Weyerhaeuser Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 25, 1974

211 N.L.R.B. 1012 (N.L.R.B. 1974)

1012 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Weyerhaeuser Company, Soft Disposable Division
and International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of Ameri-
ca, Teamsters Local Union 538, Petitioner. Case
6-RC-6690
June 25, 1974
DECISION AND DIRECTION
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS JENKINS
AND KENNEDY
Pursuant to a Stipulation for Certification Upon
Consent Election a secret ballot election was con-
ducted on January 10, 1974, among the employees in
the stipulated unit.' The tally of ballots furnished the
parties showed that of approximately 26 eligible
voters 25 cast valid ballots, of which 13 were for and
12 against the Petitioner. There was one challenged
ballot which was sufficient in number to affect the
results of the election. No objections to conduct
affecting the results of the election were filed by any
party.
Pursuant to the National Labor Relations Board's
Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, the
Regional Director investigated the challenged ballot
and on February 6, 1974, issued his order directing
hearing on ballot. A hearing on the challenged ballot
was held on February 19, 1974. On March 22, 1974,
Hearing Officer Sandra Beck Levine issued her
report on challenged ballot in which she recommend-
ed that the challenge to the ballot of Jo Renee
Maples be sustained.
On April 1, 1974, the Employer filed exceptions to
the Hearing Officer's report on challenged ballot and
a brief in which the Employer argued that the
challenge to the ballot of Jo Renee Maples should be
overruled, the ballot should be opened and counted,
and the Regional Director should serve on the parties
a revised tally of ballots including therein the count
of said challenged ballot.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the Hearing Officer's
report and the Employer's exceptions and brief and
has decided to overrule the challenge to the ballot of
Jo Renee Maples.
The Employer is a Washington corporation with its
principal place of business located in Tacoma,
Washington. It manufactures and sells wood-related
products throughout the United States . The Employ-
er's Harmony, Pennsylvania, plant is the only facility
involved herein. It is a part of the Employer's Soft
Disposable Division and produces disposable dia-
pers. The Harmony facility consists of only one
building which houses the production area, the
offices, and the warehouse space . Branch Manager
Donald Maples supervises the Harmony facility.
Jo Renee Maples is a 17-year-old high school
senior who lives at home with her parents. She
submitted to the Employer an employment applica-
tion and completed a medical history form and took
the same medical examination required of all other
applicants for employment. She was hired by her
father, who also hired most of the employees in the
plant during 1973. Prior to her employment with the
Employer, she had a job as a bus girl and hostess.
During the summer months she worked on a full-
time basis. Her duties were primarily packing and
bagging the finished product. She was and is directly
supervised by Plant Superintendent Jerry Boyd who
also supervises the shipping clerk, maintenance staff,
and shift supervisors . At the beginning of her
employment, she was paid the probationary rate
specified in' the employee manual and, upon comple-
tion of her probationary period, she received the
regular wage rate specified in the employee manual.
In September, when she went back to school, she
changed to a part-time work schedule from 12:30 or
1 p.m. to 5 or 5:30 p.m. Her duties were changed to
primarily janitorial work. There is also one other
part-time employee at the Harmony facility.
With the institution of a second shift on October 1,
1973, her hours were changed again. Since October 1,
she has worked 25 hours per week though the figure
varies due to machines breaking down (which results
in the employees going home early) and overtime
woI'k. She has worked full time whenever she has
been on vacation from school.
She is covered under the Employer's insurance
program as an employee in her own right, not as a
dependent of Don Maples. She punches a timeclock
like other production and maintenance employees.
Her timecard is approved by her supervisor. She is
number 10 on the seniority list and shares in
Saturday overtime work according to her seniority.
She uses the same restroom facilities as other female
employees and she eats in the employee lunchroom
with the other employees.
It is well-established law that the mere coincidence
of a family relationship between an employee and a
member of management does not, without a showing
I The parties stipulated and we find that the following employees All production and maintenance employees employed by the Employer
constitute an appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining at its Harmony , Pennsylvania, facility; excluding all other employees,
within the meaning of Sec. 9(b) of the Act: office clerical employees and guards , professional employees and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
211 NLRB No. 140
WEYERHAEUSER CO. 1013
of special status for the employee, warrant the
exclusion of that employee from a bargaining unit
where the employee's inclusion in the unit would
otherwise be appropriate. Pargas of Crescent City,
Inc., 194 NLRB 616; Adam Goettl and Gust Goettl,
d/b/a International Metal Products Company, 107
NLRB 65. In Pargas the wife of the employer's local
manager worked part time and was supervised by her
husband, but nevertheless was included in the unit
since she had no special status. Jo Renee Maples
happens to be the, daughter of Branch Manager
Donald Maples, but she enjoys no special status in
her employment and, therefore, she must be included
in the unit. We specifically note that although the
record shows that her hours varied, there is no
evidence that they were adjusted to suit her conven-
ience or through any intervention on her behalf by
her father. In the absence of such a showing, we
reverse the finding of the Hearing Officer that these
changes in hours established special status.
Although the Hearing Officer attached significance
to the fact that Donald Maples owns 200 shares of
the Employer's stock, we note that Standard and
Poor's Corporation Records indicates that there are
in excess of 62-1/2 million shares of stock of the
Employer which are publicly held and traded on the
New York Stock Exchange. Donald Maples certainly
is not a "substantial shareholder" as defined in Foam
Rubber City #2 of Florida, Inc., doing business as
Scandia, 167 NLRB 623, and therefore Jo Renee
Maples cannot be excluded from the unit under
Section 2(3) of the Act which excludes an individual
employed by his parent or spouse from the definition
of an employee.
DIRECTION
It is hereby directed that the Regional Director for
Region 6 shall, pursuant to the Rules and Regula-
tions of the Board, within 10 days, open and count
the ballot of Jo Renee Maples and prepare and cause
to be served on the parties a revised tally of ballots
including therein the count of said ballot, upon the
basis of which he shall issue the appropriate
certification.
MEMBER JENKINS, dissenting:
The ballot of Jo Renee Maples was challenged by
the Petitioner on the ground that she enjoys a special
status and has a community of interest separate from
her fellow employees. I would sustain the challenge
to her ballot as recommended by the Hearing
Officer.
Jo Renee Maples, a teenage high school girl, lives
at home with her parents. Her father is branch
manager of the facility involved herein and he owns
200 shares of the Employer's stock. It further appears
that she was hired by her father to work at the
Harmony facility.
Section 2(3) of the Act provides that "the term
`employee' . . . shall not include . . . any individual
employed by his parent ...." I am of the opinion
that Jo Renee Maples, in the circumstances of this
case, cannot be considered an "employee" within the
meaning of the Act.
However, as I recently indicated in my dissenting
opinion in Pargas of Crescent City, Inc., 194 NLRB
616 (1971), the practice of excluding close relatives of
management rests on further practical grounds.
Thus, under Section 9(b), in determining whether
employees who are not expressly excluded by the Act
should nevertheless be excluded from units of rank-
and-file employees, the Board must balance the
statutory rights of an employee to engage in
collective bargaining and the right of a collective-
bargaining agent for unit employees to seek and
achieve legitimate gains for them. As I have
heretofore stated, in my view, the "inclusion of a
close relative of management in a bargaining unit
with other employees in a particular plant may as
effectively hinder the employees in organizing
themselves and bargaining collectively as would the
intrusion of any representative of management."
Accordingly, and for those reasons fully expressed
in Pargas, I would sustain the challenge to the ballot
of Jo Renee Maples.