstances, finds to be appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining. However, if a majority of the employees in the produc-
tion voting group vote against both participating labor organizations,
the Regional Director is instructed to issue a certification of results of
election. On the other hand, if a majority in the maintenance vot-
ing group do not select the IAM, the ballots of the employees in the
maintenance voting group will be pooled with those of the employees in
the production group.zo If the IWA or the Intervenor achieves a ma-
jority of the votes in the pooled group, the Regional Director is in-
structed to issue a certification of representatives to such labor
organization for a unit of production and maintenance employees,
which the Board, in such circumstances, finds to be an appropriate
unit for the purposes of collective bargaining. If no union secures a
majority of votes in the pooled group the Regional Director will issue
a certification of results of election.
5. The Employer contended at the time of the hearing in July 1958
that an immediate election would be untimely because the unit is ex-
panding. Most of the expansion is scheduled to take place among the
production employees, where the number of classifications is expected
to be increased by 7, from about 28 to about 35 classifications. The
total number of employees will increase from approximately 100 to
180-200 employees. Among the maintenance employees, the Em-
ployer expects a decrease of 2 to 4 millwrights and the addition of 1
10 The parties have stipulated, and we find, that three employees in the classification
of watchmen are guards Accordingly, we shall exclude them from any unit found
appropriate.
20 If the ballots are pooled, they are to be tallied in the following manner • votes for
the IAM shall be counted as valid votes, but neither for nor against the IWA or the
Intervenor; all other votes are to be accorded their face value, whether for the IWA or
the Intervenor, or for no union.
1072 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
fireman. All scheduled changes are expected to be effected by October
1958. Under these circumstances, we see no reason to depart from our
-usual rule in directing elections, because virtually the full complement
of employees will be employed by the time the elections directed herein
are held zi
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.]
CHAIRMAN LEEDOM took no part in the consideration of the above
-Decision and Direction of Elections.
21 The American Brass Company , 120 NLRB 1276.
International Union of Operating Engineers , AFL-CIO, Local
181, and Its Business Agent Lawrence McCarty and W. E. Wells
and Sybil R . Wells, Partners, doing business as Tye & Wells,
Contractors and United Construction Workers, Division of
District 50, United Mine Workers of America , Party to the
'Contract
United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America, AFL-
CIO, Local No. 1341, and Its Business Agent J . W. Hall and
W. E. Wells and Sybil R. Wells , Partners, doing business as
Tye & Wells, Contractors and United Construction Workers,
Division of District 50, United Mine Workers . of America,
Party to the Contract
International Hod Carriers ' Building and Common Laborers'
Union of America , AFL-CIO, Local No. 1392, and Its Business
Agent Richard Bowling and W. E. Wells and Sybil R. Wells,
Partners , doing business as Tye & Wells , Contractors and
United Construction Workers, Division of District 50, United
Mine Workers of America , Party to the Contract
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and Helpers of America , Local No . 215, and Its
Business Agent Glenn Wilkinson ' and W. E. Wells and
Sybil R. Wells, Partners , doing business as Tye & Wells,
Contractors and United Construction Workers, Division of
District 50, United Mine Workers of America, Party to the
Contract. Cases Nos. 35-CD-35, 35-CD-36, 35-CD-37, and 35-
CD-38. September 29,1958
DECISION AND DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This proceeding arises under Section 10 (k) of the Act, which pro-
vides that, "Whenever it is charged that any person has engaged in
1 This Respondent's name appears as amended at the hearing.
121 NLRB No. 141.