William-McWilliams Industries, Inc.

W. HORACE WILLIAMS COMPANY, ETC. 223 W. Horace Williams Company, Division of William-McWilliams Industries, Inc.' and Shopmen's Local Union No. 619 of the International Association of Bridge, Structural and Orna- mental Iron Workers, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 15-RC- 2248. February 13, 1961 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 Sewall S. Fine, hearing offi- cer. 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 [Chairman Leedom and Members Rodgers and Jenkins]. Upon the entire record in 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 certain employees of the Employer.' 3. The question concerning representation : The Employer, prior to the filing of the petition herein had both written and oral "understandings" with the various unions herein involved over a period of several years. Pursuant to such understand- ings the Employer agreed to pay union wage rates, recognize certain days as holidays, seek new employees first through the union hiring halls, and recognize the work jurisdictional lines of the various craft or trade unions. The Employer contends that the following agree- ments, which were introduced in evidence, constitute bars to the peti- tion herein: (a) a memorandum of agreement between the Employer 1 The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing 2 District Council of Carpenters, New Orleans and Vicinity, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO ; and Pile Drivers Union Local 2436, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-CIO, herein referred to jointly as the Carpenters; International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 406, herein referred to as the Operating Engineers; and Local 689, International Brotherhood of Hod Carriers and Common Laborers of America, AFL-CIO, herein called the Laborers, sought to In tervene at the hearing . Each based its right to intervene on the Associated General Contractors-AFL-CIO, New Orleans and Vicinity Master and Craft Agreements, herein collectively referred to as the AGC agreement , adopted by the Employer to become effective on August 16, 1960. The Petitioner moved that intervention be denied to any union involved herein which did not submit a card showing interest among the employees sought The hearing officer denied this motion , and granted intervention to each of the aforementioned unions. Although the AGC agreement does not specifically recognize each union signatory thereto as the bargaining representative of any of the employees involved herein, we find that for the purpose of intervention each union has at least a col,aable interest in certain of the employees involved and, accordingly, affirm the hearing officer's ruling. International Brotherhood of Boilermakers , Iron Shipbuilders , Blacksmiths , Forgers and Helpers , AFL-CIO, Local 37, herein called the Boilermakers , also intervened on the basis of an adequate card showing of Interest. 130 NLRB No. 3. . 224 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD and the Carpenters dated July 7, 1960; ( b) a memorandum of under- standing of terms between the Employer and the Hoisting Engineers, relating to offshore oil drilling platforms dated November 8, 1954; (c) a memorandum of understanding of terms between the Employer and the Iron Workers likewise relating to offshore oil drilling plat- forms and dated November 8, 1954; and (d) a document executed by the Employer wherein it adopted the AGC agreement to become effec- tive on August 16, 1960.3 As to (a), (b), and (c), it is clear that none of these agreements in- clude within their respective terms any clause relating to expiration or terminal dates, or duration of the agreements. We find that they are contracts of indefinite duration and, under Board precedent, do not constitute a bar.4 As it is clear that the agreement referred to in (d) above, adopting the AGC agreement, was executed by the Employer a month after the filing of the petition herein, on July 14, 1960, it likewise does not con- stitute a bar.' Accordingly, we find that a question affecting commerce exists con- cerning the representation of certain employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9(c) (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The Petitioner seeks a unit composed of the production and maintenance employees at the Employer's fabrication yard located at 5701 France Road, New Orleans, Louisiana. Although the Employer does not oppose the unit sought, it questions the inclusion therein of certain alleged "craftsmen." The Intervenors make several alterna- tive contentions as to the requested unit. They urge (a) the petition should be dismissed on the ground that the requested unit is inappro- priate because of the fluctuation in its size; (b) only a companywide unit, encompassing both the yard and the field employees, is appro- priate; and (c) in the event the Board finds that the requested pro- duction and maintenance unit is appropriate, those "craftsmen" who fall within the ambit of the Intervenors' respective jurisdictions and who customarily are represented by them should either be established as separate units or excluded from the production and maintenance unit. As indicated hereinabove, there is no controlling history of collective bargaining. The Employer is engaged in the heavy construction business in the South Central States and also performs certain contract construction work in the Gulf of Mexico for companies engaged in offshore oil drilling operations. The Employer maintains the yard involved herein for the storage and maintenance of equipment, and the fabrica- s The date of execution of the adoption agreement as well as the date of execution of the AGC agreement are not shown in the record. 4 Pacific (, oast Association of Pulp and Paper Manufacturers , 121 NLRB 990, 993. 'Deluxe Metal Furniture Company, 121 NLRB 995, 999. W. HORACE WILLIAMS COMPANY, ETC. 225 tion of materials utilized in its field operations. It employs indi- viduals classified as welders, machinists, carpenters, ironworkers, op- erating engineers, and laborers at the yard. Despite the fact that there is customarily a high rate of fluctuation in the size of the yard employee complement, the yard has never been closed down com- pletely. During slack periods the yard is maintained on a standby basis with a crew of approximately 10 employees. Although the record contains some evidence of interchange between the yard and the field, or construction site employees, it does not show either the extent or the frequency of such interchange. As it is clear from the record that there is a sufficient nucleus of regular employees at the yard jobsite,6 and that the yard employees constitute a distinct ho- mogeneous group that is not so functionally integrated with the field operations as to preclude their establishment as a separate appropriate unit, we reject the Intervenors' first two contentions. The Intervenor apparently ground their contention that employees at the yard who by reason of work classification are deemed by them to fall within their respective craft or trade jurisdictions should be established as separate craft units, or excluded from the overall unit sought, upon the theory that they are necessarily craftsmen solely by virtue of this circumstance. We find no merit in this contention. The record is devoid of any evidence that any of these employees are true craftsmen or exercise craft skills or are entitled to separate repre- sentation on any other basis.' In the absence of any controlling bar- gaining history to the contrary, and in view of the fact that the work- ing conditions and interests of the alleged craft employees do not differ substantially from those of the other yard employees, we per- ceive no basis for excluding them from the unit of yard employees. Accordingly, we find that the following employees of the Employer constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (c) of the Act : All production and maintenance employees employed at the Em- ployer's New Orleans, Louisiana, fabrication and storage yard, ex- cluding all office clerical employees, draftsmen, engineering em- ployees, truckdrivers, guards, watchmen professional and technical employees, and all supervisors as defined in the Act.' 8 The record shows that at least 53 employees worked in the yard for periods exceeding 30 percent of the 30-week period before the hearing In addition, it also shows that 30 employees within this group spent from approximately one-half to all of the afore- mentioned period working in the yard Under these circumstances, we find that the employees at the yard have records of substantial employment indicating a continuing interest in working conditions. See Trammell Construction Company, Incorporated 126 NLRB 1365. 4 North American Aviation, Inc., 127 NLRB 356. 8 The parties stipulated the exclusion of the truckdrivers and the payroll clerks. In addition they stipulated the exclusion of the general superintendent, shop superintendent, assistant shop superintendent, general foreman in charge of metal fabrication, shop steel foreman, mechanic shop foreman , and labor foreman. The parties also disagreed as to the 597254-61-vol. 130-16 226 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 5. At the time of the hearing there were 10 rank-and-file employees employed at the France Road yard. At the time of the filing of the petition approximately 3 months earlier, however, there were about 65 employees at the yard. The Employer's testimony reveals that the decline in personnel resulted from the completion of construction con- tracts and that undoubtedly the number of yard employees will again increase when the Employer obtains new contracts. Although there is no certainty as to precisely when the Employer will secure new contracts, we do not believe that the present work force constitutes a substantial and representative complement of employees. Neverthe- less, as the situation involved herein is quite analogous to those exist- ing in cases involving seasonal operations,9 we find that the dismissal of the petition is not warranted. We shall therefore direct the Re- gional Director to conduct the election directed herein at such time in the foreseeable future when, in the opinion of the Regional Di- rector, a substantial and representative complement is employed at the Employer's France Road yard operation. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] supervisory status of R LeBlanc , the carpenter foreman . The record shows that he nas the only carpenter working at the yard at the-time of the hearing It also reveals that upon the hiring of additional carpenters he would have the authority to hire and dis- charge them. In addition , he also has the authority to discharge laborers assigned to work with, or assist, him on occasions. We therefore find that LeBlanc is a supervisor and exclude him from the unit 9Toledo Marine Terminals, 123 NLRB 583, 585. Unlike the Trammell and Toledo Marine cases , supra, there is insufficient evidence in this record upon which to establish a -criterion for eligibility on the basis of past employment with the Employer The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, Inc.' and Amalgam- ated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen of North America, Local 282, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 1,0-RC-1093. Febru- ary 13, 1961 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 James Kruzich, hear- ing officer. For the reasons stated below, we overrule the hearing .officer's ruling, made at the hearing, granting the motion of the Retail Clerks International Association, AFL-CIO, Local 1636, herein re- ferred to as the Retail Clerks, to intervene in this proceeding. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act Z 'The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing. 2 The Employer refused to stipulate that it was engaged in commerce within the mean- ing of the Act As it is a -Maryland corporation doing business in Florida, operates re- 130 NLRB No. 28.