Pennsylvania Glass Sand Corp.

PENNSYLVANIA GLASS SAND CORPORATION 559 pline, or assign guards, nor the authority effectively to recommend such action. Under all the circumstances, we find that the corporals of the guard group are not supervisors as defined in the Act, and we shall include them in the unit. We find that all hourly rated employees in the guard group at the Employer's Dallas, Texas, plant, including the guard corporals, but excluding the employees in the fireman group, all other employees, the guard captain, lieutenants, and sergeants, and all other supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this volume.] PENNSYLVANIA GLASS SAND CORPORATION and GLASS BOTTLE BLOWERS ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA, AFL AND FEDERA- TION OF GLASS, CERAMIC & SILICA SAND WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONERS Cases Nos. 5-RC-1188 and 5-RC-1205. January 23, 1953 Decision, Order, and Direction of Election Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the Na- tional Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before Louis Aronin, 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-member panel [Members Houston, Murdock, and Styles]. Upon the entire record is this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent employees 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) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The Employer is engaged in the quarrying of sand rock and the processing of it into industrial sand. It operates plants at Berkeley Springs, West Virginia; Mapleton Depot and McVeyton, Pennsyl- vania; Newport, New Jersey; and in Missouri and Oklahoma. The Employer is presently engaged in construction work at all of the above plants with the exception of those located in Missouri and Oklahoma. This construction work is performed exclusively by the Employer's 102 NLRB No. 51. 560 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD construction department which is under the supervision of the chief of its engineering department. The Federation of Glass, Ceramic & Silica Sand Workers of America, CIO, hereinafter referred to as CIO (Petitioner in Case No. 5-RC-1188), seeks to represent, as a separate appropriate unit, those construction department employees employed at the Employer's Berkeley Springs plant. Glass Bottle Blowers Association of the United States and Canada, AFL, hereinafter referred to as AFL (Petitioner in Case No. 5-RC-1205), seeks to represent a unit com- posed of all construction department employees employed at all of the Employer's plants at which construction work is in progress. The Employer contends that the units sought by both Petitioners are inappropriate for collective-bargaining purposes. The record reveals that the Employer's construction department consists of 2 groups of employees, the permanent group and the tem- porary group. There are approximately 80 employees in the depart- ment, 15 or 20 of whom are permanent employees. All permanent employees are skilled construction workers and are transferred among the various plants as the need for construction arises. The remaining employees, including skilled and unskilled workers, are hired at the construction job site, and are discharged at the conclusion of the con- struction project for which they are employed. The record shows that construction projects vary in duration from 6 months to several years. The work performed by all construction employees, no matter where located, is substantially similar. Their work, however, materially differs from the work of the production and maintenance employees at the various plants. The construction employees at all locations are under the separate supervision and control of the chief engineer and are carried on a separate payroll. There is no interchange of em- ployees between the construction department and the production and maintenance departments. The record further reveals that the production and maintenance employees at the plants in West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey are currently represented for collective-bargaining purposes by various local unions other than the Petitioners, and that the con- struction employees have been excluded from the appropriate units of production and maintenance employees. There is no history of collective bargaining for any of the construction employees. In view of the foregoing, particularly the similarity of skills and work of all construction department employees, the interchange of permanent employees among the several projects, and the same overall supervision and control of these employees, we find that a unit limited to the construction employees at the Employer's West Virginia plant, PENNSYLVANIA GLASS SAND CORPORATION 561 as requested by the CIO, is not appropriate for the purposes of col- lective bargaining. We shall therefore dismiss the petition of the CIO for separate representation of these employees.' However, for the same reasons, and in addition, because the construction employees constitute a residual group who have been excluded from the various production and maintenance units established at the Employer's plants, we find that all construction department employees at the Employer's several plants constitute a unit appropriate for the pur- poses of collective bargaining.2 Foremen: Each construction project is under the direct supervision of 1 of 4 general foremen. The Employer and the CIO agree that these foremen are supervisors within the meaning of the Act and must be excluded from the unit. The AFL takes no position with respect to these foremen and requests the Board to determine their status. The record clearly shows that the general foremen have the authority to direct, hire, fire, and transfer construction employees, grant time off, recommend increases, and discipline these employees. We find therefore that the general foremen are supervisors within the meaning of the Act and shall exclude them from the unit. Gang leaders: There are 2 gang leaders whom the Employer and AFL would include, and the CIO exclude on the ground that they are supervisors. The gang leaders under supervision of the foreman, assign work to crews ranging from 5 to 20 employees depending on the size and nature of the project. While they have authority to recommend the hiring and discharge of these employees, the accep- tance of their recommendation is at the discretion of the foreman in charge of the project. The evidence indicates that the foremen them- selves, who have authority to hire and discharge, usually make recom- mendations as to such action to the Employer's home office. There is no evidence that the direction of the crews by the gang leaders is other than routine. Accordingly, we find that they are not super- visors within the meaning of the Act and shall include them. We find that the following employees constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Sec- tion 9 (b) of the Act: All construction department employees employed at the Employer's plants in Berkeley Springs, West Virginia; Mapleton Depot and McVeyton, Pennsylvania; and in Newport, New Jersey, including gang leaders, but excluding all other employees, professional em- ployees, guards, foremen, and all supervisors as defined in the Act. 5. As hereinbefore noted a large number of the construction em- ployees sought by both Petitioners are temporary employees. The 1 The North Electric Manufacturing Co., 80 NLRB 260; Glassy Fibres, Inc., 83 NLRB 1239. 2 International Harvester Co , 82, NLRB 185. 562 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tenure of employment of most of these temporary employees is meas- ured by the duration of the project on which they are employed, which. varies from 6 months to several years. Some temporary employees are employed for shorter periods of time, varying from several weeks to several months, depending upon the nature and scope of the job they are to perform. With respect to all temporary employees the date of termination of employment is uncertain. For these reasons. we find, contrary to the Employer's contention, that the temporary construction employees are eligible to vote in the election.3 Order IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition of the CIO (Case No. 1188) for a separate unit of construction department employees of the Em- ployer's Berkeley Springs, West Virginia, plant be, and it hereby is, dismissed. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this volume.] 8 Fall River Gas Works Go., 82 NLRB 962; Snively Groves Inc., 98 NLRB 1146. PUGH AND BARR, INC. an BENJAMIN S. BRAMER. Case No. 6-CA-213_ Jatnaui °y 23,1953 Decision and Determination On July 20, 1951, the National Labor Relations Board, hereinafter called the Board, issued an Order in this case, adopting the findings, conclusions, and recommendations set forth in the Trial Examiner's. Intermediate Report and Recommended Order, dated June 20, 1951. The Board's Order provided, among other things, that the Respondent make whole Benjamin S. Bramer in the manner set forth in section V of the Intermediate Report and Recommended Order, entitled "no- Remedy," for any loss of pay he may have suffered because of the dis- crimination against him. Thereafter, the Board filed a petition for enforcement of its Order and a motion for the summary entry of a decree upon the transcript of the record in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. On January 25, 1952, the court en- tered a decree enforcing the Board's Order. Thereafter, the Respond- ent and representatives of the Board were unable to agree as to the amount of back pay due Bramer, and, on June 13, 1952, the Acting Regional Director issued a notice of further hearing, ordering that the record herein be reopened, and that a further hearing be held before a Trial Examiner for the purpose of determining the amount of back 102 NLRB No. 58.