Casey & Glass, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 29, 1975

219 N.L.R.B. 698 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

698 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Casey & Glass, Inc. and Local No. 1057 , Laborers
International Union of North America , AFL-CIO,
Petitioner. Case 23-RC-4177
July 29, 1975
DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF
REPRESENTATIVE
above were ineligible to vote in the election held on
February 7, 1975, and we sustain the challenges to
their ballots. However, as Petitioner received a ma-
jority of the valid votes cast in that election, we shall
certify Petitioner as the exclusive representative of
the employees of the Employer in the appropriate
bargaining unit.
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVE
The National Labor Relations Board has consid-
ered determinative challenges in an election held on
February 7, 1975,l and the Regional Director's report
recommending disposition of same. The Board has
reviewed the record in light of the exceptions and
brief and hereby adopts the Regional Director's find-
ings and recommendation that the challenges to the
ballots of Santos Ayala, Alejundro Garcia, Leopoldo
Gonzalez, Santiago Gonzalez, Jose H. Herrera, Ro-
lando Herrera, Hector Hugo Mireles, Liberato Mun-
zos, and Ramon Villagamea be sustained .2
The Employer is general contractor of a construc-
tion project involving the expansion and renovation
of Mercy Hospital of Laredo. The nine above-named
individuals ceased working for the Employer on De-
cember 6, 1974, in observance of a picket line estab-
lished by Petitioner at the reserved gate used by the
Employer at the hospital premises. No notices under
Section 8(g) of the Act were given by Petitioner of its
intent to picket the hospital.
Under Section 8(d) of the Act, as amended,3 em-
ployees who engage in a strike in violation of Section
8(g) lose their status as employees and are, conse-
quently, ineligible to vote in an election conducted
pursuant to Section 9(c) of the Act.
In a related unfair labor practice decision issued
this day,4 we have found that Petitioner's picketing of
the Employer at the hospital's premises violated Sec-
tion 8(g) of the Act because Petitioner failed to give
10 days' written notice to Mercy Hospital and to the
Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service of its in-
tention to engage in such picketing as required by
that section.
Accordingly, we find that the individuals named
i The election was conducted pursuant to a Stipulation for Certification
Upon Consent Election . The tally was 6 votes for, and 2 against , the Peti-
tioner; there were 10 challenged ballots.
2 In view of our decision to sustain the other challenges, we find it unnec-
essary to rule on the challenge to the ballot of Pedro Navarro inasmuch as
his vote is not determinative.
3 This sec., as relevant to this proceeding , provides.
Any employee . . . who engages in any strike within the appropriate
period specified in subsection (g) of this section shall lose his status as
an employee of the employer engaged in the particular labor dispute,
for the purposes of sections 8, 9, and 10 of this Act, as amended .. .
4 Laborers' International Union of North America, AFL-CIO, Local Union
No. 1057 (Mercy Hospital of Laredo), 219 NLRB No. 154 (1975)
It is hereby certified that majority of the valid bal-
lots have been cast for local No. 1057, Laborers In-
ternational Union of North America, AFL-CIO, and
that, pursuant to Section 9(a) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the said labor organiza-
tion is the exclusive representative of all the employ-
ees in the following appropriate unit for the purposes
of collective bargaining in respect to rates of pay,
wages , hours of employment, or other conditions of
employment:
All laborers employed by Casey & Glass, Inc. in
Webb County, Texas, excluding all guards,
watchmen, supervisors as defined in the Act,
and all other employees.
MEMBERS FANNING and Jenkins, dissenting:
For the reasons stated in our dissenting opinions in
Lein-Steenberg 5 and Mercy Hospital of Laredo,' we
would direct the opening and counting of the chal-
lenged ballots of the strikers.
In Lein-Steenberg our colleagues observed that re-
quiring a labor organization seeking to represent
non-health care institution employees to file the 8(g)
notice when the situs of the labor organization's dis-
pute with the non-health care institution employer is
any health care institution' s "premises" did not ap-
pear, to our colleagues , to amount to an "undue bur-
den." That observation has a somewhat paradoxical
relationship to this case in that it both explains the
rather cavalier treatment given in this case to the fact
that these employees have now lost their jobs and, at
the same time , reveals the consummate absurdity of
the observation.
We do not believe these strikers have lost their
"employee status" under our Act because we do not
believe it has been even marginally established that
Congress intended these particular employees to be
the subject of 8(g) complaints. We thus dissent.
S United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and
Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local 630, AFL-CIO
(Lein-Steenberg), 219 NLRB No. 153 (1975).
6 Laborers' International Union of North America, AFL-CIO, Local Union
No 1057 (Mercy Hospital of Laredo), 219 NLRB No. 154 (1975).
219 NLRB No. 155