Zip-O-Log Veneer, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 23, 1955

112 N.L.R.B. 1303 (N.L.R.B. 1955)

ZIP-0-LOO VENEER, INC. 1303
facts we are unable to ascertain whether the utility man performs
duties connected with the greenhouse and nursery operations, or with
the other operations of the division. On this state of the record, we
therefore find that the utility man is not an "agricultural laborer."
Cemetery man: The cemetery man devotes all his time to the care
of the cemetery grounds and to grave and foundation digging. We
accordingly find that he is not an "agricultural laborer." 6
As it appears that the Employer does not question the majority
status of the Petitioner, and as it appears further that neither party
desires an election, we find that no 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. Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petition.'
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
6 See cases cited in footnotes 2, 3, and 4.
7 Humble Pipeline Company, Southern Division, 107 NLRB 892 at p. 894.
Zip-O-Log Veneer, Inc. and Veneer Employees Group , Petitioner.
Case No. 36-RC-1105. June 23, 1955
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before E. G. Strumpf, hearing of-
ficer. 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 Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.-'
3. The Intervenor contends that its contract is a bar to an election
among the employees in 1 of the 2 plants sought herein by the Peti-
tioner. The contract in question became effective on April 1, 1953,
and provides that it shall remain in effect until April 1, 1956. As the
contract has already been in effect for more than 2 years, and as there
was no showing of an industry practice of 3-year contracts, we find,
1 The hearing officer referred to the Board the motion of Local 5-246, International
Woodworkers of America , CIO, herein called the Intervenor , to dismiss the petition on the
grounds that there is a contract bar and that the unit sought is inappropriate . For the
reasons given infra, this motion is hereby denied.
2 The parties stipulated that the Intervenor is a labor organization within the meaning
of the Act, but the Intervenor refused to enter into such a stipulation with respect to the
Petitioner. We find that the Petitioner was organized for the purpose of bargaining collec-
tively on behalf of the employees of the Employer , and that it is therefore a labor organiza-
tion within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
112 NLRB No. 166.
1304 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
apart from other considerations , that the contract is not a bar. Ac-
cordingly, we find that a question affecting commerce exists concerning
the representation of employees of the Employer at the two plants
involved within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and
(7) of the Act.
4. The appropriate units :
A. The relationship of the four ope rations
Zip-O-Log Mills, a partnership wholly owned by George A. Camp-
bell and G. A. Hallstrom, owned and operated a logging operation and
a sawmill s for a number of years. About J Line 1954, the partnership
began operation of a veneer plant and, a few months later, a salvage
plant.' On February 1, 1955, in order to give some of the older
employees an interest in the business, a corporation was formed. Each
of the partners retained 40 percent of the stock and the 5 employees in
question were permitted to buy the remaining 20 shares.
The corporation now owns the veneer and salvage plants, which to-
gether are frequently referred to in the record as the veneer division
or department, while the partnership continued its ownership of the
sawmill and logging operation. Campbell is president and Hallstrom
is vice president of the corporation. They are in charge respectively
of financial matters and of production for all four operations. The
partnership office handles sales and maintains records for all four
operations, and bills the corporation for its proportionate share of the
bookkeeping costs. The wage rates at the different plants are com-
parable. The superintendent of the veneer plant is in charge of all
construction that might be needed by either the corporation or the
partnership. Although there is separate supervision at each opera-
tion, Hallstrom maintains active control. 1Ie has final authority with
regard to hiring and discharging, although some of the supervisors
may hire or discharge subject to his approval.
On the basis of all the evidence, we find that the partnership and
the corporation constitute a single employer for purposes of determin-
ing the appropriate unit issue in this proceeding. They will be re-
ferred to hereinafter separately as the partnership and the corpora-
tion and jointly as the Employer.
B. The contentions of the parties
The Petitioner seeks to represent the veneer and salvage plant
employees in a single combined unit. The Intervenor contends that
the employees at the salvage plant should be included in the unit coln-
3 This sawmill is also referred to in the record as mill No 2
s The salvage plant is also refereed to in the iecoid as a sawmill , a core mill, and mill
No 3
ZIP-O-LOG VENEER, INC. 1305
prised of the sawmill and logging operation, which it now represents.
It makes no contention as to the veneer plant employees. The Em-
ployer has taken no position on the unit issue.
C. The bargaining history
The Intervenor has been the bargaining representative for the saw-
mill and logging employees for a number of years. The current con-
tract provides that the Intervenor "shall be the sole collective-bargain-
ing agency for all employees retained by the Employer, and all em-
ployees employed by his independent and/or subcontractors." The
parties to the contract have construed it to cover employees at the log-
ging operation and at the sawmill of the partnership. When the part-
nership began operation of the veneer plant in about June 1954, the
parties did not consider that the contract covered this plant.
The partnership began operation of the salvage plant on about
November 1, 1954. At a meeting on about January 5 1955, the Inter-
venor notified the partnership that it claimed that the salvage plant
was covered by the contract. Campbell agreed that it was, subject,
however, to a determination by the Board if the question should be
submitted to it.' The contract was not amended to include the salvage
plant employees in express terms, and the union-shop provision of
the contract was not enforced as to these employees. On December it,
1954, the contract was amended by the addition of a wage-increase
provision. No change has been made in the contract following the
formation of the corporation on February 1, 1955.
The Intervenor sent the partnership a letter dated January 6, 1955,
confirming the "verbal agreement" that the employees of the salvage
plant "are covered under the Recognition Article of the Existing
Agreement between your Company and this Local Union." On Janu-
ary 18, 1955, the partnership furnished the Intervenor with the current
wage scales at the two partnership operations and at the salvage plant,
and, at the Intervenor's request, posted the wage rates in the lunch-
room of the salvage plant.
We find that even assuming that the contract involved effectively
covered the salvage plant, this bargaining history is not determinative
of the unit question with regard to the salvage plant employees as it
covered only a few months before the filing of the instant petition and
was conditioned upon a determination by the Board.'
D. The appropriate units
The two partners are in general charge of all four operations. Each
operation has separate immediate supervision , the partnership hav-
5 The record does not indicate the extent of the Intervenor 's membership in the salvage
plant
6 Northrop Aire) aft, Inc ., 110 NLRB 1349.
1306 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ing retained the crew and the supervisors at the veneer and salvage
plants when it acquired them. Separate payrolls are maintained for
each plant . Except for an electrician employed by the veneer plant
who did some work for the salvage plant and the sawmill , which will
prorate his wages, there is no transfer or interchange of employees.
The logging operation , which employs about 14 men, is located
about 14 miles from the sawmill, which has about 18 employees.
About 2 miles from the sawmill are the veneer and salvage plants,
which are adjacent to each other , separated only by a pond which
both plants use . These plants have about 45 and 18 employees,
respectively.
The logging operation has been sending all its logs to the sawmill,
but it may be able in the future to furnish some logs also to the veneer
plant. The logs which the veneer plant has been processing have
been purchased from various independent loggers. The veneer plant
sends to the salvage plant for processing the blocks which are too
short for the lathe, the nonpeelable blocks, and the veneer cores.
The parties stipulated that the job duties in the veneer plant are
substantially different from those in the salvage plant . On the other
hand, the sawmill and the salvage plant are engaged in similar opera-
tions and employ for the most part the same categories of employees.
Upon the entire record, we are of the opinion that , because of their
common ownership and general management, contiguous location,
and interdependent operations , the veneer and salvage plants may
constitute a single appropriate unit. We are also of the opinion, how-
ever, that each of these plants may constitute a separate appropriate
unit in view of their separate immediate supervision , the absence of
employee transfer or interchange , and the differences in the actual
work performed at each plant . On the other hand , we believe that
the salvage plant may also appropriately be included in the unit cur-
rently represented by the Intervenor in view of the similarities in
operations and in employee classifications at the salvage plant and
the sawmill.
We shall therefore make no final determination with respect to the
unit or units at this time , but shall first ascertain the desires of the
employees as expressed in the elections directed herein.
We shall direct elections among the employees in the following
voting groups :
A. All employees at the Employer 's veneer plant , excluding office
clerical employees, professional employees, guards , and supervisors
as defined in the Act.
B. All employees at the Employer 's salvage plant, excluding office
clerical employees , professional employees, guards , and supervisors
as defined in the Act.
FALL RIVER FOUNDRY COMPANY 1307
The employees in voting group A will be given a choice of the Peti-
tioner or no labor organization . The employees in voting group B
will be given a choice of the Petitioner , the Intervenor , or no labor
organization . If a majority of the employees in voting group B vote
for the Intervenor , they will be taken to have indicated their desire to
become part of the existing unit currently represented by the Inter-
venor, and the Regional Director will issue a certification of results
of election to that effect ; and, in that case, if a majority of the em-
ployees in voting group A vote for the Petitioner , the Regional Direc-
tor is instructed to issue a certification of representatives to the Peti-
tioner for such unit , which the Board, under such circumstances, finds
to be appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining . If a ma-
jority of the employees in both voting groups A and B vote for the
Petitioner , they will be taken to have indicated a desire to be repre-
sented in a single unit , and the Regional Director conducting the elec-
tions is instructed to issue a certification of representatives to the
Petitioner for such unit, which the Board, under such circumstances,
finds to be appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining.
If, on the other hand, a majority of the employees in either voting
group A or voting group B vote for the Petitioner and a majority of
the employees in the other voting group vote for no labor organiza-
tion, the Regional Director is instructed to issue a certification of
representatives to the Petitioner for the unit in which it is the
majority choice, which the Board , under such circumstances finds to
be appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.]
Fall River Foundry Company and International Molders & Foun-
dry Workers Union of North America, A. F. IL., Petitioner. Case
No. 18-RC-2394. June 03, 1955
DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF
RESULTS OF ELECTION
Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election
entered into between the parties and the Regional Director for the
Eighteenth Region on November 29, 1954, an election by secret ballot
was conducted on December 8, 1954, under the supervision of the
Regional Director , among the employees in the appropriate unit at the
Employer's plant in Fall River , Wisconsin . Upon completion of the
election, the parties were furnished with a tally of ballots which showed
that of approximately 51 eligible voters, 50 cast ballots , of which 16
were for and 32 against the Petitioner . There were also 2 challenged
ballots, a number insufficient to affect the results of the election.
112 NLRB No. 170.