Ross Lumber Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 17, 1951

94 N.L.R.B. 636 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

636 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR. RELATIONS BOARD
Halving found that Respondent has unlawfully supported the IBEW, it will
be recommended that it withdraw recognition from the IBEW until such time
as it may be certified by the Board and disavow and cease giving effect to the
contract of March 16, 1950 u
Having found no violation of the Act in the discharge of Florence Hall, it
till" be recommended that the allegation in the complaint to that effect be
dismissed.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and the entire record in the
case, I make the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
. I. International Union of Electrical, Radio, and Machine Workers, CIO,
United Electrical, Radio, and Machine Workers, of America, Local 1154, UE, and
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, are labor organizations within
the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure, of employment of John
Kelliher, thereby discouraging membership in a labor organization, Respondent
has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning
of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
{-3.. By giving support to the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section S (a) (2) of the Act.
4. By the unfair labor practices referred to in paragraphs 2 and 3, above,
and by interrogating, threatening, and coercing its employees concerning their
disposition toward labor organizations, Respondent has engaged in and is en-
gaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of
the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices, are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
6. The discharge of Florence Hall was not in violation of the Act.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication in this volume.]
"I Respondent is not required to retract any substantive benefits given to employees
under the contract . Pacific Maritime Association , et al., 89 NLRB 894.
-ROSS LUMBER COMPANY" and LUMBER AND SAWMILL WORKERS UNION,
LoCAL No. 3030, AFL, PETITIONER. Case No. 36-RC-590. May
17, 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 A. McIntyre, hear-
ing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed?
. i At the hearing a representative of International Woodworkers of America, CIO, moved
to intervene, but stated that that organization's interest in the case would be disclosed only
if the Board were to rule that the production and maintenance employees of the Employer's
White City and Prospect mills constituted a single appropriate unit. Accordingly, the
hearing officer denied the IWA's motion, but invited its representative to remain at the
hearing, and advised him that he would be notified of the Board 's decision.
94 NLRB No. 95.
ROSS LUMBER COMPANY 637-
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-member
panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Reynolds].
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 employees
of the Employer.
3. No 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, for the following
reasons:
The Petitioner seeks a unit of all production and maintenance em-
ployees at the Employer's White City planing mill where it processes
green lumber brought in by truck from the Employer's saw mill in
Prospect, Oregon. The Employer contends that the only appropriate
unit is one comprising employees at both its White City and Prospect
mills. There is no history of collective bargaining at either mill.
At Prospect, where it employs between 27 and 32 employees, the
Employer cuts timber and hauls the logs to the sawmill, where it•saws
them into rough green lumber. The Employer then transports the
lumber to White City, a distance of approximately 30 miles, where it
is stacked, dried, resawed, and planed, by a working force of approxi-
mately the same size as that employed at Prospect: The operations
are under a common manager, although there is a separate subordinate
supervisor at each location. All employees at both locations are listed
on a single alphabetical payroll, and single office records serve both'
plants. All employees are subject to the same wage plan, the same
hours of work, and the same holidays. There is some exchange of
employees between the 2 plants. Although it appears that the White
City mill does some work processing lumber from other companies,
it is clear that -if the Prospect operation were closed down, the White
City mill would also have to close. In view of the foregoing, and upon
the entire record in the case, we find that a unit limited to the White
City employees is not appropriate, but that the only appropriate unit
would comprise the employees of both operations.'-
Although the Petitioner stated at the hearing that it desired to
proceed with an election even if the Board should find the broader
unit appropriate, we are not satisfied that its showing of interest in
the broader unit is sufficient to warrant holding an election.3 Ac-
cordingly, we shall dismiss the petition.4
2 See Mixer and Company, 86 NLRB 656
3 Under present practice, a 30 percent showing is considered sufficient . The Petitioner's
showing in the broader unit does not meet this test.
* See Imperial Moulded Products Corporation , 93 NLRB No . 257, and the cases cited
therein (unpublished).
638 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the instaiit petition be, and it hereby is,
dismissed.
PACIFIC POWER & LIGHT COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF
OPERATING ENGINEERS , LOCAL No. 843, AFL, PETITIONER . Case No.
19-RC-698. May 17,1951
Decision and Order
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Hubert J. Merrick, hearing
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 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 representa-
tion 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 Petitioner : seeks to represent a unit composed of all steam
firemen and heating department maintenance men employed in the
Employer's central heating plant located at the Chinook Hotel,
Yakima, Washington, excluding professional employees, guards, all
other employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act. The Inter-
venor, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local No.
125, AFL, and the Employer assert that the requested unit is inappro-
priate, contending that the only appropriate unit is the system-wide
unit currently represented by the Intervenor.
. The Employer, an operating public utility, is principally engaged
in the purchase, generation, transmission, sale, and distribution of
electric energy, and the distribution and sale of steam heat and water
in the States of Washington and Oregon. Included among its oper-
ations are 13 hydroelectric generating plants, 1 Diesel-electric gener-
ating plant, 3 steam-generating plants, and 1 central steam heat plant
located at Yakima, Washington, which is the only plant involved
in this proceeding. The Yakima steam heating, or Chinook, plant,
'After the close of the hearing, the Employer moved to correct the transcript of the
record made at the hearing and served on all parties a copy of the motion. In the absence
,of any objection, the motion is granted . The transcript made at the hearing is deemed
corrected with respect to the matters set forth in the motion.
94 NLRB No. 98.