Sheets & Mackey

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 21, 1950

92 N.L.R.B. 179 (N.L.R.B. 1950)

In the Matter of SHEETS & MACKEY, EMPLOYER-PETITIONER and LOCAL
5-248, INTERNATIONAL WOODWORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, UNION
Case No. 36-RM-56.Decid'ed November 01, 1950
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, 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 National Labor Relations Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. The Union and the Employer, who is engaged in logging and
sawmill operations at Culp Creek, Oregon, executed an agreement
effective front October 24,1948, to April 1, 1949, and for annual periods
thereafter, absent 60 days' notice to terminate or modify the contract.
The agreement was apparently renewed for the term from April 1,
1949, to April 1, 1950. In June 1949, the Employer shut down its
operations for business reasons for an indefinite period and termi-
nated its employees. Logging and sawmill operations were resumed
in March and June 1950, respectively, with new employees, as the
former employees were no longer available.,, Thus, both the shutdown
and the resumption of operations occurred during the April 1, 1949,
to April 1, 1950, contract term. The automatic renewal date of the
contract for the term April 1, 1950, to April 1, 1951, however, occurred
during the period operations were shut down, i. e., on January 31,
1950. The Union asserts that the contract automatically renewed for
the 1950-1951 term,' and that it constitutes a bar to this proceeding;
the Employer contends that the contract terminated by reason of the
shutdown of operations.
'The resumed operations were somewhat different and required different employee
qualifications . The nature of these differences was not specified at the hearing . However,
the Employer did attempt to recall its former employees.
8 There was conflicting testimony as to whether or not the contract had been reopened
for negotiation , and the record is unclear as to the scope of such reopening , if any. How-
ever, in view of our disposition of this proceeding, it is unnecessary to resolve these
questions.
92 NLRB No. 39.
179
180 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Under all the foregoing circumstances, including the shutdown for
an indefinite period, the actual duration of the shutdown, and the
resumption of operations with new employees because the former em-
ployees were no longer available, and on the basis of the entire record,
we are of the opinion that we should not give effect to the automatic
renewal to find the contract a bar. Accordingly, we find that a question
affecting commerce exists concerning the representation of employees
of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section
2 (6) and (7) of the Act, which can best be resolved by an election.
4. The following employees of the Employer constitute a unit ap-
propriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (b) of the Act :
All employees of the Employer at its sawmill and logging operations
near Culp Creek, Oregon, excluding clerical employees, guards, pro-
fessional employees, and supervisors.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
MEMBER STYLES took no part in the consideration of the above Deci-
sion and Direction of Election.