The J. N. Bray Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 5, 1949

83 N.L.R.B. 388 (N.L.R.B. 1949)

• ^1
In the Matter of THE J . N. BRAY COMPANY, EMPLOYER, and INTERNA-
TIONAL WOODWORKERS OF AMERICA, C. I. 0., PETITIONER
Case No. 10-RC-,485.-Decided May 5,1949
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before Leroy W. C.
Mather, 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 National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Reyn-
olds and Gray].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer, a Georgia corporation whose operations are con-
ducted in and about Valdosta, Georgia, is engaged in the business
of buying and cutting logs and manufacturing and selling lumber. It
also operates a farm, with 800 acres in present cultivation, on which
tobacco, cotton, peanuts, melons, and hogs are grown and raised, a
naval stores business which produces and sells crude gum to paint
processors, and a builders supply branch which sells lumber, trim,
hardware, and other building supply materials to building contrac-
tors. - The Employer is also - engaged in the building contracting
business.
The Employer's gross income from all its enterprises in 1948 totalled
$1,137,098, itemized as follows : saw and planing mills, $378,506;
1 The Employer's motion to dismiss the petition on the ground that the Petitioner failed
to establish a sufficient interest is denied, as the showing of interest is an administrative
expedient of the Board and not subject to direct or collateral attack. Matter of O. D. -
Jennings it Company, 68 N L. R. B. 516.
The Employer's motion to dismiss the petition on the ground that the Employer is not -
engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act is denied for reasons stated hereinafter.
The Employer made an offer of proof at the hearing to show that the Petitioner had
failed to furnish its' members with copies of the financial report as required by Section
9-(f) (B) (2) of the Act, and that because of such non-compliance the Board lacked
jurisdiction in this case The Employer now contends in its brief that the petition should
be dismissed or, in the alternative, that the case be remanded and the hearing reopened to
receive the excluded testimony. We find this contention to be without merit The com-
pliance of a labor organization with Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) of the Act is an admin-
istrative matter to be determined by the Board, and is not''litigable at the hearing.
Matter of Prudential Insurance Company of America, 80 N L R. B 1583 •
, 83 N. L R B., No 56.
388
THE J. N. BRAY COMPANY 389
farms, $31,002; naval stores, $70,029; retail building material, $322,-
322; construction department, $335,237. Total out-of-State sales of
lumber amounted to $54,304. In addition the Employer's testimony
reveals the following sales, all of which were made within the State of
Georgia : tobacco to several national tobacco companies ; hogs to na-
tional meat packing companies; cotton to Georgia textile mills; and
crude gum to three Georgia paint manufacturing companies. All sales
of building materials were to local builders, with the exception of sales
ranging from $1,000 to $5,000 to purchasers in Florida. Although
the Employer's present construction operations are conducted locally,
several years ago it constructed buildings for the Federal Govern-
ment at Moody Field, Georgia, and built a depot in Georgia for an
interstate railroad.
Purchases, in 1948, for.all the Employer's operations amounted to
approximately $500,000. The Employer testified that some of these
purchases were made outside the State, but was unable to fix their
value. The Employer's purchases include gasoline, fuel and lubricat-
ing oil, truck and tractor tires used in its business, estimated at $21,-
000 to $27,000. Although these items were purchased locally, it is
admitted that Georgia is not an oil-producing State. In addition,
the Employer made purchases of heavy equipment from the Allis-
Chalmers Company and an undisclosed number of Chevrolet trucks
from a local dealer. Planing mill parts valued at $200 to $300 were
purchased from a Wisconsin manufacturer. Plows and other ma-
chinery used on the Employer's farms were manufactured by the In-
ternational Harvester Company and the Allis-Chalmers Company and
were purchased through their local agents.
We find, contrary to the Employer's contention, that it is engaged
in commerce within the meaning of the Act.2
2. The Petitioner is a labor organization claiming to represent
employees of the Employer.
3. 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.
4. The appropriate unit :
The Petitioner seeks to represent a unit consisting of all production
and maintenance employees at the Employer's saw and planing mills
and logging operations in and near Valdosta, Georgia, including truck
drivers employed in the mills and truck drivers engaged in logging
operations, wood crewmen, and the wood salesman, but excluding office
and clerical employees, guards, professional employees, and super-'
2 Matter of Farmvclle Manufacturing Company, 76 N. L R. B. 237 : Matter of Burnet-
Binford Lumber Company, 75 N. L. R. B. 421; Matter of W. P. Stephen Lumber Company,
73 N L R B. 1451.
844340-50-vol. 83-26
390 DECISIONS OF, NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
visors as defined in the Act. The Employer agrees that a production
and maintenance unit is appropriate, but contends that it should be
limited to the employees in the saw and planing mills, for the reason
that their interests are separate from those of all other employees. The
Employer also desires the inclusion of the planing mill foreman, whom
the Petitioner would exclude on the ground that he is a supervisor.
The record contains no evidence of prior collective bargaining history.
The Employer maintains 2 sawmills, only 1 being in present opera-
tion, wherein logs are cut into rough lumber. This is processed into
finished lumber in the Employer's planing mill. There are approxi-
mately 54 laborers employed in the sawmill and 34 laborers in the
planing mill. Two truck drivers transport the lumber from the saw-
mill to the planing mill.
The Employer's logging operations are conducted by a crew of 14
employees, including skidder operators, tractor operators, saw han-
dlers, and loaders. The Employer contends that as the logging crew
works at distances ranging 5 to 60 miles from the mills, is separately
supervised, and because the nature of the work and the skills of these
employees are substantially different from those of the mill employees,
with whom they are rarely interchanged, they cannot appropriately be
included in a single production and maintenance unit. We find insuffi-
cient merit in this contention. We have frequently held that where,
as here, the employer's activities form one continuous and complete
operation, from the felling of trees to the manufacture and sale of
lumber, that the employees engaged in these logging and mill opera-
tions may together constitute a single appropriate unit. We shall
therefore include the employees in the logging crew.'
The Employer would exclude five truck drivers engaged in trans-
porting logs from the logging operations to the mills. The Employer,
however, advances no reason in support of this position, other than
that the interests of these employees are allied with those of the log-
ging crew rather than with those of the mill employees. As we have
included the logging crew in the unit, we shall also include these truck
drivers. There is an additional truck driver who delivers wood to
local customers and to the homes of employees. As his interests are
related to those of the other employees in the unit, we shall include him.
There remains for consideration the status of the planing mill fore-
man. The employees in the planing mill are supervised by a foreman
who lays out their work, directs their activities and who has authority
to hire and discharge in the absence of the Employer's president. The
Employer contends that as the foreman spends half his time grinding
-$ Matter of Farrnville Manuacturing Company , Supra ; Matter of Louisiana Cypress
Lumber Company, 73'14. L^ i." B. 909; Matter of Mohawk Lwrriber Company, .51 N. L.
R. B. 1080. -
THE J. N. BRAY COMPANY 391
bits and knives and grading lumber, he is not a supervisor within the
meaning of the Act. We find this contention to be without merit and
shall exclude him from the unit as a supervisor 4
We find that all production and maintenance employees at the
Employer's saw and planing mills in Valdosta, Georgia, including the
wood salesman, logging crew, and all truck drivers, but excluding the
foremen of the sawmill, planing mill, and logging crew, office and cleri-
cal employees, guards, professional employees, and all other super-
visors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of
the Act.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
purposes of collective bargaining with the Employer, an election by
secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than
30 days from the date of this Direction, under the direction and super-
vision of the Regional Director for the Tenth Region, and subject to
Sections 203.61 and 203.62 of National Labor Relations Board Rules
and Regulations-Series 5, as amended, among the employees in the
unit found appropriate in paragraph numbered 4, above, who were
employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date
,of this Direction of Election, including employees who did not work
during said pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation or
temporarily laid off, but excluding those employees who have since
-quit or been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or rein-
stated prior to the date of the election, and also excluding employees
on strike who are not entitled to reinstatement, to determine whether
or not they desire to be represented, for purposes of collective bargain-
ing, by International Woodworkers of America, C. I. O.
4 Matter of United States Gypsum Co ., 79 N. L. R. B. 536.