Ready Mixed Concrete & Materials, Inc.

318 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD receive a higher rate of pay than the other female employees in the department, but less than the male employees therein. Neither has the power to hire or fire, or to make effective recommendations as to personnel action. Both work along with the other employees in the department. Their direction of these employees does not require the use of independent judgment but involves merely the routine trans- mission of orders from higher supervision and the making of routine assignments. As Carboneau and Ablondi do not possess any of the statutory indicia of supervisory authority, we hereby adopt the Re- gional Director's finding that they are not supervisors and his recom- mendation that the challenges to their ballots be overruled. Smith is classified by the Employer as foreman of the roller room. Smith works with the five other employees in this department and also spends about half his time driving a truck. Smith receives a higher hourly rate than other employees but is second in seniority. Instructions from the superintendent are relayed by Smith to the other employees. Smith exercises no independent judgment and does not have the power to hire or fire or to make effective recommenda- tions as to personnel action. Under the circumstances, we adopt the Regional Director's finding that Smith is not a supervisor and his recommendation that the challenge to Smith's ballot be overruled. [The Board directed that the Regional Director for the First Re- gion shall, within ten (10) days from the date of this Direction, open and count the ballots of Catherine Carboneau, Florence Ablondi, Clyde E. Smith, Jr., Ralph Piccirillo, and Edwin Rose, and cause to be served upon the parties a supplemental tally of ballots, including the count of the ballots described above.] Ready Mixed Concrete & Materials, Inc.' and Local #669, Con- crete Products and Material Yard Employees , Petitioner. Case No. 11-RC-1169. December 4, 1958 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 Jerry B. Stone, hear- ing 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 Employer is a South Carolina corporation which was charted and commenced business operations on November 1, 1957. 'The Employer 's name appears as corrected at the hearing: 122 NLRB No. 43. READY MIXED CONCRETE & MATERIALS, INC. 319 During the 11 months elapsing bet`veen that date and the date of the hearing the Employer purchased sand, crushed stone, and cement valued at approximately $154,000, all of which was purchased from points within the State of South Carolina. During that same period the Employer made sales within the State of South Carolina of ap- proximately $70,000 to various governmental agencies not otherwise identified, as well as sales in the amount of $2,492 to out-of-State contractors performing construction work in South Carolina. During this period the Employer was engaged in a joint venture with Van Smith Building Materials Company, which joint venture was known as Charleston Ready Mixed Concrete Company. The joint venture supplied ready mixed concrete valued at approximately $154,000 to general contractors engaged in the construction of an Air Force base near Charleston, South Carolina. The concrete had to meet Government specifications. The Employer's share of the joint ven- ture's revenues approximated $77,000. Its employees were engaged in the joint venture's operations, but were carried on the Employer's payroll. The Employer was reimbursed by the joint venture for the cost of wages paid to such employees. The parties stipulated the fore- going commerce facts are representative of the Employer's business and its effect on commerce. In these circumstances the Board has determined that it will effec- tuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction over the Employer. Ever since the enactment of the National Labor Relations Act in 1935 the Board has consistently held to the position that it better effectuates the policies of the Act and promotes the prompt handling of cases not to exercise its jurisdiction to the fullest possible extent under the authority delegated to it by Congress. For the first 15 years the Board exercised its discretion in this area on a case-by-case basis. In 1950 the Board first adopted certain jurisdictional standards de- signed to aid it in determining where to draw the dividing line be- tween exercised and unexercised jurisdiction. In 1954 the Board re- examined its jurisdictional policies in the light of its experience under the 1950 standards and revised its jurisdictional standards. At that time the Board noted that "further changes in circumstances may again require future alterations of our determinations one way or another." 2 Consistent with this practice of periodic review of its jurisdictional policies and as a direct consequence of the Supreme Court's decision in Guss v. Utah Labor Relations Board 3 denying to the States authority to assert jurisdiction over enterprises over which the Board declines to. exercise its statutory jurisdiction, the Board reexamined its existing jurisdictional policies and the standards Edwin D. TVemgs8, an individual, d/b/a Coca-Cola Bottling Company of Stockton, 110 NLRB 840, 842. 3353 U.S. 1. 320 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD through which such policies were implemented. As a result the Board has determined to revise its jurisdictional policies so that more indi- viduals, labor organizations, and employers may invoke the rights and protections afforded by the statute. In Siemens Hailing Service 4 the Board fully set forth the general considerations which persuaded it that this could best be accomplished by the utilization of revised jurisdictional standards as an administrative aid in making its juris- dictional determinations. The Board has chosen this case to set forth the conditions under which it will. assert jurisdiction on the basis of the national defense operations of an enterprise. The Board has determined that it best effectuates the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction over all enterprises, as to which the Board has statutory jurisdiction, whose operations exert a substantial impact on the national defense, irrespective of whether the enter- prise's operations satisfy any of the Board's other jurisdictional standards. In adopting this standard the Board has eliminated the require- ments that an enterprise's national defense operations must be di- rectly related to national defense, must be performed pursuant to contracts or subcontracts with the Government, and must amount at least to $100,000, a year.,' It has done so because it believes that it has a special responsibility as a Federal agency to reduce the number of labor disputes which might have an adverse effect on the Nation's defense effort. The Board believes that this responsibility can best be carried out by the more flexible standard announced herein. Application of this standard to the facts in this case warrants the Board's assertion of jurisdiction herein over the Employer's opera- tions which affect commerce within the meaning of the Act. Through its participation in the joint venture, Charleston Ready Mixed Con- crete Company, the Employer was instrumental in supplying sub- stantial quantities of ready-mixed concrete for use in the construc- tion of an Air Force base. The Board finds, therefore, that the Employer's operations clearly exert a. substantial impact on national defense.' 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 parties stipulated that the following employees employed at the Employer's Charleston, South Carolina, plant constitute a unit * 122 NLRB 81. 5 Set forth in Maytag Aircraft Corp., 110 NLRB 594. 0 Compare Ready Mixed Concrete Company, 110 NLRB 12:51 ; F. If. Reeves and Son•e, Inc., 112 NLRB 295. A. O. SMITH CORPORATION 321 appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act: All production and maintenance employees, including truckdrivers, but excluding all office clerical employees, guards, professional em- ployees, and supervisors as defined in the Act.7 [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] T The parties stipulated that the dispatcher was the only supervisor outside of the Employer's officers within the , meaning of the Act. A. .O. Smith Corporation and United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, Local 1004 and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 1710, AFL-CIO, Party to the Contract. Case No. 21-CA-2851. December 5,1958 DECISION AND ORDER On May 8, 1958, Trial Examiner Martin S. Bennett 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), (2) and (3) of the Act and recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Inter- mediate Report attached hereto. The Trial Examiner further recom- mended that an allegation of an independent violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act by the Respondent be dismissed. Thereafter the Respondent and the General Counsel filed exceptions, and the Re- spondent filed a supporting brief. 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 [Members Rodgers, Jenkins, and Fanning]. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the In- termediate Report, the exceptions and the brief, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom- mendations 1 of the Trial Examiner. 'To the extent that the recommended remedy may be construed not to require re- imbursement to the original four employees at Anaheim for sums paid the IBEW sub- seduent to November 7, 1957, pursuant to the contract , we do not adopt it, and those employees will be reimbursed for such sums. 122 NLRB No. 49. 505395-59--vol. 122 22