Potlatch Forests, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 22, 1948

80 N.L.R.B. 613 (N.L.R.B. 1948)

In the Matter of POTLATCH FORESTS, INC., EMPLOYER and INLAND
EMPIRE DISTRICT COUNCIL OF LUMBER AND SAWMILL WORKERS,
UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA, AFL,
PETITIONER
Case No. 19-RC-52.-Decided November 22, 1948
DECISION
AND
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
On February 2, 1948, Inland Empire District Council of Lumber
and Sawmill Workers of America, AFL, filed a petition alleging that
a question affecting commerce existed concerning the representation
of employees of Potlatch Forests, Inc. On March 9, 1948, the Peti-
tioner, the Employer, International Woodworkers of America, CIO,
hereinafter called the Intervenor, and a representative of the Board
entered into a "Stipulation for Certification upon Consent Election."
On March 10 and 11, 1948, an election by secret ballot was conducted
among the employees in the stipulated unit, under the direction and
supervision of the Regional Director for the Nineteenth Region
(Seattle, Washington). Upon the conclusion of the election, a Tally
of Ballots was furnished the parties.
The tally showed that the votes were distributed as follows :
Approximate number of eligible voters- ----------------------- 2,676
Void ballots-------------------------------------------------- 9
Votes cast for the Petitioner ---------------------------------- 812
Votes cast for the Intervenor ----------------------- 873
Votes cast against participating labor organizations ------------ 28
Valid votes counted---------------- ------------------------ 1,713
C"hallenged ballots ------------------------------------------ 56
Valid votes counted plus challenged ballots-------------------- 1,769
On March 23, 1948, the Petitioner filed Objections to Conduct of
Election and Conduct Affecting the Results of the Election and to the
Grounds on which Company Challenged Certain Ballots.' After an
investigation, the Regional Director on June 9, 1948, issued his Report
on Objections, in which he found that none of the objections raised
substantial issues and recommended that all be overruled.
1 An extension of time for filing objections was granted by the Regional Director.
80 N. L. R. B., No. 107.
613
614 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Inasmuch as the results of the election were indecisive and the rul-
ings on the challenges could affect the results of the election, the
Regional Director investigated the challenges and issued a Report on
Challenges in which he recommended that the challenges to 34 of the
challenged ballots be sustained and the challenges to 22 of the chal-
lenged ballots be overruled. As these 22 votes would not be deter-
minative of the results of the election, the Regional Director recom-
mended that the Intervenor be certified. On June 21, 1948, both the
Petitioner and the Intervenor filed Exceptions to the Regional Di-
rector's Report, and on June 24, 1948, Exceptions were received from
the Employer 2
Upon the basis of the entire record in this case, the Board makes the
following findings of fact :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
National Labor Relations Act."
2. The labor organizations involved herein claim to represent em-
ployees 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's Objections do not raise material or substantial
issues with respect to the election for the following reasons :
Objection 1
The Petitioner, in part (a) of this objection, urges that the Board
should have ruled prior to the election on a list of 438 exclusions pre-
pared by the Employer and presented to the Board agent and the
unions involved on the day before the election. The Petitioner in
part (b) of this objection further urges (1) that the very existence
of this list "morally" affected the employees to the extent that many
of the employees whose names appeared thereon were of the opinion
that they were barred from voting; (2) that the Employer, "through
publicity and other means" let it be known that many employees could
not vote; (3) that certain employees did not vote because they did
not feel that they should appear and debate with the Employer their
right to vote in the election; (4) that certain employees were told by
7 The record discloses that copies of the Regional Director 's Report on Objections and
Challenges were placed in the mail on June 10, 1948, but a copy was not received by the
Petitioner until June 16, 1948 . It therefore appears that the Exceptions of the Petitioner
were filed within the time provided therefor by the National Labor Relations Board Rules
and Regulations-Series 5. Although the Employer 's exceptions were not timely, we be-
lieve such untimeliness may be reasonably attributed to a postal delivery delay similar to
that experienced by the Petitioner . In view of the extenuating circumstances here present,
full consideration has been given to the exceptions of the Employer filed herein.
8 Matter of Potlatch Forests, Inc., 52 N. L. R. B. 1377.
POTLATCH FORESTS, INC. 615
the Board agent and the Company observer that they could not vote
and consequently were not allowed to cast even a challenged ballot ;
(5) that some employees who witnessed an alleged incident growing
out of the challenge procedure left without voting; (6) that other
employees left the polling place without casting a ballot because,
within the time when they were off duty and the polls were open, it
was impossible for them to fill out the required data demanded by the
Board before they could cast a challenged ballot; and (7) that the
Employer created many new job titles in an effort to create a large
list and even the employees listed under such job titles knew nothing
of their existence.
The Regional Director recommended that Objection 1 be found
to be without merit because part (a) is directed to the Board's well-
established challenge procedure, and because as regards part (b), no
evidence was submitted in support of any of the allegations contained
therein.
No factual issue with respect to the Regional Director's findings on
Objections is raised by the Petitioner's Exceptions .4 We find, as
recommended by the Regional Director, that Objection 1 (a) is without
merit.5 With respect to Objection 1 (b), the Regional Director re-
ported that his investigation disclosed no basis for any of these allega-
tions. As the purpose of the Regional Director's investigation is
to enable the Board to be advised of the factual basis of substantial
and material issues affecting the conduct of the election, it is incumbent
upon the objecting party, to avoid consideration of baseless allega-
tions, to submit supporting evidence to the Regional Director. Where,
as here, the objecting party fails to adduce proof of the allegations,
we must rely upon the Regional Director's findings. Accordingly,
we find the Petitioner's Objection 1 (b) to be without merit.'
Objection 2
The Petitioner objects that J. J. O'Connell, manager of the Potlatch
unit, remained in and about the polling place for a period of 30 minutes
to an hour and during this period sat on a bench at the back of the
room about 40 feet from the election table. The Regional Director
reports that, due to the fact that it was one of the slack periods, not
4 The Petitioner , in its Exceptions , merely disputes the statistical conclusions of the
Regional Director regarding the percentage of eligible employees whose names appeared on
the Employer 's exclusion list and the percentage of such employees who voted. However,
the Petitioner , both in its Objections and Exceptions, fails to allege specifically whether
such exclusion list, or its contents , was published , or in what specific manner it was made
known that many employees could not vote
6 Matter of J. Freezer & Son, Inc., 74 N. L. R. B. 1294.
6 Matter of Stonewall Cotton Mills, 78 N. L. R. B. 28.
616 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
more than 10 persons voted while Mr. O'Connell was present in the
polling place and that no voter had to pass near him when appearing
to vote. In its Exceptions the Petitioner urges that it is the duty of
the Board agent present to maintain a free opportunity for the em-
ployees to vote without fear of intimidation or coercion, and that the
failure of the Board agent to direct Mr. O'Connell to leave the polling
area constituted a failure to carry out that duty. Although we find
Mr. O'Connell's presence in the polling place to be at variance with the
safeguards provided by the Board's election procedure, we believe
that it did not, in this instance, interfere with the choice of the voters
in the election.' The objection is, accordingly, overruled.
Objection 3
The Petitioner objects to the fact that the Board failed to conduct
an election at the Saw Shack at the Landing in Camp 36 in accordance
with the schedule agreed to and ordered by the Board. The Regional
Director found that due to the temporary curtailment of logging opera-
tions at Camp No. 36, and the removal of the Saw Shack from the
vicinity of the Landing, there was no polling place available. It
was agreed by the observers for the unions that those employees work-
ing in the vicinity could be transported to the next scheduled polling
place, the Cook House at Camp No. 36. Thereupon the polls were
opened at the Cook House. The Regional Director reported that the
change did not deprive any employee of the opportunity to vote. No
exceptions were taken to this finding. Accordingly we hereby adopt
the Regional Director's findings and overrule the Petitioner's objec-
tion to the procedure noted above.
5. All production and maintenance employees of the Employer in
its five operations," and railroad employees in its logging operations
who are not employees of the Washington-Idaho and Montana Rail-
way Company, but excluding guards and foresters, office, clerical, pro-
fessional, confidential and temporary employees, employees of Pot-
latch Mercantile Company, employees of Townsite Department,
employees of Washington-Idaho and Montana Railway Company and
all supervisors, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act .0
7 Matter of Crucible Steel Company of America , 71 N. L. R. B 1480, 1491.
8 These operations consist of the Rutledge unit, Coeur d'Alene, Idaho ; the Potlatch
unit, Potlatch , Idaho ; Clearwater unit, Lewiston, Idaho ; Headquarters unit, Headquarters,
Idaho ; and Boville unit, Bovine, Idaho.
B This unit is consistent with the agreed unit set forth in the Stipulation for Certifica-
tion upon Consent Election and with the unit found appropriate in Matter of Potlatch
Forests, Inc, 52 N. L. It. B 1377.
POTLATCH FORESTS, INC . 617
The challenged ballots
As the results of the election set forth above were inconclusive, it
becomes necessary to consider the validity of the challenged ballots.
Fringe groups
Scalers: Among the challenges made by the Employer were chal-
lenges to the ballots of 18 individuals 10 on the ground that in their
positions as scalers, these employees were professional, confidential,
and clerical.
The scalers are responsible to the head of the Scaling Department
and his two assistants. Their duties require long walks through the
woods together with considerable chopping of logs to ascertain defects,
as well as judging the quantity and quality of the logs and recording
such scales or figures in a book and transcribing such figures onto
various types of record sheets. This latter process consumes from
5 to 20 percent of the scalers' time. The record discloses that the infor-
mation which the scalers compile is used in the computation of the pay
for some production employees; that it is a factor in the payment of
bills for timber and for freight charges; and that it is the basis for
administrative cost accounting. However, there is no contention that
the scalers have anything to do with the Employer's labor relations.
Although the duties of the scalers require a high degree of skill, it is
largely mechanical and not of a nature requiring knowledge of an
advanced type in a field of science or learning customarily acquired by
a prolonged course of specialized instruction and study in an institu-
tion of higher learning. The judgment and discretion required to be
exercised in the performance of the duties of a scaler are only with
reference to the quality of the industry's raw material and are analo-
gous to that of an inspector or checker.
We find that scalers are not professional employees within the
meaning of Section 2 (12) of the National Labor Relations Act."
Furthermore, we find that scalers are neither confidential nor clerical
10 The ballots challenged were those of James Bradley, Hugh Dresser, Joe Dudick,
Richard Grimm, Harry C. Hansen, Mervin Johnson, Jasper R Lawson, Frances McCabe,
George McMillan, Mel Quigley, Franklin Randal, Ralph E Stickney, Jr, C. James Taylor,
Homer Waybark, Lee Willoughby, Frank D. Martin, Glenn Abel, and Victor Tyho
11 Board Member Gray is of the view that the scalers, like the telephone engineers employed
by telephone companies, can best acquire their knowledge and skill through experience and
training on the job rather than only through available courses of specialized instruction and
study in an institute of higher learning . In view of that factor , the specialized skills of the
scalers , and the exercise of independent judgments required of them, Board Member Gray
would exclude the scalers as professional employees
618 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employees of a type excluded by the unit description.- We hereby
overrule the Employer's challenges and exceptions with respect to
these employees and shall include them in the production and main-
tenance unit.
Watchmen: The ballots of 11 individuals 18 classified as watchmen
were challenged on the ground that they are excluded as guards under
the Act. Both the Petitioner and the Intervenor filed exceptions to
the Regional Director's recommendation to sustain the challenges,
maintaining that these employees are not guards within the meaning of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. These watchmen are
of two classes , gate watchmen and patrol watchmen. They are re-
sponsible for the protection of the Employer's property against theft,
fire, sabotage, and vandalism by employees or other persons. The
gate watchmen maintain check-in and check-out posts with full author-
ity to forbid entrance into, and to evict individuals from the Em-
ployer's property. The patrol watchmen report through a punch-
clock system, check fire equipment, and enforce rules to prevent fire,
theft, or damage to the property. While these watchmen are not uni-
formed, armed, or deputized except on special occasions, it is clear that
they perform the usual duties of plant-protection employees. Under
these circumstances, we find that they are guards within the meaning
of Section 9 (b) (3) of the Act and are ineligible for inclusion in a
production and maintenance unit 14 Accordingly, the challenges to
their ballots are hereby sustained.
Partsmen: The ballots of Earl Crane and Robert Waldron were chal-
lenged by the Employer on the ground that as partsmen they were
clerical employees and therefore excluded from the unit. The Em-
ployer excepts to the Regional Director's recommendation that the
challenges to their ballots be overruled, upon the ground that these
employees are not clerical employees. The record discloses that parts-
men work in the warehouse, under the supervision of the parts fore-
men, where they handle, distribute, and check out mechanical parts or
equipment needed in repair work and make appropriate entries on
records. From the foregoing, it appears that these employees fall
under the category of factory clericals whom we have customarily
12 See Matter of Collin's Pine Company, 54 N. L . R. B. 670, wherein similar employees
were held not to be confidential . There is no evidence that the situation of these employees
with respect to clerical duties has changed from that which prevailed in the prior determi-
nation for these identical employees whom we then found not sufficiently clerical in char-
acter to warrant their exclusion from the unit . Matter of Potlatch Forests, Inc., supra.
18 The ballots challenged in this category are those of H. R . Bellows, Oliver Brewer, Frank
Dover, George Matoon , Sr., Frank Hatfield , Fred Keiper , Fred Roche , Arthur S. Ruark, Fred
Schneider, Albert R . Stevenson , and Charles T. Wharton.
14 Matter of C. V. Hill tf Company , Inc., 76 N. L. R. B. 158 ; Matter of H. O . Canfield
Company , 76 N. L . R. B. 606.
POTLATCH FORESTS, INC. 619
included in production and maintenance units 15 Accordingly, we
hereby overrule the challenges to the ballots of these employees.
Supervisors
The ballots of a number of individuals were challenged by the Em-
ployer on the ground that they are supervisors within the meaning of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended. The Intervenor has
excepted to the Regional Director's finding and recommendation that
the following groups and individuals are supervisors.
First cooks: Each first cook who is in complete charge of a kitchen
and dining room, supervises, directs, and schedules the workweek of all
personnel who work therein. All such personnel are hired by the
first cook through the employment office. We find, as is our practice,
that the first cooks are supervisorsl6 Accordingly, the challenges to
the ballots of Peter E. Carman, Howard M. Snyder, Harvey Spears,
and Milus Marcko, employees within the classification of first cooks,
are hereby sustained.
Check graders: The check graders work under and assist the head
grader and are responsible to the head grader for the performance
of a crew of from 8 to 12 graders. Check graders assign graders on
machines according to their ability; they observe individual graders
for evidence of proficiency, instruct them in their duties, keep efficiency
charts on their performance, and are responsible for recommending
to the head grader the release, transfer, or promotion of any of the
graders under their immediate supervision. We find that the check
graders are supervisors within the meaning of the Act. Accordingly,
we hereby sustain the challenges to the ballots of Clinton Glover and
Ted Terlson, employees within the classification of check graders.
Head painter: It appears that Lloyd Gibson, the head painter, not
only supervises the painters working under him, but also has the
power effectively to recommend to the carpenter foremen the transfer,
lay-off, or suspension of the men under his direct supervision. We
find, under these circumstances, that the head painter is a supervisor
within the meaning of the Act. Accordingly, the challenge to the
ballot of this employee is hereby sustained.
Leadman-electrician: In addition to having the supervision of
one or two helpers, Everett Wallace is charged as assistant foreman
with the duty of supervising the approximately 20 employees in the
electrical department, and has recommended the hiring, discharge,
is Matter of Liggett Drug Company, Inc., 73 N. L. R. B . 310 and cases cited therein,
wherein material checkers similar to the partsmen herein were found to be non-clerical
employees . See also Matter of Foster Wheeler Corp., 79 N. L. R. B. 1062.
16 Matter of M. A. Hanna Company , 75 N. L. R. B. 185.
620 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
transfer, and promotion of employees in such department. We find
that Wallace is a supervisor within the meaning of the Act. The
challenge to his ballot is, therefore, sustained.
Leadman-power plant: Harry Johnson spends approximately one-
half of his working time performing millwright work in the power-
house. The remainder of his working time is spent assisting the
foreman of the power plant by instructing new employees in the power-
house in the performance of their duties. As it does not conclusively
appear that his authority extends beyond that ordinarily involved in
teaching new employees, we conclude that Johnson is not a supervisor
within the meaning of the Act 17 Accordingly, we overrule the
challenge to his ballot, thereby reversing the Regional Director.
Leadman-pond crew: It appears that Charles Pohley directly
supervises, and has the power to recommend the hiring and discharge
of, seven men. We conclude that Pohley is a supervisor within the
meaning of the Act, and accordingly hereby sustain the challenge
to his ballot.
Leadman-machine shop: In addition to directing and inspecting
the work of employees assigned to him, Bernard Van Dyke exclusively
supervises the entire crew of 20 employees for at least 4 days per
month and on any other day the foreman is absent. We affirm the
conclusion of the Regional Director that Van Dyke is a supervisor
within the meaning of the Act. Accordingly, we hereby sustain the
challenge to his ballot.18
No exceptions were filed to the Regional Director's report, insofar
as it recommended sustaining the challenges to the ballots of the
following individuals: D. Hemmelman, leadman of the lath mill;
Louis M. Henley, boss mechanic; Dan Holden, shook plant foreman;
August V. Olsen, construction foreman; Bronko Susha, watchman
and section foreman; Robert Myers and William Minder, temporary
employees; Grant D. Smith; Morman Oss; Lee Presnell; Joe Koll-
man ; and Joe Dahlman. Accordingly, we adopt that part of the
report and hereby sustain the challenges to these ballots.19
No exceptions were filed to that portion of the Regional Director',
report recommending that the challenge to the ballots of Charlie
Peters, who is a leadman on the log pond, and John Radel, who was
ill during the eligibility period, be overruled. Accordingly, we adopt
that part of the report and hereby overrule the challenges to these
ballots.
17 Matter of Perfection Garment Company , 72 N. L. R. B. 210.
18 Chairman Herzog would not find Van Dyke to be a supervisor.
19 Matter of Armco Drainage & Metal Products, Inc., 77 N. L. R. B. 815.
POTLATCH FORESTS, INC. 621
As we have sustained the challenges of 33 of the 56 challenged
ballots, and the remaining 23 ballots cannot now affect the outcome of
the election, we shall not direct that these 23 ballots be opened and
counted.
As the Intervenor has secured a majority of the valid votes cast,
we shall certify it as the collective bargaining representative of the
employees in the appropriate unit.20
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that International Woodworkers of America,
CIO, has been designated and selected by a majority of the employees
of Potlatch Forests, Inc., in the unit hereinabove found appropriate,
as their representative for the purposes of collective bargaining, and
that, pursuant to Section 9 (a) of the Act, the said organization is the
exclusive bargaining agent of all such employees for the purposes of
collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages, hours of
employment, and other conditions of employment.
20 Because the material submitted by the Regional Director and the parties herein in our
opinion is sufficient basis for determining the question of including certain employees within
the appropriate unit, the request of the Intervenor for a hearing is hereby denied.