Hamilton Bros., Inc.

HAMILTON BROS., INC. Sr B Sr C STEVEDORING CO., INC. 233 helper perform lithographic production work. As this employee spends the predominant portion of his working time performing non- lithographic production work, we shall exclude him from the unit .8 Accordingly, we shall direct that an election be conducted in the following voting group of employees at the Employer's East Provi- dence, Rhode Island, plant : All lithographic production employees, including the cameraman- platemaker, lithopress operator, the full-time lithopress helpers and the regular part-time night-shift helper, and the forklift operator, but excluding all other employees, the feeder and puller on the coating machine, the night-shift helper who is predominantly engaged in nonlithographic production work, office clerical employees, guards, professional employees, and all supervisors as defined in the Act. If a majority of the employees in the above-described voting group vote for the Petitioner, they will be taken to have voted for separate representation, and the Regional Director is instructed to issue a cer- tification of representatives to the Petitioner for that unit. If a ma- jority of the employees in the voting group vote for the Intervenor, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to remain a part of the overall unit now represented by the Intervenor, and the Regional Director will issue a ,certification of results of election to such effect. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] 9 See Sutherland Paper Company, 122 NLRB 1284, 1287. Hamilton Bros., Inc. and B & C Stevedoring Co., Inc. and Inter- national Longshoremen's Association, Local 1759, AFL-CIO, affiliated with International Longshoremen 's Association, Peti- tioner. Case No. 1,0-RC-1074. February 14, 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 Alan D. Greene, 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 [Chairman Leedom and Members Fanning and Kimball]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. B & C Stevedoring Co., Inc., is a Florida corporation engaged in stevedoring in Tampa, Florida. Its annual gross income amounts i The names of the parties appear in the caption as corrected at the hearing. 430 NLRB No. 30. 234 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD to approximately $25,000, of which 90 to 95 percent is received from stevedoring services performed for Hamilton Bros., Inc. The latter is a separate corporation, which is engaged in shipowning, freight forwarding, buying and selling fruit, and shipping general cargo. It annually purchases and receives goods and materials from points out- side the State of Florida valued in excess of $50,000. Evander Ham- ilton, his nephew, C. E. Hamilton, and C. E. Hamilton's wife, Cleo Hamilton, own all the stock of Hamilton Bros., Inc., and are its president, vice president and treasurer, and secretary, respectively. Evander and C. E. also own 90 percent of the stock of B & C Steve- doring Co., Inc., and Evander is its president. Evander and C. E. actively direct operations, determine labor policies, and supervise em- ployees of both companies. The two corporations have the same ad- dress, use the same office, and the clerical work of both is performed by the same person. In view of the foregoing and on the entire record, we find that Hamilton Bros., Inc., and B & C Stevedoring Co., Inc., constitute a single employer for jurisdictional purposes.2 As Hamil- ton Bros., Inc., has an annual direct inflow of over $50,000, we find that the Employer is engaged in commerce, and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.' 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. We find that the following employees constitute a unit appro- priate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act : All employees of B & C Stevedoring Co., Inc.,' engaged in loading and unloading vessels in or about the port of Tampa, Florida, includ- ing stackers, beltmen, holdmen, fruit cutters, gangheaders, breakout men, waterboys, riggers, winchmen, and checkers; but excluding the 2 The Family Laundry, Inc., et al, 121 NLRB 1619, 1620 3 Siemons Mailing Service, 122 NLRB 81. Accord, B and C Stevedoring Go., Incorpo- rated, 88 NLRB 321 . In view of our finding above, the contention of Hamilton Bros., Inc., that it is not properly before the Board and that the Board should not assert juris- diction on the basis of its operations, is without merit. Its motion to dismiss the petition as to it, on the foregoing grounds, is , therefore, denied. 4 The Employer 's motion to dismiss these proceedings on the ground that the Petitioner does not have a sufficient showing of interest is denied. The sufficiency of a Petitioner's showing of interest is an administrative matter not subject to litigation. 0 D Jennings & Company, 68 NLRB 516 We are administratively satisfied that the Petitioner 's showing of interest is adequate 5 The Petitioner requested inclusion in the unit of stevedores employed by Hamilton Bros., Inc., as well as those of B and C Stevedoring Co, Inc. However , as the parties stipulated that the former company has not employed stevedores within the last 2 years, and as the record does not indicate that it contemplates doing so in the immediate future, we shall make no unit determination as to such employees See Waldorf Instrument Company, Division of F. C. Huyck & Sons, 122 NLRB 803, 808. LUMBER AND SAWMILL WORKERS, LOCAL 2647, ETC. 235 bookkeeper, messenger boy, cleanup man, foreman, and supervisors as defined in the Act. 5. The Petitioner recommends that the Board adopt criteria similar to those used in B and C Stevedoring Co., Incorporated, 88 NLRB 321, for determining voting eligibility. The Employer took no posi- tion on eligibility. Under all the circumstances, and in the absence of any objection, we find, in agreement with the Petitioner, that all em- ployees who meet the following eligibility requirements have a sub- stantial, continuing mutual interest in the selection of their bargaining representative, and are eligible to vote : All employees in the appro- priate unit whose names appear on eight or more different payrolls of the Employer within the period beginning July 4,1960, and ending with the date of the payroll immediately preceding the date of this Decision and Direction of Election. {Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] Lumber and Sawmill Workers, Local No. 2647; Joseph Palazzi, Secretary-Treasurer of Local No. 2647 and Northern California District Council of Lumber and Sawmill Workers; Hugh Allen, Secretary-Treasurer and James Stephens, Representative of Northern California District Council of Lumber and Sawmill Workers and Cheney California Lumber Company Lumber and Sawmill Workers, Local No. 2647; Joseph Palazzi, Secretary-Treasurer of Local No. 2647 and Northern California District Council of Lumber and Sawmill Workers; James Stephens, Representative of Northern California District Coun- cil of Lumber and Sawmill Workers and Cheney California Lumber Company. Cases Nos. 2O-CB-643 and 00-CB-645. Feb- ruary 15, 1961 DECISION AND ORDER On February 29, 1960, Trial Examiner David F. Doyle issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in unfair labor prac- tices 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 Respondents have filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report together with a brief in support thereof. 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 Intermedi- ate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the case, and finds merit in the exceptions. Accordingly, the Board adopts the 130 NLRB No. 34.