St. Paul And Tacoma Lumber Company,1 Employer And International Woodworkers Of America, Local 2-9, Cio, Petitioner, 434 (1949)
In the Matter of ST. PAUL AND TACOMA LUMBER COMPANY,1 EMPLOYER and INTERNATIONAL WOODWORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 2-9, CIO,
PETITIONER Case No. 19-UA-582.-Decided February 1, 1949 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before a hearing officer of the National Labor Relations 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,2 the Board finds:
The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
The Petitioner represents employees of the Employer.
The petition herein alleges that more than 30 percent of the employees in the unit represented by the Petitioner desire to authorize the Petitioner to make an agreement with the Employer requiring membership in the Petitioner as a condition of employment in such unit, which allegation was supported by documentary evidence submitted by the Petitioner.
The Employer currently recognizes the Petitioner as the collective bargaining representative of its employees and no question affecting commerce exists concerning the representation of employees of the Employer in the unit hereinafter found appropriate. Accordingly, we find that the Petitioner has satisfied the preliminary requirements for a union-ship authorization election as set forth in Section 9 (e) (1) of the amended Act.
The appropriate unit:
1 As amended at the hearing.
*Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Gray.
2As we find that the record, and the brief submitted by the Petitioner, fully present the isues here involved, the Petitioner's request for oral argument is hereby denied.
434 The Employer is engaged, inter alia, in logging operations in Pierce County, Washington, and in the operation of a sawmill at Tacoma, Washington. With certain exceptions discussed hereinafter, the parties are in agreement that the unit appropriate for the purposes of this proceeding consist of all employees of the Employer in its Pierce County logging and Tacoma mill operations, subject to certain exclusions.3 The Employer would also exclude from the unit in this proceeding mill watchmen, including a head watchman and a gateman, and camp caretakers, on the ground that they are guards within the meaning of Section 9 (b) (3) of the Act, and hook tenders on high lead yarding crews, and head riggers on slack line and skidder yarding crews, on the ground that they are supervisors within the meaning of Section 2 (11) of the Act. These employees have heretofore been included in the bargaining unit. The Petitioner contends that these employees should be included in the unit in this proceeding, on the grounds that (1) the Board is without authority to alter the composition of an established bargaining unit for the purposes of a proceeding to authorize the execution of a union-security agreement, and (2) in any event, none of the foregoing employees are guards or supervisors within the meaning of the Act.
With respect to the broad proposition advanced by the Petitioner's first contention, the Board has heretofore held, in two cases involving the application of Section 14 (b) of the Act * and in another case in which the parties wished to continue in effect the provisions of a previous contract which contained union-security provisions applicable to only part of an established bargaining unit,5 that a unit appropriate for the purposes of Section 9 (e) (1) need not be coextensive with, but may consist of only a part of, a unit established for representation purposes under Section 9 (c). Such findings were made despite the fact that in each of the cases the...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP