Arrow Gas Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 8, 1959

124 N.L.R.B. 1129 (N.L.R.B. 1959)

ARROW GAS CORPORATION 1129
to supply labor to General. Thus, at the outset, the object of Local
562 was other than to force General to capitulate to a jurisdictional
demand. The issue, then, is whether later developments constituted
an evolution from this object to one proscribed by Section 8(b)
(4) (D). I believe they did not. When General hired Operating
Engineers to perform the work formerly performed by members of
Local 562, and Simmons, Local 562's job steward on the Chrysler
job, warned the Operating Engineers off the job, his action was taken
not to assert a jurisdictional claim for the work by Local 562, but
rather to support its contract demands by giving aid and assistance
to the strike.
While it is true that compliance with Local 562's contractual de-
mands would inevitably have involved the discharge of the Operating
Engineers, this factor alone does not convert what was otherwise an
ordinary economic strike into a jurisdictional dispute within the mean-
ing of the Act. To hold that when representatives of Local 562
sought to force the Operating Engineers off the job, such activity con-
verted the dispute into the type proscribed by 8(b) (4) (D), would be
the equivalent of holding that an employer could thus make any
lawful strike unlawful by the simple act of hiring replacements for
the strikers. As stated by the Board in American Wire Weavers Pro-
tective Association,4 "... in effect all strikes could be outlawed at
the will of the employer. There is absolutely no evidence that, in
proscribing jurisdictional strikes, Congress so intended to limit the
right to strike."
For the foregoing reasons, therefore, I join with my colleagues in
quashing the notice of hearing heretofore issued in this proceeding.
4120 NLRB 977, 980.
Arrow Gas Corporation and Chauffeurs , Teamsters & Helpers,
Local 492, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America,
Petitioner. Case No. 33-RC--652. October 8, 1959
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 L. L. Porterfield, 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 Bean and Fanning].
124 NLRB No. 161.
1130 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR'RELATIONS BOARD
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 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. The Petitioner requested a unit of truckdrivers, mechanics, me-
chanics' helpers, lubricators, tiremen, and washrack men employed at
the Employer's Roswell, Gallup, and Portales, New Mexico, terminals.
The Employer contended that the multiterminal unit is inappropriate.
The employees in the multiterminal unit requested are engaged in
driving and servicing trucks used in the transportation of liquefied
petroleum gas. They are employed at the Employer's three terminals,
located in New Mexico, 90 to 350 miles apart. The vice president of
the transportation department is in charge of all three terminals. The
Roswell and Gallup terminals are directly supervised by terminal
managers responsible to the vice president. There is no supervisor
at the Portales terminal, which, at the time of the hearing, employed
a single employee who performed the duties of driver and serviceman.
There is a dispatcher at the Roswell and at the Gallup terminals but
none at the Portales terminal, the driver there being dispatched by
telephone from Roswell. There is little or no interchange, and few
transfers, among the terminals, but the employees have similar duties
and working conditions. There is no bargaining history.
Under these circumstances, particularly the fact that the multi-
terminal unit is companywide in scope, the similarity of duties, com-
mon interests, and common overall supervision of the employees, and
the fact that no other labor organization seeks to represent these em-
ployees on a single-terminal `basis, we find, in accord with established
Board policy, that the multiterminal unit is appropriate.'
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(b) of the Act:2 All truckdrivers,
mechanics, mechanics' helpers, lubricators, tiremen, washrack men,
and dispatchers 3 employed at the Employer's Roswell, Gallup, and
Portales, New Mexico, terminals; excluding office clerical employees,
1 McAllister's Dairy Farms, Inc., 118 NLRB 1117, 1119; Burrus Mills, Incorporated,
116 NLRB 384, 385; Potato Growers Cooperative Company, 115 NLRB 1281, 1285.
Geographic separation of plants is not, by itself, sufficient reason to render a multi-
terminal unit inappropriate. See, Sidney Blumenthal & Company, Inc, (Caromount
Division), 112 NLRB 579, 581.
2 There is no dispute as to the composition of the unit.
3 We find, in agreement with the Employer, that dispatchers are not supervisors. See
Arrow Gas Corporation , 1F24 NLRB 766.
INTERNATIONAL HOD CARRIERS', ETC. 1131
watchmen, guards, all other employees, and supervisors as defined in
the Act.
5. On February 27, 1958, after the hearing herein and while this
case was pending before the Board, the Petitioner filed formal charges
in Case No. 33-CA-462, alleging that the Employer had committed
unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a) (1) and (3) of the
Act. Pursuant to proceedings initiated by the filing of such charges,
the Board, on August 31, 1959, found that the Employer had com-
mitted unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a) (1), and
ordered the Employer to cease and desist therefrom and to take cer-
tain affirmative action, as set forth in the Board's Decision and Order,
124 NLRB 766. As the period for posting of the notice pursuant
to the Board's Order has not expired, the election herein shall be con-
ducted on a date to be selected by the Regional Director, after com-
pliance with the Board's Order.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
International Hod Carriers', Building and Common Laborers
Union of America , Local No. 83 , AFL-CIO, and Thurman
Hughes, Its Business Agent [Consolidated Construction Com-
pany, Inc .] and Walter Pennington and Portsmouth Con-
tractors Association, Party to the Contract . Case No. 9-CB-
437. October 9, 1959
DECISION AND ORDER
On April 29, 1959, Trial Examiner A. Norman Somers issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondents had engaged in certain unfair labor practices, and
recommending that they cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action as set forth in the Intermediate Report attached
hereto. Thereafter Respondents filed exceptions to the Intermediate
Report and a supporting brief.
The Board 1 has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the
case, and hereby adopts the findings,. conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner, with the additions and modifications
indicated below.
'Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the
Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three -member panel
['Chairman Leedom and Members Rodgers and Jenkins].
124 NLRB No. 162.