Orleans Materials & Equipment Co., Inc.

In the Matter of ORLEANS MATERIALS & EQUIPMENT CO., INCORPORATED AND STEEL FABRICATORS, INC., EMPLOYERS and INTERNATIONAL Asso- CIATION OF BRIDGE, STRUCTURAL AND ORNAMENTAL IRON WORKERS, SI IOPMEN LOCAL 619, A. F. L., PETITIONER Case No. 15-R-2134.-Decided February 25, 1948 Messrs. J. J. Housey and G. T. Collameore, of New Orleans, La., for the Employers. Cllr. Nick Tedesco, of New Orleans, La., for the Petitioner. DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon ti petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at New Orleans, Louisiana, on April 7, 1947, before T Lowry Whittaker, hear- ing officer. The hearing officer's ridings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations Board makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF TIIE EMPLOYER Orleans Materials & Equipment Co., Incorporated,- hereinafter called OMECO, is engaged in fabricating steel at its plant in New Orleans, Louisiana. During the year preceding the hearing, OMECO received from Steel Fabricators, Inc., steel products for fabrication worth over $100,000, approximately all of which originated from points outside the State of Louisiana. During the same period, fin- ished products worth approximately $15,000 were delivered to Steel Steel Fainicetots, Ine, moved to mtea^ene at the hearing Although this motion was opposed by the Petitioner, the healing officer permitted this corporation to participate m the proceeding, but reserved fog the Boai d lining on the motion In view of our findings hereinaftei, nne conclude that Steel Fabiicatois, Inc, wwas Piopeily allotiaed to participate and its motion to intervene is heieh3 gianted ' This name, a, vveli as that of the Petitioner, appeals in the caption as amended at the healing 76N L It B, No. 48 351 352 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Fabricators, Inc., for shipment to points outside the State. We find that OMECO is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. Steel Fabricators, Inc., hereinafter called Steel Fabricators, is en- gaged in warehousing, fabricating, and distributing steel products at a plant across the street from the above plant of OMECO, in New Orleans, Louisiana. During the year preceding the hearing, Steel Fabricators received for handling and fabricating, by itself and OMECO, steel products worth over $100,000, approximately all of which represented shipments from points outside the State of Lou- isiana. During the same period, it fabricated and shipped products worth approximately $20,000 to points outside the State. Steel Fabri- cators admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. II. TI3E ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, claiming to represent employees of OMECO.3 III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION OMECO refuses to recognize the Petitioner as the exclusive bargain- ing representative of certain of its employees until the Petitioner has been certified by the Board in an appropriate unit. On October 24, 1946, pursuant to a consent election agreement be- tween the parties involved herein, an election was held under Board auspices among the employees in substantially the same unit as the one now urged to be appropriate by the Employers. At that time, a majority of the employees voted against representation. On January 17, 1947, the Petitioner filed its petition herein and oil April 18, 1947, shortly after the hearing in this matter, the Employers filed a brief in which they urged the prior election as a bar to the holding of a second election. We perceive no obstacle to a current determination of representa- tives. With respect to the frequency with which elections may be held, Section 9 (c) (3) of the amended Act provides that: "No election shall be directed in any bargaining unit . . . within which, in the pre- ceding twelve-month period, a valid election shall have been held." Accordingly, inasmuch as more than a year has now elapsed since the prior election, no sound reason exists to deny these employees an op- portunity, at this time, to select a bargaining representative, if they so desire. The Petitioner has waived any right to object to any election which may be directed in the instant proceeding on the basis of any of the acts alleged by it as unfan labor practices in Case No 15-C-1337 ORLEANS MATERIALS & EQUIPMENT CO., INCORPORATED 353 We find that a question affecting commerce exists concerning the representation of employees of the Employers , within the mewling of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT The Petitioner contends that the appropriate emit should consist of all production and maintenance employees of OMECO, including lay- out men , but excluding watchmen, janitors, timekeepers , draftsmen and engineering department employees , clerical and office employees, the shipping clerk, and all supervisors . The Employers are in gen- eral agreement with respect to the composition of the unit , except that they would include the watchmen . However, they would extend the scope of the unit to include the employees of Steel Fabricators as well. In the event that the Board should reject the Petitioner 's unit con- tention,' the Petitioner takes the alternative position that the unit re- quested by the Employers would be generally appropriate. It would, however, exclude from such a unit the truck drivers and clerks em- ployed by Steel Fabricators , whom the Employers would include. Scope o/ unit There has been no prior history of collective bargaining with respect to the employees involved herein. The two corporations have the same president, who is the majority stockholder in each company; the secretary of OMECO is vice president of Steel Fabricators; and two of the three members of the Board of Directors of OMECO serve in a like capacity for Steel Fabricators. The latter corporation was originally organized by the controlling interests of OMECO primarily for use as a warehousing outlet of steel products fabricated by OMECO, and its plant was established directly across the street from OMECO. However, in view of business requirenments, Steel Fabrica- tors commenced virtually identical activities with those of OMECO's. A single plant manager, charged with the over-all supervision of both plants, now coordinates and directs the allocation of the work to be performed by each. Most of the production job classifications at OMECO are to be found also at Steel Fabricators and the employees within these common classifications have the same skills, working hours, and other conditions of employment, and receive the same wages. With respect to these classifications, the record discloses that more than 50 percent of OMECO's employees therein have previously appeared * In support of its unit contention , Petitioner stiessed its inability to organize the em- ployees at Steel Fabricators. 354 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD on Steel Fabricators' pay roll and that better than 90 percent of the latter's employees therein have at one time or other been on OMECO's pay rolls. As to those classifications which exist only at one plant, but are never- theless required at the other, the affected employees perform their respective duties at both plants, without cost allocations being made. In this group are OMECO's draftsmen, engineering department em- ployees, maintenance men, and office and clerical employees, as well as Steel Fabricators' truck drivers, clerks, and painters. While each corporation maintains separate pay rolls and separate offices, and has its own bookkeeper and a separate foreman to handle immediate super- vision, it nevertheless appears that the hiring and discharging at both plants is handled by the single plant manager and that identical labor policies, commonly determined, prevail at both plants. Accordingly, in view of the foregoing, including the over-lapping of officers, di- rectors, and ownership of both corporations, the highly integrated operations, and the same over-all supervision and labor policy, we are of the opinion that OMECO and Steel Fabricators together constitute a single employer within the meaning of Section 2 (2) of the Act, and that their employees comprise a single appropriate unit for the pur- poses of collective bargaining.5 Composition of unit We come now to a discussion of the disputed categories of employees : Watchmen: As already noted, the Petitioner, in disagreement with the Employers, would exclude these employees. The two watchmen, employees of OMECO, make the rounds of both properties and per- form plant-protection duties. In view of the foregoing, we find that they are "guards" within the meaning of Section 9 (b) (3) of the amended Act and we shall exclude them.6 Truck Drivers: In this group are five truck drivers employed by Steel Fabricators whom the Employers would include and the Peti- tioner exclude. These employees make deliveries of steel products fabricated at both plants, move steel between both plants, assist other employees in unloading steel at those plants, and serve either shop as punch men or shear men. It thus appears that a considerable portion of time is spent by these employees in and about both plants in close proximity to other employees in the requested unit. We shall there- fore include them. Clerks: The Petitioner would exclude the two employees in this category appearing on the pay roll of Steel Fabricators while the 5 Matter of Daytoic, Price cC Company, Ltd , 73 N L R B 149, and cases cited theiem "Matter of C i' Hill & Company, Inc. 76 N L R B 158 ORLEANS MATERIALS & EQUIPMENT CO., INCORPORATED 355 Employers would include them. These two employees are actually expediters or production clerks who follow the materials through arious production processes at both plants to see that the work is proceeding according to schedule. To expedite the progress of the work, they perform the physical labor of carrying the materials them- selves and also act as helpers on the machines. Although they prepare dispatch sheets indicating the progress of the job, they make no re- ports as to individual employees and have no authority either to effect, or effectively recommend, changes in the status of employees. We find that their interests are similar to those of the other production employees. We shall therefore include them.' We find that all production and maintenance employees of the Employers, including layout men, truck drivers, and clerks (produc- tion), but excluding watchmen, janitors, timekeepers, draftsmen, and engineering department employees, clerical and office employees, the shipping clerk, and all supervisors, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. DIRECTION OF ELECTION As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Orleans Materials & Equip- ment Co., Incorporated, and Steel Fabricators, Inc., both of New Or- leans, Louisiana, 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 Fifteenth Region, and subject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations- Series 5, among the employees in the unit found appropriate in Sec- tion IV, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period imme- diately 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 excluding 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, and also excluding em- ployees on strike who are not entitled to reinstatement, to determine whether or not they desire to be represented by International Associa- tion of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, Shopmen Local 619, A. F. L., for the purposes of collective bargaining. MEMBER REYNOLDS took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Direction of Election. Matte; of Star Watch Case Company , 61 N I. it R 1389 781 9 0 2-48-% of 76-24