Camp Concrete Rock Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 3, 1951

94 N.L.R.B. 296 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

296 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the agreement is signed, despite the fact that it is made retroactive
to a date preceeding the petition.4
We find that a question affecting commerce exists concerning the
representation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of
Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The parties agree, and the Board finds, that the following eiu-
ployees at the Employer's plant in Chicago, Illinois, constitute a unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (b) of the Act :
All production and maintenance employees, including factory cler-
ical employees, but excluding office clerical employees, draftsmen,
outside truck drivers engineers, guards, watchmen,, professional enI-
ployees, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
'Southern Heater Corporation, 91 NLRB 1118, Peter Pu seh and Sons Company, 90
NLRB No. 253.
CAMP CONCRETE ROCK COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF-OPER-
ATING ENGINEERS, LOCAL 925, A-B-C, TAMPA, FLORIDA, AFL, Pr.TI-
TIONER. Case No. 10-1?O-1166. May 3, 1951
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 E. Hamilton,
Jr., hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hear-
ing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.'
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer, a Florida corporation, is engaged in mining,
crushing, washing, and grading limestone at its Brooksville, Florida,
mines. Its sales are all made f. o. b. at the mines and its customers
arrange to have the stone transported. All the Employer's sales are
made to the Florida Crushed Stone Company, which acts as its ex-
clusive selling agent and, in turn, resells the stone to purchasers. The
Employer owns 50 percent of the stock of the Florida Crushed Stone
Company. The same individual is secretary and treasurer of both
1 At the hearing the heating officer properly overruled the Employer ' s objections that
the Petitioner had not evidenced its compliance with Section 9 (f), (g), and ( h) of the
Act and that the Petitioner had not made a sufficient showing of interest The Board
has repeatedly held that the issues of compliance and showing of inteiest are matters for
administrative determination not subject to litigation by the parties As to compliance
see Florence Manufacturing Company , Inc, 92 NLRB 185, Sun Shipbuilding and Dry-
dock Company , 86 NLRB 20 As to showing of interest see The F. J Kelly Company, 90
NLRB No 289, 0 D Jennings cC Company, 68 NLRB 516.
94 NLRB No 51.
CAMP CONCRETE ROCK COMPANY 297
companies and the president of the Employer is also the executive
vice president of the Florida Crushed Stone Company. We find,
upon the basis of the foregoing facts, that the Employer and the
Florida Crushed Stone Company, constitute, for these purposes, a
single employer.2
During the calendar year 1950 the Employer purchased supplies
and materials valued at $418,497.47 of which $37,589.02 represented
the value of purchases from points outside the State of Florida.
During the same period sales of the Employer's products amounted
to $1,057,243.95 which included $942.64 sold outside the State of
Florida. Also included in the total sales of the Employer's products
were sales of crushed stone valued at $332,206.70 to be used in the
construction and repair of highways. Of this latter amount, $108,-
828.56 represented sales of stone to the State Road Department of
Florida for use in necessary maintenance of the State's highway
system.
Upon the foregoing facts we find, contrary to the Employer's con-
tention, that its operations affect commerce within the meaning of the
Act. Moreover, as the Employer furnished materials, valued in ex-
cess of $50,000, necessary to the maintenance and operation of the
highways and roads of the State of Florida, we find that it will effec-
tuate the purposes of the Act to exercise jurisdiction over the
Employer's operations.3
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 following employees constitute a unit appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b)
of the Act:
All employees employed at the Employer's Brooksville, Florida,
mines, including the warehouseman,' but excluding office and clerical
2 See Betram F Roland, d/b/a Launder epair Company, 90 NLRB 778, and Burrus6
Timber Products, Inc, 87 NLRB 1561 ; finding that two interrelated companies engaged
in an integrated enteipiise may constitute a single employer
3 Hollow Tree Lumber Company, 91 NLRB 635; Pembroke Limestone Corporation, 74
NLRB 1043 , Blue Ridge Stone Corpo; aioon, 74 NLRB 1. The Employer's motion to dismiss
the petition on jurisdictional grounds is accordingly denied
"The Employer contends that the warehouseman should be excluded This employee
is in charge of the warehouse and his duties are analogous to those of a tool clerk. Ten
percent of his time may be spent in clerical work and the remainder is spent in checking
materials in or out and placing -them in the proper places in 'the warehouse. He has
no assistants and he has no authority to effectively recommend hiring or discharge of
employees . The record indicates the interests of this employee are substantially the
sane as those of the other employees included in the appiopnate unit Accordingly, we
shall include him Victor Chemical Works, 85 NLRB 495 , Oswego Sheet Metal Works,
Inc, 80 NLRB 1199.
298 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employees, professional employees, guards,5 and supervisors 6 as de-
fined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
-volume.]
MEMBERS REYNOLDS and STYLES took no part in the consideration
of the above Decision and Direction of Election.
5 The Employer employs two watchmen, Collins and Griggs, to be on the Employer's
premises at night to prevent trespassing and theft. They have no production duties and
perform no work other than normal plant-protection duties. We find that these employees
are guards and they are , therefore , excluded . Manhattan Oil Corporation , 79 NLRB 187.
O The Employer contends, and the Petitioner denies, that Obed Martin is a supervisor.
Martin is a maintenance foreman in charge of a roustabout gang that does repair and
building work. There is uncontradicted testimony in the record that he has the authority
to hire and discharge employees employed in his crew. We find that Martin is a super-
visor as defined in the Act and he is, therefore , excluded.
EDWIN S. ROUGH , CLAUDE A. ROUGH , SR., MINNIE K. ROUGH , MARGUE-
RITE R. MUNSON, CLAUDE A. ROUGH, JR., AND ROBERT W. ROUGH,
INDIVIDUALLY AND AS CO-PARTNERS , D/B/A ROUGH'S SAWMILL, LTD.
and INTERNATIONAL WOODWORKERS OF AMERICA , CIO. Case No.
2O-CA-257. May 4, 1951
Decision and Order
On August 18, 1950, Trial Examiner William E. Spencer issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain unfair
labor practices in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and recommending that
they cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as'
set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto.
Thereafter, the Respondents filed exceptions to the Intermediate Re-
port and a supporting brief.
On October 13, 1950, the Board r remanded the proceeding to the
Trial Examiner for the purpose of receiving further evidence as to
the nature and extent of the Respondents' operations. On January
9, 1951, following a second hearing, the Trial Examiner issued a Sup-
plemental Intermediate Report, a copy of which is attached hereto.
No exceptions have been filed to this Supplemental Intermediate Re-
port, but the Respondents advised the Board that they desire con
1 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 Herzog and Members Houston and Reynolds].
94 NLRB No. 57.