Stone & Webster Engineering Corp.

STONE & WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION 197 in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and ( 7) of the Act. [Recommended Order omitted from publication in this volume.] STONE & WEBSTER ENGINEERING CORPORATION and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, LODGE 395, PETITIONER. Case No. 39-RC-°-55. May 2, 1951 Decision and Order Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Elmer Davis, 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-mem- ber panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Murdock and Styles]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer, an international engineering and construction firm, is engaged in the construction and expansion of powerhouse facil- ities at Beaumont, Texas, for the Gulf States Utilities Company, a multimillion dollar public utility serving users in Louisiana and Texas. Two projects are involved here. One, which has taken approximately 18 months to build, is now reaching completion and the other, which will require a similar amount of time to complete, has been recently begun. " Each project involves expenditures in excess of $6,500,000, of which approximately 50 percent is for the purchase of materials and supplies outside the State of Texas. The International Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of Amer- ica, Local 753, AFL, hereinafter called the Intervenor, contends that the Board should not assert jurisdiction over these operations of the Employer, essentially for the reason that the work is sporadic, variable, and uncertain. Upon the record before us we find no merit in this contention.1 Inasmuch as the Employer purchases supplies and ma- terials valued in excess of $500,000 from outside the State of Texas we find that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdic- tion in this case. 2 Accordingly, we find that the Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. I The Plumbing Contractors Association of Baltimore, Maryland, Inc., 93 NLRB 1081; Ozark Data Constructors, 77 NLRB 1136. 2 Federal Dairy Company, Inc., 91 NLRB 638. .94 NLRB No. 39. 198 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent employees of the Employer. 3. No 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' for the following reasons:. The Petitioner seeks a unit composed of millwrights and/or ma- chinists and their helpers. The Employer and the Intervenor contend that the millwrights and carpenters constitute the appropriate unit. Since June 1947, the Employer and the Intervenor (International) have had a general contract covering the employment of carpenters and millwrights by the Employer. Further, the Employer and the Intervenor (Local) have had a contract covering the wages and other terms of employment of the millwrights and carpenters employed on this particular job, that has been in effect since work was begun in` August 1949. The latter contract has been renegotiated from time to time and at the time of the hearing the parties were negotiating for a revised contract. The Board has held that millwrights and machinists may constitute an appropriate unit. 4 It has also held that millwrights alone, 5 or millwrights and carpenters,' may be severed from an existing broader unit. In the instant case the Employer employs no machinists. The millwrights and carpenters work side by side on the Employer's construction site and, as indicated above, have been represented to- gether by the Intervenor for a number of years. The record reveals that the construction job will terminate in approximately 18 months. The employment of millwrights during that period admittedly will be on a sporadic basis and the evidence shows that a representative group of such employees may not be employed for a substantial portion of that period. In these circumstances, and particularly because the mill- wrights and carpenters work closely together and have been repre- sented together in active collective bargaining by the Intervenor, and because of the sporadic nature of the employment of millwrights, we 3 We find, contrary to the contentions of the Intervenor and the Employer, that the existing contracts do not constitute a bar to this proceeding. One contract, between the Intervenor (Local 753) and an association of employers, of which the Employer is a member, is effective until July 1, 1951, and contains a 90-day automatic renewal clause. Thus, the automatic renewal date was reached during the pendency of the petition herein. Interchemical Corporation (Finishes Division), 91 NLRB No 234 The other contract, between the Employer and the Intervenor (International), was made in 1947 and is for an indefinite duration Because more than 2 rears have elapsed since the contract was made. it can no longer constitute a bar. Association of Motion Picture Producers, Inc, 88 NLRB 521. 1International Harvester Company, 73 NLRB 971 ; W. B Willett Company, 85 NLRB 761. 5 U. S Rubber Company, 91 NLRB No 213; International Harvester Company (Louis- ville Works), 87 NLRB 317 s Calumet Hecla Consolidated Copper Co , 86 NLRB 126 ; Heyden Chemical Corpora- tion, 85 NLRB 1181. MID-STATES STEEL AND WIRE COMPANY 199 are of the opinion that the millwrights together with the carpenters constitute an appropriate unit. Accordingly we shall dismiss the petition. Order IT Is HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed. MID-STATES STEEL AND WIRE COMPANY and INDUSTRIAL UNION OF MARINE AND SHIPBUILDING WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 32, CIO, PETITIONER. Case No. 1O-RC-1188. May °2, 1951 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 Clarence D. Musser, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearinr are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. The hearing officer referred to the Board for ruling the Employer's motion to adjourn the hearing to Crawfordsville, Indiana, for the tak- ing of further evidence. As such further evidence adverted to by the Employer would not alter our determination herein, the motion is denied. The Employer's motion to dismiss the petition on the ground that the unit sought by the Petitioner is inappropriate is denied for the reasons set forth hereinafter. 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 Murdock and Styles]. 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 organization involved claims to represent certain em- ployees 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. The Petitioner seeks a unit composed of all production and main- tenance employees at the Employer's Jacksonville, Florida, plant, in- cluding the stock clerk, over-the-road truck driver, and two watchmen, but excluding the foremen, assistant foremen, executive, professional and clerical employees, guards, and supervisors as defined by the Act. The Employer agrees with the composition of the unit, but contends I See Stanislaus Implement and Hardware Company, Limited, 91 NLRB 618. 94 NLRB No. 47.