Robert W. Hunt Co., Inc.

986 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD It however provides no information as to whether they have the authority to effectively recommend the hiring, transferring, suspen- sion, layoff, recall, promotion, discharge, or discipline of other em- ployees or to adjust grievances of other employees. Accordingly, we are unable to resolve this issue on the present record and hereby direct that Dan Damiano and Matti Citardi be permitted to vote if they so desire, subject to challenge. On the basis of the foregoing, we find the following employees of the Employer constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of col- lective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act: All full-time and regular part-time inspectors, truckdrivers, and laboratory employees, excluding regular and part-time professional engineers, office clerical employees, guards, watchmen, and super- visors as defined in the Act and all other employees 8 [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] 8 Because of the uncertainty as to which of the part-time employees will qualify as regular part-time employees under the formula set forth above , we hereby direct the Regional Director to determine for showing-of-interest purposes the identity of those em- ployees who qualify as regular part -time employees , and to redetermine the adequacy of Petitioner's showing of interest . In the event that the Petitioner's showing of interest proves to be inadequate, Petitioner shall have 10 days from the date it has been informed of the Regional Director's determination to demonstrate the necessary showing of interest If Petitioner falls to do so the Regional Director is hereby directed to dismiss the peti- tion. The Regional Director's determination shall be final and conclusive only for show- ing of interest purposes , and the parties shall retain all rights to challenge the eligibility of voters in accordance with the Board 's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, and established Board policy. Robert W. Hunt Company, Inc. and Sand, Gravel, Crushed Stone, Ashes and Material Yard Workers, Local No. 1175, of International Hod Carriers, Building and Common Laborers Union of America, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 93-RC-13388. January 13, 1965 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hearing was held before Hearing Officer Julius J. Altman of the- National Labor Relations Board. 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 McCulloch and Members Fanning and Jenkins]. 150 NLRB No. 91. ROBERT W. HUNT COMPANY, INC. 987 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. A question, affecting commerce exists concerning the represen- tation of certain employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9(c) (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Robert W. Hunt Company, Inc., is a Delaware corporation en- gaged in the furnishing of inspection services for building construc- tion and building materials. Its principal office is in Chicago and it maintains branches in principal cities throughout the country. Involved in this proceeding is its New York State area operation which is broken geographically into its main office at New York City and cement-inspecting branches located on Long Island, and in the Hudson and Lehigh Valleys. The New York State area operation is supervised by Standish and is divided into three departments, one for the inspection of struc- tural steel headed by Ingram, one for general building materials headed by Costello, and the third for concrete and cement headed by Berezowski. Berezowski's department is divided into four sections including each of the three cement-inspecting branches at Long Island, Hudson Valley, and Lehigh Valley, each operating under its own work-leader, and a unit of concrete inspectors supervised directly by Berezowski. The structural steel, general building, and concrete inspectors all are located at the New York City office. The primary question arising in this case involves the scope of the appropriate unit .2 The Petitioner seeks a unit of all full-time and regular part-time concrete inspectors and laboratory employees who are located at the New York City office, excluding all structural 'Respondent's request for oral argument is hereby denied as the record and briefs, in our opinion , adequately set forth the issues and the positions of the parties 2 The Employer also contends that the inspectors are guards within the meaning of the Act and that the Petitioner represents employees whose work is inspected by the inspec- tors and is therefore precluded by the Act from representing the inspectors . Alterna- tively, If the Board should find that the inspectors are not guards , the Employer contends that the Board should exercise its discretion and not permit the Petitioner to represent the inspectors because, the Employer urges, the inspectors ' Independence of judgment would be jeopardized if they had to inspect the work of fellow union members. We find both of these contentions to be without merit. ' As to the first, the legislative history of the Act establishes that Congress had no intention of considering inspectors as guards. See H. Minority Rept. 245 on H.R. 3020 , p. 71, Legislative History of the Labor Manage- ment Relations Act, 1947, p. 362; S. Rept. 105 on S. 1126, p. 19, Legislative History of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, p. 425; H. Conf. Rept. 510, on H.R. 3020, pp . 35, 36; Legislative History of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, pp. 539, 540 . As to the second, we find no reason to believe the performance of these inspectors ' duties would be in any way jeopardized by their being represented by the same union which represents the laborers , shippers, batchers , or any other employees at concrete plants or on jobsites. 988 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR • RELATIONS BOARD steel and general material inspectors, professional engineers, office clericals, guards, watchmen, and supervisors, as defined in the' Act. Alternatively , should the Board find this unit to be inappropriate, the Petitioner would include the structural steel and general material inspectors. The Employer's position is that the unit should include all full-time and regular part-time inspectors in 'its New York State area operation, including professional engineers , and excluding labo- ratory employees. The concrete inspectors whom the Petitioner seeks to represent work at concrete plants where they see that the proper dry ingre- dients including such things as sand, gravel , and cement are placed into the concrete mixing trucks in the proper proportions for ship- ment to the construction sites. They also work at the construction sites where they subject the mixed concrete to 'numerous tests and view the construction operation to see that contract and code speci- fications are met both by the concrete and, when reinforced concrete is involved, by the steel reinforcing bars. Inspectors are frequently required to work up to 6 months in the laboratory and are given a few weeks on-the-job training before they are permitted to inspect on their own. Also, under the 1962 New York City code, their qualifications for the job of inspector must be tested and approved by a professional engineer. The steel inspectors inspect structural steel both at the warehouses before it is assembled and at the construction sites after assembly. Frequently, hazardous climbing is involved in the inspection of high water tanks and other such constructions . This work requires more training than any of the other types of inspection work. Only ex- perienced persons such as licensed welders are hired to perform this work. The general materials inspectors are the least specialized of the inspectors. They inspect building materials falling outside the spe- cialized experience of the structural steel and the concrete inspectors. As noted above, all of the concrete, steel, and general materials inspectors work out of the New York City office. Some of the con- crete inspectors are trained to inspect structural steel and, when con- crete work is slow, they inspect steel under Ingram 's supervision. Those who are not so trained may gain the necessary training and experience by working as trainees. Similarly some of the concrete inspectors also inspect general materials under Costello 's supervision and, under exceptional circumstances, some of the steel inspectors inspect concrete under Berezowski's supervision. In contrast to the above -mentioned inspectors , the cement ' inspec- tors are located in the Hudson and Lehigh Valleys and in Long Island. They work at the cement plants , and some, at least, are, under the terms of the Employer's contracts , assigned official stations ROBERT W. HUNT COMPANY, INC. 989 at specific cement plants. Concrete inspectors require additional on-the-job training before they can qualify to do this work. In one instance, when the Employer contracted for a prestressed concrete job in the'Hudson Valley, a concrete inspector had to be sent from the New York City office to perform the work. Except for a few isolated cases when a particular concrete inspector was sent to sub- stitute for an absent cement inspector in the Long Island area, there has been no interchange between inspectors from the New York City office and any of the Hudson or Lehigh Valley, or Long Island locations. Because of the common location of all the concrete, structural steel, and general materials inspectors at the New York City office and the interchange of these inspectors, we find a unit limited to concrete inspectors to be inappropriate, and we shall include the structural steel and general materials inspectors in the unit. How- ever, because of their separate geographical location, their different job duties and skills, and the lack of any appreciable interchange with inspectors in the New York City office, we shall exclude the cement inspectors from the unit. The Petitioner and the Employer also disagree on the inclusion or exclusion from the unit of both the professional inspectors and the laboratory employees located at the New York City office. At present the Employer hires only one laboratory employee, Zbigniew Klim, who spends a large percentage of his time working in the lab testing or helping to test concrete and structural and reinforcing steel sam- ples. The Employer's policy is to train inexperienced concrete inspectors for 6 months in the laboratory before they are sent into the field. Also, when concrete work is slow the concrete inspectors work in the laboratory if such work is available. Accordingly, because of the progression of laboratory employee to inspector, the frequency of inspectors working in the laboratory, and the interrelationship of the laboratory and inspection work, we find the inspectors and laboratory employees share a substantial community of interest. Accordingly, we shall include the laboratory employees in the unit. On the ques- tion concerning the professional engineers, the record reveals that these employees are hired pursuant to the 1962 New York, City code which requires that a licensed professional engineer' at the mixing plant and at the worksite supervise both the testing of the materials and the inspection of the concrete construction. Professional engi- neers must also qualify the inspectors as being capable to perform their inspection duties. As their duties are supervisory, and as these employees are professional employees, we shall exclude them from the unit. The remaining point at issue is the question of what criteria should be applied to determine who are regular part-time inspectors. The 990 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Petitioner contends that only those part-timers who worked at least 1 day a week every week in the preceding year should be included in the.unit; the Employer's position is that any part-timer who worked at least 1 day during the preceding year should be so included. We find neither of these suggested criteria to be adequate. The Petitioner's suggestion would exclude part-time inspectors who, per- haps because of a slack workweek in the past year, were not during that 1 week assigned an inspection job even though they may have worked during every other week throughout the year and even though they may have relied exclusively upon this work for their livelihood. Obviously such employees have a sufficient interest in their jobs to be included in the unit. The Employer's proposal, on the other hand, would include any inspector who had worked only a single day in the past year. Equally obviously some of these employees would have no substantial interest in the inspectors' working conditions and should not be included in the unit. The selection of an equitable formula for determining the eligibility of part-time inspectors depends upon a careful balancing of the factors of length, regularity, and currency of their employment. We find in this case that all part-time in- spectors who are still considered as on call by the Employer and who have worked a minimum of 15 days in either of the two 3-month periods immediately preceding the issuance of this Decision are regu- lar part-time employees, and we shall include them in the unit.' On the basis of the foregoing, we find the following employees of the Employer constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of col- lective bargaining within the meaning of the Act. All full-time and regular part-time inspectors and laboratory employees who are located at the Employer's New York City office, excluding all professional engineers, office clericals, cement inspectors employed at locations on Long Island and in the Hudson and Lehigh Valleys, guards, watchmen, and supervisors, as defined in the Act.' [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] 3 See C.T.L. Testing Laboratories, Ino., 150 NLRB 982, which also involves building materials inspectors. s This unit is larger than the one petitioned for, and in accordance with our usual policy we shall grant Petitioner additional time In which to demonstrate the necessary showing of interest Because of the uncertainty as to which of the part-time employees will qualify as regular part-time employees under the formula set forth above , we hereby direct the Regional Director to determine , for showing-of-interest purposes , the identity of those employees who qualify as regular part-time employees Petitioner shall have 10 days from the date it has been informed of the Regional Director 's determination to submit evidence of an adequate showing of interest . If it fails to do so, the Regional Director is hereby directed to dismiss the petition . The Regional Director's determination as to eligibility shall be final and conclusive only for showing -of-interest purposes, and the parties shall retain their rights to challenge the eligibility of voters in accordance with the Board's Rules and Regulations , Series 8, as amended , and established Board policy.