Young Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 30, 1950

92 N.L.R.B. 410 (N.L.R.B. 1950)

In the Matter of C.. T. YOUNG D/B/A YOUNG MANUFACTURING COM-
PANY, EMPLOYER and UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND
JOINERS OF AMERICA, AFL, PETITIONER
Case No. 9-IBC-934.-Decided November 30,1950
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Lloyd R. Fraker, 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 Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Reynolds and Murdock].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act .2
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
3. A 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.
4. All production and maintenance employees of the Employer
at its Beaver Dam, Kentucky, mill, including truck drivers, but ex-
cluding office and professional employees, guards, and all supervisors
within the meaning of the Act,' constitute a unit appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b)
of the Act.
' The Employer ' s motion to dismiss the petition on the grounds that his business (1) is
seasonal , ( 2) has a proportionately large personnel turnover, and (3 ) is too small to
justify the Board's assertion of jurisdiction , was referred to the Board . For reasons
hereinafter stated , the motion is denied.
The Employer is an 'individual engaged in the manufacture of rough lumber into
building products . During the year 1949 , the Employer ' s total sales of finished products
were in excess of $55,000, of which $49,500 were to customers outside the State of Ken-
tucky . We find that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction in
this case . Stanialaus Implement and Hardware Company , Limited, 91 NLRB 618.
3 The secretary -bookkeeper is excluded as an office employee . The work leader and dry
kiln employee are included as they possess no supervisory authority.
92 NLRB No. 75.
410
YOUNG MANUFACTURING COMPANY 411
5. The determination of representatives :
The Employer's manufacturing operations fluctuate following the
activity in the building trades, with a generally higher volume of
work during April, May, June, August, September, and paxt of
October. During August the Employer had 15 employees within the
proposed unit, and in mid-October there were 9, 6 of whom are
permanent year-round employees. Employees who are laid off
during the slower months are customarily recalled when the work
load warrants such action, before the Employer hires new employees.'
The Petitioner desires an immediate election and contends that em-
ployees temporarily laid off are eligible to vote in such election. The
Employer, on the other hand, urges that if an election is held, those
temporarily laid-off employees who have accepted employment
elsewhere should not be permitted to vote.
The Board has customarily regarded temporarily laid-off em-
ployees who have not obtained permanent employment elsewhere or
have not failed to respond to an offer of reemployment by the Em-
ployer, as eligible to vote.' However, as the evidence in this case is
insufficient to enable us to make a definitive finding at this time as to
the employment status of these individuals, we shall make no final
determination with respect to the eligibility issue but shall permit
them to vote subject to challenges As the present personnel comple-
ment constitutes a representative and substantial group,' we shall,
in accordance with our usual policy, direct an immediate election.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
4In addition , the Employer follows the practice of laying employees off during inter-
mittent slack periods and recalling them in a few days or weeks , when work is available.
This results in a large percentage turnover of employees . The Employer urges that
because of this large turnover the petition should be dismissed . We find no merit to this
contention . The Board has previously held that a considerable turnover among employees
does not impair the representative nature of the balloting, and to void an election because
of a substantial change in constituency of the unit would be tantamount to holding that
benefits of the Act would no longer be available to employees in industries having high
turnover . See Pacific Tankers, Inc., 84 NLRB 965, and cases cited therein.
5 Scott-Atwater Manufacturing Company, Inc ., 90 NLRB No . 9; American Transformer
Company, 89 NLRB 824.
8 Mathews Lumber Company , 89 NLRB 50 ; Auto -Lite Battery Corporation, 85 NLRB
1034.
7 See The Borden Company, Hutchinson Ice Cream Division , 89 NLRB 227; Foremost
Dairies, Inc., 86 NLRB 585; Arkport Dairies, Inc., 86 NLRB 319. Cf. Bob Tankersley
Produce Company , 89 NLRB 974 , where in a truly seasonal industry only the office manager
remains during the off-season.