Atlanta Division of S. J. Groves and Sons Company

ATLANTA DIVISION OF S. J. GROVES AND SONS COMPANY Atlanta Division of S. J. Groves and Sons Company and Local Number 438 of the Laborers' Inter- national Union of North America and Carpen- ters District Council of Atlanta, Georgia, and Vicinity and Local Union Number 926 of the International Union of Operating Engineers and Local Number 148 of the Operative Plasterers and Cement Masons International, Joint Peti- tioner. Case 10-RC-12593 16 August 1983 DECISION ON REVIEW AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS ZIMMERMAN AND HUNTER On 21 June 1982 the Regional Director for Region 10 of the National Labor Relations Board issued his Decision and Direction of Election in the above-entitled proceeding in which he directed an election in a unit including four craft groups' at all of the Employer's greater metropolitan Atlanta, Georgia, construction sites.2 Thereafter, in accord- ance with Section 102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, the Employer filed a request for review of the Regional Director's decision. The Joint Peti- tioner filed a brief in opposition to the request for review. By telegraphic order dated 15 July 1982 the Board granted the Employer's request for review and stayed the ordered election. Thereafter, the Joint Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the stay of election and grant of review. By tele- graphic order dated 6 August 1982 the Board denied the Joint Petitioner's motion for reconsider- ation. The Joint Petitioner also filed a statement on the Board's grant of review. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au- thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the entire record in this case, including the statement on review, with respect to the issue under review, and makes the following findings: The Employer is engaged in heavy and highway construction. It currently has 15 highway construc- tion projects in the Atlanta, Georgia, area. The Employer uses various craft employees in these construction projects, including, inter alia, carpen- ters, cement masons, laborers, power equipment I The unit included all carpenters and helpers. concrete finishers and helpers, general laborers, and power equipment operators. 2 On 23 June 1982 the Regional Director issued an Erratum to his De- cision and Direction of Election operators, ironworkers, and bricklayers.3 Truck- drivers also form a considerable portion of the Em- ployer's work force. There are usually three stages to the Employer's highway construction projects: clearing and demo- lition; grading, drainage, and structures; and paving and cleaning. The record indicates that all classifi- cations of employees work together on integrated crews during these stages. Thus, crews consist of a complement of employees who may be in one of several classifications, and who are headed by a foreman. For projects like bridge work, a foreman may head a crew of 15 classifications. On cleaning and demolition phases, rodmen, dozer and loader operators, truckdrivers, and laborers may be part of the crew involved. On drainage structure proj- ects, ironworkers work together with carpenters, and bricklayers are also involved. Carpenters, crane operators, and ironworkers may work to- gether on the structure aspect of construction. All employees are paid on an hourly basis, receive the same benefits, and share other common terms and conditions of employment. There are no formal ap- prentice training programs maintained by the Em- ployer. The Regional Director concluded that the em- ployees sought by the Joint Petitioner-carpenters, concrete finishers, laborers, and power equipment operators-worked in distinct craft groups and pos- sessed common interests distinguishable from those of other employees. 4 He therefore found that the job classifications in the craft groups petitioned for by the Joint Petitioner constituted an appropriate unit. The Employer contends that the Regional Di- rector's finding was in error in that it improperly carved out a unit of four groups whose functions were not distinguishable from those excluded by the Regional Director from the unit, including ironworkers, bricklayers, truckdrivers, and engi- neer trainee co-ops. The Joint Petitioner argues that the grouping of four crafts constitutes an ap- propriate unit in the construction industry. For the reasons that follow, we reverse the Regional Di- rector's finding that the petitioned-for unit is ap- propriate. In its recent decision in Brown & Root, Inc., 258 NLRB 1002 (1981), the Board reiterated its stan- 3 The various classifications of employees employed by the Employer at the construction sites involved herein include, inter alia: crane opera- tors, loader operators, mechanics, backhoe operators, dozer operators, lead ironworkers, ironworkers. lead carpenters, carpenters. pilednvers, bricklayers, cement masons, rodmen, instrument men, laborers, lute men, pipelayers, quality control technicians. engineer trainee co-ops, lead truckdrivers, fuel truckdrivers, lowboy drivers, and truckdrivers 4 The Regional Director also concluded, inter alia, that the unit must encompass all 15 of the Employer's construction projects There was no request for reviesw of that conclusion. 267 NLRB No. 20 175 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD dard for finding appropriate units in the construc- tion industry: In the construction industry, the Board has found a separate unit of craft employees to be appropriate. The Board also has found appro- priate a unit of employees that constitute a clearly identifiable and functionally distinct group of employees. [Id. at 1003.] Although the Regional Director recited this stan- dard in reaching his decision, he concluded that, because the unit sought by the Joint Petitioner con- sisted of four distinct groups, it constituted an ap- propriate unit. While the Regional Director stated the correct standard, he did not apply it correctly in reaching his decision, and the facts do not sup- port the decision he reached. As noted above, the record reveals that, during various stages of the Employer's construction proj- ects, craft groups, such as ironworkers and brick- layers, work alongside employees in the four craft groups sought by the Joint Petitioner. Although the Employer's job classifications are capable of being separated into seven craft or functional groups, it does not follow, as found by the Region- al Director, that any arbitrary grouping of those crafts constitutes an appropriate collective-bargain- ing unit. The unit sought here is neither a tradition- al craft unit, a departmental unit, nor a functional unit. Without more evidence, we cannot find here that a single multicraft or multifunctional unit is appropriate, since the evidence clearly reveals that other craft or functional groups are being excluded from the unit.A Accordingly, we shall dismiss the instant peti- tion. ORDER It is hereby ordered that the petition filed herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed. ' The cases cited by the Joint Petitioner do not support its contention that its requested unit is appropriate. In Denver Hearing, Piping d Air Conditioning Contractors Association, 99 NLRB 251 (1952), separate homo- geneous craft groups were found appropriate. In R. B. Butler, Inc., 160 NLRB 1595 (1966), the employees were grouped by function. In Hychern Constructors, 169 NLRB 274 (1968), a unit of pipefitters, helpers, and welders was found appropriate because of craft status and integration. Other cases cited by the Joint Petitioner are to the same end; i.e., the cases support the concept that craft or functional groups can constitute appropriate units in the construction industry. They are not precedent for finding appropriate a unit of any grouping of employees. 6 Because we have concluded that the exclusion of traditional crafts from the petitioned-for unit renders the unit inappropriate, we do not reach the issue of whether the truckdriver classifications and engineer trainee co-op employees should also have been included in the unit. Since the Joint Petitioner did not indicate a desire to participate in an election which was not limited to the four crafts it sought to represent, we shall dismiss the petition. We do not construe the Joint Petitioner's request that the election scheduled by the Regional Director be conducted and the bricklayers and ironworkers be voted subject to challenge as an indi- cation that it intended to or would represent those employees. 176