Vancouver Plywood & Veneer Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 15, 1948

79 N.L.R.B. 708 (N.L.R.B. 1948)

In ' the Matter of VANCOUVER PLYWOOD & ¶ENEER COMPANY, AND
M & M WOODWORKING"COMPANY DOING BUSINESS AS V-M TTiVIBER
COMPANY, EMPLOYER and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAM-
STERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS oi, A'MI§RICA,
TEAMSTERS`, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS, LOCAL
UNION No. 58, AFL, PETITIONER
Case No. 36-RC-17 .-Decided September 15, 1948
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon an amended petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held
on May 13, 1948, before a hearing officer of the National Labor Rela-
tions Board. 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 to a three-man panel consisting of the undersigned Board
Members.*
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
2. The labor organizations named below claim to represent em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. The question concerning representation :
International Woodworkers of America, C. I. 0., herein called the
Intervenor, raised as a bar to this proceeding its contract with Pananen
& Martin, logging contractors herein called the Contractor, who had
contracted with the Employer to fell timber and haul it to the Em-
ployer's log dump. The agreement between the Contractor and the
Intervenor covers employees of the Contractor and of its subcontrac-
I The Employer's motion to dismiss, ' hich was referred to the Board, is hereby denied-
for reasons set forth below.
*Houston, Murdock, and Gray
2 This proceeding is concerned only with the Employei's logging operation in Cowlitz,
County and vicinity, Washington.
79 N L R B , No. 94.
708
c
VANCOUVER PLYWOOD & VENEER COMPANY 709,
tors employed on the Employer's logging operation. The Employer
is not a party to the contract, has never ratified it, nor acknowledged
in-any-way that the Contractor was acting as agent of the Employer-
in executing the agreement. Therefore, we find that the contract,
between the Contractor and the Intervenor does not cover employees
of the Employer,3 and is not a bar to this proceeding.'
The Employer contended at the hearing that its operations were shut,
ddwi,coVpletely, and its ecniployees laid off on about January 15, 1948,
because of weather conditions; that it had no definite plans for resump-
tion of logging nor any obligation to reemploy the laid-off employees;
and that there was, therefore, no question concerning representation..
The record indicates, however, that the Employer, at the time of the
hearing, had its trucks and other equipment in the garage at the site,
of its logging operations and that it owned timber there still to be
logged. The superintendent took down the names and addresses of
the truck drivers when he laid then off, and told them he would get in
touch with them when work was resumed. The employee in charge-
of all the Employer's logging operations stated that he had asked the-
booninlg contractor about starting work, but that a boom men's,strike -
ivas holding up the resumption of logging. Froln the foregoing facts,
and from the entire record in this case, we find that the Employer's.
cessation of operations was not an indefinite shut-down, but a seasonal-
suspension of activities which was prolonged by the boom men's strike..
Therefore, in view of the possibility that operations are to be re--
sunied, we find that a question of representation 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. However, in view of the fact that the Employer had no
employees working at the time of the hearing, and that subsequent
flood conditions in the Columbia River Valley may have impeded its,,
resumption of logging, we shall make the election contingent upon a
finding by the Regional Director for the Nineteenth Region that the
Employer is operating with. employees in an appropriate unit as
described below.
4. The appropriate unit:
The Petitioner seeks a unit composed of the logging truck drivers
of the Employer. The Intervenor contends that all employees en-
gaged in logging operations, both of the Employer and of the Con-
tractor, constitute the only appropriate unit. The Employer takes no
position with regard to the unit proposed by the Intervenor, though
' See Matter of Swanson Brothers Logqing Company , 71 N L R. B. 614
4 Furthermore, the original petition in this case, which was filed approximately 3:
months before the termination date and 2 months before the Mill B date of-that contract,,
would have been timely in any event.
509095-49-vol. 79-46
'71Q DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
it stated-that-the entire logging operation was carried on in a highly
integrated fashion, but contended, that all, of its, employees should be
included in one unit.
The logging operations fall,into three steps : (1) ,thetrees are felled,
,cut into logs, and loaded into trucks; (2) the trucks haul the logs about
47 miles from the Contractor's logging camp to, the Employer's lo-
dump ; and (3) the unloading crew removes the logs and dumps them
into the river. The felling, bucking, and loading is done solely b3 the
,'Contractor. All trucks, as they are loaded with logs, are under the
direction of the head loader, an ,employee of the Contractor. The
Employer operates approximately 12 of the trucks, the remainder of
,the 27 or 28 trucks being operated by the Contractor or its subcoiitrac-
tors. At the log dump, all, trucks come under, the direction of the
-unloading engineer and the two u`nhookers, who are employees of the
Employer. In addition to these employees, the Employer has one
employee who loads trailers on all trucks and acts as a relief driver,
and three service mechanics who work only on the Employer's trucks.
The Intervenor contends that the Employer exercises such control
over the Contractor that the combined operation is the appropriate
unit. In the spring of 1947, the Contractor, a partnership, contracted
to log and haul timber for the Employer. The Employer requires
that the Contractor submit a logging plan for approval, reserves the
right to select timber to be cut, may criticize the manner in which the
logging is done, or the work of any individual employee of the Con-
tractor, and may halt the delivery of logs because of weather, strikes,
or for other specified reasons. The Employer advances working cap-
ital to the Contractor from time to time. However, the Employer and
the Contractor are separate legal entities, maintain separate pay rolls,
and neither directly controls the labor relations of the other. There
is virtually no interchange of personnel between them.
Where there is substantial agreement among all parties, the Board
has found a multiple-employer unit similar to that sought by the Inter-
venor to be appropriates But where there is neither agreement nor
previous bargaining history, the Board generally holds that the
employees of each Employer constitute separate units.?
The Board has previously held that where an employer conducted
its logging operations as an integrated enterprise, either an operation-
wide unit or unit composed of log truck drivers may be appropriate,
:The Employer operated 1 truck which was leased , with driver, from the Conti actor.
As the driver is on the Contractor 's, not the Employer ' s, pay roll, he will not be included
in the unit hereinafter found appropriate
Matter of S A -Agnew, doing -business as S A. Agnew Lumber Company , 44 N L. R. B
1253
7 Matter or Swanson Brothers Logging Company, 71 N L R B 614.
VANCOUVER PLYWOOD & VENEER, COMPANY 711
depending upon the desires of the employees.8 However, in the pres-
ent case, the Intervenor does not- seek to represent all'employees of the
Employer in a unit excluding employees of the Contractor.
In accordance with the foregoing, we find that all the log truck
drivers employed by the Employer in its Cowlitz County, Washington,
operation, including the loader-relief driver, the servicemen and
mechanics,9 but excluding the unloading engineer, unhookers, and
supervisors, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
5. The determination of representatives :
The Petitioner contended that only those employees on the January
15, 1948, pay roll should be eligible to vote. The Employer and the
Intervenor take the position that all those employed at the time of the
election should be eligible to vote. We believe that under the circum-
stances of this case the most representative vote can be obtained by
using the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of the election
as the criterion of eligibility to vote.
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 at such time as the Regional Director
finds that the Employer is engaged in logging operations in Cowlitz
County, Washington, under the direction and supervision of the Re-
gional Director for the Nineteenth Region, and subject to Sections
203.1 a,nd 203.62 of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regu-
lati ins- Series 5, among the employees in the unit found appropriate
in pa.' igr: ,)h 4, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period
immedi.,ttel) preceding the date of the election, including employees
who did ;,,)t v -rk during said pay-roll period because they were ill
or on vacat.''n of temporarily laid off, but excluding those employees
who Have since ---it or been discharged for cause and have not been re-
hired or reinstated prior to the date of the election, and also excluding
employees on strike who are not entitled to reinstatement, to determine
whether they desire to be represented, for purposes of collective bar-
8 Matter of Tougaw & Olson , Inc., 78 N L R B 810 ; Matter of Setzer Box Company,
64 N. L . R B 605.
9 These men grease, service, and otherwise maintain the Employer's trucks, but do no
driving . The Petitioner amended its petition, inter alia, first to include them, and later
to exclude them The Boatd has recently stated that "The duties and interests of (me-
chanics ) are closely allied to those of the drivers." Matter of Ferguson -Steere Motor Co ,
76 N. L. R. B 1122 Accordingly, we shall include the mechanics in the unit
712 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
gaining, by International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
VVar_&ousemen and Helpers of AMnericaijeamaters, Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and Helpers, Local Union No. 58, AFL, or by International
Woodworkers of America, C. I. 0., or by neither.