Marvel Roofing Products, Inc.

292 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication] Member Rodgers took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Direction of Election. unit irrespective of the number of hours they work or the tenure of their employment. As the record does not disclose the nature of their duties or the regularity of their employment, we will permit seasonal employees to vote subject to challenge if they are employed during the eligibility period prescribed in the Decision and Direction of Election herein. Cf. L: Wiemann Company, 106 NLRB 1167. MARVEL ROOFING PRODUCTS, INCORPORATED; WESTERN PROCUREMENT COMPANY, INCORPORATED; NEW MEXICO FELT MILLS, INCORPORATED 1 and CHAUF - FEURS, TEAMSTERS AND HELPERS, LOCAL UNION 492, AFL, Petitioner. Case No. 33-RC-469. April 19, 1954 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 Byron E. Guse, hearing officer. The hearing officer' s rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds: 1. The three companies listed above are New Mexico corporations occupying the same premises in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Western Procurement Company, Incorporated, is engaged in buying and selling basic raw materials used in the manufacture of asphalt composition roofing products by New Mexico Felt Mills. During the year 1953, Western Procurement Company purchased scrap paper, sawdust, asphalt coating and saturants, and other products valued at $240,520 from outside the State of New Mexico, and products valued at $42,500 from within the State. All of its sales, amounting to $365,767, were made within the State to New Mexico Felt Mills. New Mexico Felt Mills, Incorporated, manufactures asphalt composition roofing products. All but 7 percent of its materials is purchased from Western Procurement Company. During the year 1953, all of its manufactured products, valued at approximately $612,133, were sold within the State to Marvel Roofing Products. Marvel Roofing Products, Incorporated, in turn, sells all the roofing products manufactured by New Mexico Felt Mills in New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado, Texas, Oklahoma, and 'The names of the companies appear as corrected at the hearing. 108 NLRB No. 58. MARVEL ROOFING PRODUCTS, INCORPORATED 293 Kansas. In addition, Marvel Roofing Products purchased other finished products from outside the State in the value of $190,213. During this period, its sales outside the State amounted to $512,977, and its sales within the State amounted to $ 504,737. With 1 exception,' all 3 companies have the same officers and are owned by the same group of stockholders. The same office arid clerical staff perform duties for all 3 companies, with each company sharing part of the bookkeeping and clerical costs. The building, which is occupied by all 3 companies, is owned by New Mexico Felt Mills, which collects rent from the other 2 companies. Wages, hours, and working conditions at each company are established by Mr. J. Frank Cox, Jr., the general manager of all 3 companies. Virgil Batterman, general superintendent of Western Procurement Company and New Mexico Felt Mills, is responsible for hiring and discharging employees of both companies. At Marvel Roofing Products, Mr. Cox exercises this power jointly with Mr. C. H. Mosshart who is the vice president of all 3 companies. Under these circumstances, we find that the 3 companies constitute a single integrated enterprise and are, for purposes of determining jurisdiction, a single Employer.' As the total annual out-of-State sales of the 3 companies exceed $500,000, we find that the Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act, and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.4 2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain employees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representation of employees of the Employer within the mean- ing of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The appropriate unit: The Petitioner seeks a single unit of all production and maintenance employees of the Employer, including truck- drivers, warehousemen, and helpers, but excluding office clerical employees, plant clerical employees, professional employees, salesmen, laboratory technicians, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. In the alternative, the Petitioner expressed its willingness to represent separately the employees at each of the 3 companies. Although taking no position with respect to the scope of the unit, the Employer contends that the paper foreman, the head fireman, the roof mill foreman, and the night cleanup foreman should be excluded as supervisors. The Petitioner agrees to the exclusion of the 2 The president of the New Mexico Felt Mills, Baxter I. Scoggins, Jr., does not hold an office in either of the other two companies. 3 Rushville Metal Products, Inc., 107 NLRB 1146. 4 Stanislaus Implement and Hardware Company, Limited, 91 NLRB 618. In agreeing to assert jurisdiction here, Chairman Farmer and Members Rodgers and Beeson are not thereby to be deemed as concurring with the Board's present jurisdictional standards. 294 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD roof mill foreman ,5 but would include the other 3 employees whom it considers to be nonsupervisory leadmen. Scope of the Unit In view of our finding in paragraph numbered 1, above, that the 3 companies involved herein constitute a single Employer, and because of the integrated nature of their operations and the centralized control exercised over all employees , we find that the requested single-employer unit of the employees of all 3 companies is appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining. The paper foreman and head fireman : The paper foreman is in charge of a two-man paper -coectioncrewwhich collects scrap paper from customers in the surrounding area and de- livers the paper to the plant. He directs the work of the paper pickers and has the authority effectively to recommend their hire and discharge . The head fireman is responsible for the overall operation of the steam boiler and for the maintenance of the proper temperature in storage tanks. He is employed on the day shift and directs the work of other firemen who may be working on that shift. In addition , the head fireman issues instructions to the night firemen . He also has authority effectively to recommend the hire and discharge of all firemen. We find that the paper foreman and the head fireman are supervisors within the meaning of the Act . Accordingly, we will exclude them from the unit. The night cleanup foreman: The night cleanup foreman and another employee keep the plant clean and maintain the ma- chinery. Before going on duty, the cleanup foreman receives instructions which in turn he transmits to the other employee. Both of them then proceed to perform the necessary work. As the night cleanup foreman ' s authority over his assistant is merely one of routine direction , we find that he is not a supervisor within the meaning of the Act. We will therefore include him in the unit. Accordingly, we find that all production and maintenance employees at the Employer ' s Albuquerque , New Mexico , plant, including truckdrivers , warehousemen and helpers , and the night cleanup foreman, but excluding office clerical employees, plant clerical 'employees , professional employees , salesmen, laboratory technicians , guards, the paper foreman, the head fireman, the roof mill foreman , and all other supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes 5 The roof mill foreman is in charge of between 10 and 17 employees who constitute the roof mill shift. He is responsible for the scheduling of the shift and its operation. The record further discloses that not only does the roof mill foreman direct the roof mill shift in the performance of their duties, but that the roof mill foreman has authority effectively to recommend hiring and discharges. In these circumstances we will, in accordance with the parties' agreement, exclude the roof mill foreman as a supervisor within the meaning of the Act. J. A. UTLEY COMPANY 295 of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.6 [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] 6At the hearing, the parties agreed to exclude all so-called temporary part-time employees who are employed by the Employer for less than 30 days. However, such employees, if they perform functionally related work, are included in the unit irrespective of the number of hours they work or the tenure of their employment. L. Wiemann Company, 106 NLRB 1167. For this reason, we will include in the unit all part-time employees who perform functionally related duties. However, in accordance, with Board practice, only those employees who are regularly employed by the Employer within the meaning of Board decisions will be eligible to vote in the election hereinafter directed. Cf. C. & H. Foods, Inc., 100 NLRB 1483, 1485; J. C. Penney Company, 86 NLRB 920, 923. The Employer recently hired three cleanup men for a special job to be completed in a few weeks. In accordance with the parties' agreement, we will exclude them as casual em- ployees. J. A. UTLEY COMPANY and LeROY KERRIDGE MILLWRIGHTS LOCAL UNION NO. 1102 UNITED BROTHER- HOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA, Affiliated with THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR, AND ITS AGENT, R. M. LAING and LeROY KERRIDGE. Cases Nos. 7-CA-847 and 7-CB-142. April 20, 1954 DECISION AND ORDER On November 27, 1953, Trial Examiner Ralph Winkler issued his Intermediate Report in the above -entitled proceeding , finding that the Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair labor practices 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. The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent Company had not engaged in certain other unfair labo" practices alleged in the complaint and recommended dismissal of those al- legations. Thereafter, the Respondents and the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report, and the Respondents filed briefs in support of their exceptions.' The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Ex- aminer at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, 1 The Respondents have requested oral argument. In our opinion, the record, the exceptions, and briefs fully present the issues and the positions of the parties. Accordingly, the requests are denied. 108 NLRB No. 78.