Oh boy that's a tough question to answer because on one hand yes but on the other hand no, it makes no sense at all. Like I understand what it means when worded better but no it makes no logical sense. It makes no logical sense to draw a distinction between utility derived from labor and utility derived from it's use. ALL utility is derived from the things use, if it has no use no one values it regardless of how many labor hours went into it.

Most importantly however this in no way addresses the issue with the second hypothetical I posed about the value of a chopped down tree vs a 10lb sphere of shit. IE not all labor is equally as valuable and therefor the value of something cannot be derived strictly from the average amount of labor that goes into producing it.