161 N.L.R.B. 1600 (N.L.R.B. 1966)

B-W Construction Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsDec 7, 1966

161 N.L.R.B. 1600 (N.L.R.B. 1966)

1600 DECISIONS Or NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD B-W Construction Company and Laborers International Union of North America , Local Union No . 18, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Ca'e 23-RC-2650 December 7, 1966 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, hearings were held before John W Bowlin and Clayton Coiley, Hearing Officers The Hearing Officeis' rulings made at the hearings aie free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed The Employer and Texas Highway-Heavy Branch of the Associated General Contractors filed briefs in support of the Employer's position The Petitioner and Budding and Construction Trades Department, AFL-CIO, filed briefs in support of the Peti- tioner's position Upon the entire iecord in this case, the National Labor Relations Board finds 1 The Employei is engaged in commerce Vvithin the meaning of the Act, and it gill effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert juris- diction herein 2 The labor organization involved claims to represent ceitam employees 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 In its petition, the Petitioner requested an election in a unit of the Employer's employees working as laborers on construction jobs in Bryan, Texas The Employer contends that the unit is inappropriate The Employer, a Texas corporation with an office in Bryan, Texas, is engaged in the building and construction industry as a general con- tractor At the time of the second healing, on September 27, 1966, it was engaged in the construction of three buildings in Bryan, Texas, and three buildings in College Station, Texas (about 5 miles from Bryan) The Employer was also engaged in the construction of other projects in Prairie View, Houston, and Dallas, Texas As of the first of July, the Employer had in its employ approxi- mately 6 carpenters , 10 laborers , and 8 plumbers 1 At the second hearing, the Employer stated that it had one plumbers helper in its employ who had previously worked "as a carpenter, as a laborer and whatever the demand was " The Employei also stated that it has a "learning " employee who is presently "running manning a job as a foreman you might call him or as a superintendent" and that some day the Employer hopes to make him a "supervisor or a foreman of job superintendent " 161 NLRB No 146 B-W CONSTRUCTION CO 1601 The Employer's construction laborers perform heavy-duty manual ,v,ork such as digging ditches, cleaning and washing brick, handling steel, and service-type work for carpenters The carpenters and the plumbers perform the usual duties of such craftsmen The Employer hires its construction laborers on a job-to-job basis Construction laborers ale not usually transferred from one area to another Although the Employer stated that it does not consider any of its employees permanent, one or two of its construction laborers have w of ked foi the Employer "off and on" for 8 to 10 years and con- tinuously for 3 to 4 years Construction laborers are paid considerably less than the Employ- er's other employees The Employer has no insurance or retirement plans The Employer asserts that it has no collective-bargaining agree- ments with any labor organization It admitted, however, that, together with three other contractors in Bryan, it meets with the local Carpenters Union to establish the wage rates to be paid to carpenter employees in the Bryan area The Employer is also a member of the Houston Associated General Contractors 2 The Petitioner presented evidence which showed that the Employer has paid wage scales estab- lished by various craft and Laborers Union locals throughout Texas In fact, on one construction job in Houston, the Employer obtained its laborer employees through the local Laborers Union hiring hall The Employer contends that the requested unit is inappropriate because "the unit requested by the Petitioner is not coextensive with any readily distinguishable and homogeneous group of the Com- pany's employees" and "the Union has failed to meet its burden of proof in attempting to sever a unit from a presumptively appropriate unit of all the employees of the Company " For the reasons stated in B B Butler, Inc , 160 NLRB 1595, we find the Employer's contentions to be without merit Accordingly, we find that the following employ- ees constitute a unit appropriate for collective-bargaining purposes within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act All employees working as laborers on construction jobs in the Bryan, Texas, area," excluding all other employees, office clerical employees, watchmen, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act 2 The Employer asserts, however , that it has not authorized the Houston Associated General Contractors to bargain for it 3 The Bryan, Texas, area includes College Station, Texas 264-18 8-67-vol 161-102 1602 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD [Text of Direction of Election is omitted from publication.4 5] 4 The Parties did not agree on any formula for determining eligibility to vote. The Em- ployer took no position on the eligibility question while the Petitioner stated that it "believe[d] that as many laborers should vote as possible" and "that it would be best in favor of leniency as to all employees to have worked for this employees [sic] within the prior year." However, since the parties did not agree on any formula for determining eligibility and since the evidence adduced at the hearings does not support a deviation from our usual eligibility requirements , eligibility will be determined by the usual payroll period. R. B . Butler, Inc., 160 NLRB 1595. e An election eligibility list, containing the names and addresses of all the eligible voters, must be filed by the Employer with the Regional Director for Region 23 within 7 days after the date of this Decision and Direction of Election. The Regional Director shall make the list available to all parties to the election. No extension of time to file this list shall be granted by the Regional Director except in extraordinary circumstances. Failure to comply with this requirement shall be grounds for setting aside the election whenever proper objections are filed. Excelsior Underwear Inc., 156 NLRB 1236. Vance & Thurmond General Contractors 1 and Laborers Interna- tional Union of North America, Local Union No. 18, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case 23-RC-2649. December 7,1966 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, hearings were held before John W. Bowlin and Clayton Corley, Hearing Officers. The Hearing Officers' rulings made at the hearings are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. The Employer and Texas Highway-Heavy Branch of the Associated General Contractors filed briefs in support of the Employer's position. The Petitioner and Building and Construction Trades Department, AFL-CIO, filed briefs in support of the Peti- tioner's position. Upon the entire record in this case, the National Labor Relations 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 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. In its petition, the Petitioner requested an election in a unit of the Employer's employees working as laborers on construction jobs in Bryan, Texas.2 The Employer contends that the unit is inappropriate. 1 The name of the Employer appears as amended at the first hearing. 2 During the first hearing, the Petitioner moved to amend its petition to include "all em- ployees working as laborers on building and construction jobs in Bryan, Texas." From the record, it appears that the Petitioner was attempting to emphasize the building construc- tion aspect of the work. For the reasons stated in R. B. Butler, 160 NLRB 1595, we deny this motion. 161 NLRB No. 145.