Camp Concrete Rock Co.

296 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the agreement is signed, despite the fact that it is made retroactive to a date preceeding the petition.4 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. 4. The parties agree, and the Board finds, that the following eiu- ployees at the Employer's plant in Chicago, Illinois, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the mean- ing of Section 9 (b) of the Act : All production and maintenance employees, including factory cler- ical employees, but excluding office clerical employees, draftsmen, outside truck drivers engineers, guards, watchmen,, professional enI- ployees, and supervisors as defined in the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this volume.] 'Southern Heater Corporation, 91 NLRB 1118, Peter Pu seh and Sons Company, 90 NLRB No. 253. CAMP CONCRETE ROCK COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF-OPER- ATING ENGINEERS, LOCAL 925, A-B-C, TAMPA, FLORIDA, AFL, Pr.TI- TIONER. Case No. 10-1?O-1166. May 3, 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 Frank E. Hamilton, Jr., hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hear- ing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.' Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer, a Florida corporation, is engaged in mining, crushing, washing, and grading limestone at its Brooksville, Florida, mines. Its sales are all made f. o. b. at the mines and its customers arrange to have the stone transported. All the Employer's sales are made to the Florida Crushed Stone Company, which acts as its ex- clusive selling agent and, in turn, resells the stone to purchasers. The Employer owns 50 percent of the stock of the Florida Crushed Stone Company. The same individual is secretary and treasurer of both 1 At the hearing the heating officer properly overruled the Employer 's objections that the Petitioner had not evidenced its compliance with Section 9 (f), (g), and ( h) of the Act and that the Petitioner had not made a sufficient showing of interest The Board has repeatedly held that the issues of compliance and showing of inteiest are matters for administrative determination not subject to litigation by the parties As to compliance see Florence Manufacturing Company, Inc, 92 NLRB 185, Sun Shipbuilding and Dry- dock Company, 86 NLRB 20 As to showing of interest see The F. J Kelly Company, 90 NLRB No 289, 0 D Jennings cC Company, 68 NLRB 516. 94 NLRB No 51. CAMP CONCRETE ROCK COMPANY 297 companies and the president of the Employer is also the executive vice president of the Florida Crushed Stone Company. We find, upon the basis of the foregoing facts, that the Employer and the Florida Crushed Stone Company, constitute, for these purposes, a single employer.2 During the calendar year 1950 the Employer purchased supplies and materials valued at $418,497.47 of which $37,589.02 represented the value of purchases from points outside the State of Florida. During the same period sales of the Employer's products amounted to $1,057,243.95 which included $942.64 sold outside the State of Florida. Also included in the total sales of the Employer's products were sales of crushed stone valued at $332,206.70 to be used in the construction and repair of highways. Of this latter amount, $108,- 828.56 represented sales of stone to the State Road Department of Florida for use in necessary maintenance of the State's highway system. Upon the foregoing facts we find, contrary to the Employer's con- tention, that its operations affect commerce within the meaning of the Act. Moreover, as the Employer furnished materials, valued in ex- cess of $50,000, necessary to the maintenance and operation of the highways and roads of the State of Florida, we find that it will effec- tuate the purposes of the Act to exercise jurisdiction over the Employer's operations.3 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 following employees constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act: All employees employed at the Employer's Brooksville, Florida, mines, including the warehouseman,' but excluding office and clerical 2 See Betram F Roland, d/b/a Launder epair Company, 90 NLRB 778, and Burrus6 Timber Products, Inc, 87 NLRB 1561 ; finding that two interrelated companies engaged in an integrated enteipiise may constitute a single employer 3 Hollow Tree Lumber Company, 91 NLRB 635; Pembroke Limestone Corporation, 74 NLRB 1043 , Blue Ridge Stone Corpo; aioon, 74 NLRB 1. The Employer's motion to dismiss the petition on jurisdictional grounds is accordingly denied "The Employer contends that the warehouseman should be excluded This employee is in charge of the warehouse and his duties are analogous to those of a tool clerk. Ten percent of his time may be spent in clerical work and the remainder is spent in checking materials in or out and placing -them in the proper places in 'the warehouse. He has no assistants and he has no authority to effectively recommend hiring or discharge of employees. The record indicates the interests of this employee are substantially the sane as those of the other employees included in the appiopnate unit Accordingly, we shall include him Victor Chemical Works, 85 NLRB 495 , Oswego Sheet Metal Works, Inc, 80 NLRB 1199. 298 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD employees, professional employees, guards,5 and supervisors 6 as de- fined in the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this -volume.] MEMBERS REYNOLDS and STYLES took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Direction of Election. 5 The Employer employs two watchmen, Collins and Griggs, to be on the Employer's premises at night to prevent trespassing and theft. They have no production duties and perform no work other than normal plant-protection duties. We find that these employees are guards and they are , therefore , excluded . Manhattan Oil Corporation, 79 NLRB 187. O The Employer contends, and the Petitioner denies, that Obed Martin is a supervisor. Martin is a maintenance foreman in charge of a roustabout gang that does repair and building work. There is uncontradicted testimony in the record that he has the authority to hire and discharge employees employed in his crew. We find that Martin is a super- visor as defined in the Act and he is, therefore , excluded. EDWIN S. ROUGH, CLAUDE A. ROUGH , SR., MINNIE K. ROUGH , MARGUE- RITE R. MUNSON, CLAUDE A. ROUGH, JR., AND ROBERT W. ROUGH, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS CO-PARTNERS , D/B/A ROUGH'S SAWMILL, LTD. and INTERNATIONAL WOODWORKERS OF AMERICA , CIO. Case No. 2O-CA-257. May 4, 1951 Decision and Order On August 18, 1950, Trial Examiner William E. Spencer issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as' set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondents filed exceptions to the Intermediate Re- port and a supporting brief. On October 13, 1950, the Board r remanded the proceeding to the Trial Examiner for the purpose of receiving further evidence as to the nature and extent of the Respondents' operations. On January 9, 1951, following a second hearing, the Trial Examiner issued a Sup- plemental Intermediate Report, a copy of which is attached hereto. No exceptions have been filed to this Supplemental Intermediate Re- port, but the Respondents advised the Board that they desire con 1 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-member panel [ Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Reynolds]. 94 NLRB No. 57.