Brown & Root Caribe, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 13, 1957

119 N.L.R.B. 815 (N.L.R.B. 1957)

BROWN & ROOT CARIBE, INC. 815
The Union's bylaws no doubt impose a measure of restraint on its members, as
such , but they do not restrain or coerce employees in the right to refrain from union
membership or activity. The proviso to Section 8'(b) (1) (A) permits the Union
to prescribe rules with respect to acquisition or retention of membership. If the
Union's rules affect membership of those who choose to procure their own jobs
rather than get them through the Union or as permitted by the Union, the Union's
rules are protected under the aforesaid proviso so long as the Union does not cause
or attempt to cause an employer to discriminate against such member except as
authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. Because it has been found that the
Union did not cause or attempt to cause CBS to discriminate against Kanaga, I find
that the Union did not restrain or coerce him or other employees in the exercise
of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, I make
the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. CBS is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7)
of the Act.
2. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of
the Act.
3. The Union did not cause or attempt to cause CBS to discriminate against
Kanaga in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act and, hence, did not violate
Section 8 (b) (2) of the Act.
4. The Union did not restrain or coerce Kanaga or other employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act by refusing to clear,
dispatch, refer, or assign Kanaga to work as a stagehand for CBS in violation of
Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Brown & Root Caribe , Inc. and Sindicato de Empleados de
Equipo Pesado, Construction y Ramas Anexas de P. R ., Sindi-
cato de Trabajadores (Packinghouse ) de P. R., UPWA-AFL-
CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 24-RC--1039. December 13, 1957
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 Frank H. Parlier,
hearing officer.' The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing
are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer contests the Board's jurisdiction. The Employer
was incorporated in 1957 to engage in the construction business in
Puerto Rico. It is presently engaged in building a chemical plant
for Union Carbide Caribe, Inc. The Employer is a subsidiary of
Brown & Root, Inc., herein called Brown, a Texas corporation, which
also does construction work and is admittedly engaged in commerce.
According to a letter submitted by the Employer after the hearing
and incorporated into the record by agreement as an exhibit, the
Employer's manager is in charge of all aspects of the operation, in-
cluding the hire and discharge of employees, wages, vacations and
1 The Petitioner 's name appears herein as amended at the hearing.
119 NLRB No. 110.
816 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
other benefits, labor relations, accounts , and tax returns. The man-
ager is not an officer or employee of Brown. The letter further states
with respect to the two corporations that there is "common owner-
ship" and that their boards of directors have certain members in
common. Much of the Employer's personnel has been furnished by
Brown. Upon the entire record, including the common ownership,
the interlocking directorates, the fact that both corporations do con-
struction work, and that Brown supplied the Employer with much
of its personnel, we find that Brown and the Employer constitute a
single employer for jurisdictional purposes. As Brown has hereto-
fore been found to be engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act,' we find that the Employer is also engaged in commerce and
that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction
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 certain employees of the Employer, within the meaning of
Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. We find, in substantial accord with the agreement of the parties,
that the following employees of the Employer constitute a unit ap-
propriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (b) of the Act: All heavy equipment operators,
mechanics , mechanics' helpers, and greasers at the Employer's con-
struction project on the Ponce-Guayanilla road in Puerto Rico, ex-
cluding truckdrivers, light equipment operators , all other construc-
tion employees, executive, administrative, and professional personnel,
office clerical employees, watchmen, guards, and all supervisors as
defined in the Act.
5. The Employer moves to dismiss on the ground that the petition
was prematurely filed, and on grounds relating to the adequacy of
the Petitioner's showing of interest. The petition, filed on July 23,
1957, alleged that there were 10 employees in the appropriate unit.
At the time of the hearing, held on September 5, 1957, there were
about 35 employees in the unit, and the Employer was increasing its
overall work force every day. It appears that the Employer expects
to reach the employment peak in a few months with 100 to 125 em-
ployees and that the new employees will not perform essentially dif-
ferent functions from those of present employees. As the employees
did at the time of the hearing constitute a substantial and represen-
tative segment of the ultimate complement,' we find that the petition
is not prematurely filed. However, with respect to the adequacy of
the Petitioner's showing, we find, in view of the expansion of the unit
2 Brown and Root, Inc., 112 NLRB 1068.
1 Cf. Springfield Body S Trailer Co., 112 NLRB 1287.
ALBERT LEA COOPERATIVE CREAMERY ASSOCIATION 817
that has taken place since the filing of the petition, that the showilig
does not meet our requirements as to substantial representation before
we conduct an election. Accordingly, our direction of an immediate
election herein shall be subject to the submission by the Petitioner of
a sufficient showing of interest among the employees in the unit when
such unit was substantial and representative.4 As already found,
that occurred as of the time of the hearing. In the circumstances, we
deny the motion.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
MEMBER JENKINS took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Election.
4 Cf. Mfrs. Tucker's Products, Division of Anderson, Clayton f Company, Inc., 106 NLRB
533 at 535.
Albert Lea Cooperative Creamery Association 1 and General
Drivers, Inside Workers & Helpers, Local Union No. 845, affil-
iated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America ,2 Petitioner
Albert Lea Cooperative Creamery Association and United Pack
inghouse Workers of America, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Cases
Nos. 18-RC,-3357 and 18-RC-3369. December 13, 1957
DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION.
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Clarence A. Meter,
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 Murdock 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.
2. The labor organizations involved claim 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.
1 The name of the Employer appears as corrected at the hearing.
2 The Board having been notified by the AFL-CIO that it deems the Teamsters' certi-
ficate of affiliation revoked by convention action, the identification of this union is hereby
amended.
119 NLRB No. 96.
476321-58-vol. 119-53