Pacific Veneer & Plywood Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 28, 1951

94 N.L.R.B. 1726 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

1726 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On the basis of the foregoing, we find that the unit requested by
the Petitioner is inappropriate. We shall, therefore, grant the Em-
ployer's motion to dismiss the petition.
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed herein be, and it hereby
is, dismissed.
PACIFIC VENEER & PLYWOOD CORPORATION AND LUMBER & SAWMILL
WORKERS UNION , LocAL No. 2667 , AFL, PETITIONER . Case No.
19.-R C-731. - June 28, 1951
Decision and Order
'Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Howard McIntyre,
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-mem-
ber panel [Members Houston, Murdock, 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 organizations involved, claim to represent employees
of the Employer.
3. No question affecting - commerce exists concerning the repre-
sentation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Sec-
tion 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, for the following
reasons:
The Petitioner seeks a single-employer unit covering the Employer's
plant in Bellingham, Washington. The Employer and Intervener
urge that only a multiemployer unit consisting of all members of
the Plywood . & Door Manufacturers Industrial Committee, herein-
after called the Committee, is appropriate.
In Springfield Plywood Corporation,' the Board dismissed a peti-
tion for- a single-employer unit filed by the Petitioner herein on the
ground that the employer members of the Committee constituted a
multiemployer unit. The Employer herein has been a member _ of
I At the hearing, Plywood Box Shook & Door Council District No. 9, International Wood-
workers of America, CIO, hereinafter called the Intervenor, filed a motion to dismiss the
petition on grounds relating to the compliance status of the Petitioner. The fact of
compliance by a labor organization which is required to comply, is not litigable by the
parties. Moreover, the Board is administratively satisfied that the Petitioner is in
compliance. See Sunbeam Corporation, 92 NLRB 844; Swift & Company, 94 NLRB 917;
cf. Highland Park Manufacturing Company, 71 S. Ct. 489.
s 61 NLRB 1295.
94 NLRB No. 243.
KLINE IRON AND METAL COMPANY . -1727
the Committee since it commenced operations at its plant in January
1949, and it has executed the current contract negotiated by the Com-
mittee and the Intervenor. Under all the circumstances, we find the
single-employer unit requested by the Petitioner inappropriate for
the purposes of collective bargaining.3 Accordingly, we shall dis-
miss the petition.
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition herein be, and it hereby
is, dismissed.
8 Coca-Cola Bottling Work8 Company, 93 NLRB 371 ; W. S. Ponton, of N. J. Inc., 93
NLRB 924.
MORRIS A. KLINE, PHILIP KLINE, MYER KLINE, AND B. H. KLINE,
D/B/A KLINE IRON AND METAL COMPANY and SHOPMEN'S LOCAL
UNION No. 738, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BRIDGE, STRUCTURAL
AND ORNAMENTAL IRON WORKERS, AFL, PETITIONER . Case No.
10-RC-1303. June 28, 1951
Decision and Direction of Election
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National La-
bor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Jerold B. Sindler, hear-
ing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are
free from prejudical 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-mem-
ber panel [Members Houston, Murdock, 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
employees of the Employer.
3. 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 limited to all production and main-
tenance employees actually engaged in the fabrication of structural,
ornamental, and reinforcing steel, and allied products, at the Em-
ployer's Columbia, South Carolina, plant.' The Employer disagrees
.I In its petition , the Petitioner sought a conlprehensive unit of all plant enbployee9.
However , at the hearing , the Petitioner , without explanation, stated its unit request as
set forth above.
94 NLRB No. 245.