John Sundwall & Co.

1022 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD John A. Sundwall d/b/a John Sundwall & Co.' and Laborers Local #820, International Hod Carriers, Building & Common Laborers Union of America, Petitioner. Case No. 36-RC-1964. November 23, 1964 DECISION AND ORDER Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Hearing Officer Robert J. Wiener. The Hearing Officer's rulings made at the hear- ing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.2 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 McCulloch and Members Leedom 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 and it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert juris- diction herein. 2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain employees of the Employer. 3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the represen- tation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Sections 9(c) (1) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act for the following reasons: The Employer is a construction contractor specializing in drilling and blasting work, with a main office in Vancouver, Washington, and a suboffice and two storage yards in Portland, Oregon. From Jan- uary 1964 to the date of the hearing, the Employer performed con- struction work in the States of Oregon, Washington, and Utah.3 The Employer has a nucleus of three full-time supervisors and three full- time nonsupervisors 4 who are sent from job to job and from State to State as needed. For some jobs, additional nonsupervisory employees are hired either "off the bank" or through appropriate union hiring halls depending upon the contracts entered into by the Employer. The record contains no evidence, however, that such addi- tional employees have a reasonable expectation of being rehired after the Employer has completed a job in a specific area. I The name of the Employer appears as corrected at the hearing =After the hearing and pursuant to Section 10267 of the National Labor Relations Board's Rules and Regulations, series 3, as amended, the Regional Di cctor issued an order transferring the case to the Board for deci'ion 3In 1963 the Employer did work in the States of Oregon, Washington, and California 4 Record evidence indicates that two other employees are in the process of becoming full- time, nonsupervisory employees 149 NLRB No. 99. CAPLAN BROTHERS GLASS CO., INC. 1023 The Petitioner, with an office at Coos Bay, Oregon, requests a state- wide (Oregon) bargaining unit with the date the petition was filed (August 21, 1964) as the date for determining eligibility to vote. The Employer states that it had seven employees working in the State of Oregon on that date. The Employer contends that the bargaining unit should be limited to the Coos Bay area and that only those employees who have worked 30 days within the last year should be eligible to vote in any election. The Employer states that five employees meet this eligibility requirement. On the basis of the facts presented by this record, the Board is unable to conclude that either of the aforesaid proposed units is appropriate for the purpose of collective bargaining. Although an employerwide unit would be appropriate," the Petitioner has not requested such a unit, and neither the Petitioner nor the Employer contends that such unit is appropriate here." The Petitioner offers no reason why the unit should be limited to the State of Oregon. Under such circumstances, we are unable to conclude that the, requested unit is based upon any consideration other than extent of organization, one to which, by statutory mandate,7 we are forbidden to give con- trolling effect. The Employer's contention that the, jurisdictional limits of the Petitioner require that the unit be restricted to the Coos Bay area is also without merit since the Board has consistently refused to predicate an appropriate unit finding upon the scope of a local union's territorial jurisdiction.8 Therefore, in the circumstances of this case, we shall dismiss the petition.9 [The Board dismissed the petition.] 5 See Section 9(b), National Labor Relations Act, as amended. 61f the Board were to find that an employerwide unit was appropriate, the petition would have to be dismissed since it does not appear that the Petitioner has the required 30-percent showing of interest for such a unit. 7 See Section 9(c) (5), National Labor Relations Act, as amended. 8 See Broomall Construction Company, 137 NLRB 344, 345.. 9 Since we do not find any unit appropriate here, it is not necessary to make the con- tested eligibility determination. Caplan Brothers Glass Co., Inc. and Charles J. Herbert. Case No. 5-CA-2729. November 24, 1964 DECISION AND ORDER On August 24, 1964, Trial Examiner Eugene F. Frey issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take cer- 149 NLRB No. 97.