Fort Worth Structural Steel Co.

In the Matter of FORT WORTH STRUCTURAL STEEL COMPANY, EMPLOYER and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BRIDGE, STRUCTURAL AND ORNA- MENTAL IRON WORKERS LOCAL 263, PETITIONER Case No. 16-R-0303.-Decided January 08, 1948 Samuels, Brown, Herman cC Scott, by Mr. Sidney L. Samuels, of Fort Worth, Tex., for the Employer. Mr. L. R. Robinson, of Fort Worth, Tex., for the Petitioner. DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Fort Worth, Texas, on August 11, 1947, before H. Carnie Russell, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record of the case, the National Labor Relations Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER Fort Worth Structural Steel Company, a Texas corporation whose only plant is located in Fort Worth, Texas, is engaged in the business of fabricating and erecting structural steel, reinforcing steel, and manufacturing steel tanks and metal culverts . During the past year, the Employer purchased more than $250,000 worth of raw materials, of which 75 percent was obtained from points outside the State of Texas. During this same period , it manufactured and processed more than $500,000 worth of saleable products, of which approximately 5 percent was shipped to out-of-State destinations. The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. 75 N. L. R. B., No. 131. 1146 FORT WORTH STRUCTURAL STEEL COMPANY II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED 1147 The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, claiming to represent employees of the Employer. III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION The Employer refuses to recognize the Petitioner as the exclusive bargaining representative of employees of the Employer until the Petitioner has been certified by the Board in an appropriate unit. We find that a 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. IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT The Petitioner seeks a unit composed of all the employees in the Employer's structural and maintenance department. It would also include certain employees in the miscellaneous department. The Em- ployer opposes the scope of the unit sought by the Petitioner and contends that the appropriate unit should be limited to the employees of the structural department. The Employer would also exclude as supervisors, Weinert and Mershon, while the Petitioner would include them. The Employer's operations are divided into two production depart- ments, a maintenance department and a miscellaneous department. The production departments are known as the structural- department and the tank shop. These two departments are separately operated, each producing different products 1 and maintaining a separate pay roll. The parties agree that all the employees in the tank shop be excluded.2 The disagreement between them is as to the inclusion of the following employees, all of whom the Petitioner would include and the Employer exclude : The maintenance department: There are four employees in this department, two of whom are machinists, one an electrician, and one a mechanic. All four employees work under the supervision of the maintenance department foreman although the services they perform are for the production departments. They are responsible for main- taining and keeping in repair the machinery and equipment in both the structural department and the tank shop. According to the Em- I The structural department processes semi-finished steel for bridges and buildings, while the tank shop manufactures tanks. 2 The record shows that the Boilermakers are organizing the tank shop. 1148 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ployer's witnesses, they spend as much time servicing the tank shop as the structural department. Inasmuch as it appears that these em- ployees are not peculiarly identified with the structural department, we shall exclude them.' The miscellaneous department: This department is composed of nine employees who perform various services incidental to the two pro- duction departments. Of the nine, the Petitioner would include the following five employees : the two truck drivers, the two shop and office janitors, and the storeroom helper.4 The truck drivers devote their full time to driving their trucks and delivering the goods pro- duced in both production departments. They are supervised by the traffic manager who is answerable to the Employer's secretary. The two shop and office janitors and the storeroom helper work under the direction of the head storeroom keeper who is in charge of the Em- ployer's storeroom. The shop and office janitors spend practically all their time sweeping and cleaning the plant and office floors, although on occasion, they may be assigned to the structural department as helpers. The storeroom helpers assist the head storeroom keeper in issuing various supplies to the structural department and tank shop. While the activities of these five employees are related to the pro- duction department, we are of the opinion that they should not be included in a production unit, confined to one department in the plant. We shall, therefore, exclude them. Weinert and Mershon: Both these men work in the structural department. The Employer contends they are supervisors and should be excluded. The record shows that these men engage in some pro- duction work but that most of their time is spent supervising the production employees. Their recommendations as to promotions, transfers, and discharges carry weight. Although they are hourly paid, their pay is higher than that of the production workers. We are of the opinion that Weinert and Mershon are supervisors and not employees within the meaning of the Act. Accordingly, we shall exclude them. We find that all the employees in the Employer's structural depart- ment, excluding the employees in the tank shop and the maintenance department, the two truck drivers, the two shop and office janitors, the storeroom helper, and Weinert and Mershon, and all other super- visors, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bar- gaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. $ See Matter of Real Silk Hosiery Mills, Inc, 54 N. L. R. B. 399. The remaining four employees who the Petitioner and the Employer agree should be excluded are the two night watchmen , the head storeroom keeper, and the office clerk. FORT WORTH STRUCTURAL STEEL COMPANY DIRECTION OF ELECTION 1149 As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Fort Worth Structural Steel Company, Fort Worth, Texas, an election by secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than thirty (30) days from the date of this Direction, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region, and subject to Sec- tions 203.61 and 203.62, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 5, among the employees in the unit found appropriate in Section IV, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of this Direction, including employees who did not work during said pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation or temporarily laid off, but exclud- ing those employees who have since quit or been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or reinstated prior to the date of the election, to determine whether or not they desire to be represented by Inter- national Association of Bridge, Structural & Ornamental Iron Workers, Local 263, for the purposes of collective bargaining.