Chapman-Dyer Steel Mfg. Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 27, 1963

145 N.L.R.B. 210 (N.L.R.B. 1963)

210 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Chapman -Dyer Steel Mfg. Co., C & D Realty and Equipment
Co., Inc., and Superior Steel Supply and United Steelworkers
of America, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 28-RC-11Y6. No-
vember 27, 1963
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before a Hearing
Officer of the National Labor Relations Board. 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 McCulloch and Members Leedom and Fanning].
Upon the entire record, the Board finds :
Chapman-Dyer Steel Mfg. Co. is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the Act. It is an Arizona corporation organized in 1954,
and its business consists of fabricating heavy steel components to be
used for such purposes as building construction. Its office and shop
are located in Tucson, Arizona. C & D Realty and Equipment Co.,
Inc., and Superior Steel Supply are likewise Arizona corporations,
chartered in 1954 and 1963, respectively.' C & D holds title to the plant
sites occupied by Chapman-Dyer and Superior; it also owns trucks,
cranes, and heavy-loading equipment which it rents to Superior and
other concerns in the Tucson area. Superior, which opened for busi-
ness early this year, operates a warehouse on a plot of land next to
Chapman-Dyer's establishment. It purchases and stocks plate and
sheet steel and related materials and supplies, e.g., pipe, wire cable,
and tools, which it sells to fabricating companies and ironwork shops
in the Tucson area, and to manufacturers of refrigerating and air-
conditioning equipment as well. Between 5 and 7 percent of Superior's
sales are made to Chapman-Dyer, which buys between 10 and 15 per-
cent of its supplies from Superior. Chapman-Dyer has about 50 non-
supervisory employees in its fabricating shop. Superior has three
employees at its warehouse, excluding supervisory, clerical, and sales
personnel. C & D has no employees of its own; it is apparently owned
and managed by the proprietors of Chapman-Dyer, and all its business
transactions are handled in Chapman-Dyer's office by Chapman-Dyer
personnel.
Petitioner was certified in February 1960 as the representative of
the Chapman-Dyer employees,z and it 'has a contract with that firm at
1 There is no evidence that either Superior or C & D, viewed independently , is engaged
in commerce
2 ,Case No 21-RC-6159.
145 NLRB No. 24.
CHAPMAN-DYER STEEL MFG. CO., ETC. 211
the present time 3 In the instant proceeding, however, Petitioner
alleges that the existing unit ought to be expanded so as to include the
three employees of Superior. Despite the fact that the latter is a
separate corporation engaged in a different business at a separate loca-
tion, Petitioner contends that it, like C & D, is a subsidiary of
Chapman-Dyer, or that all three companies constitute a single em-
ployer because they are owned and managed by the same persons, as a
single, integrated, enterprise. In arguing that the operations of
Chapman-Dyer and Superior are "interdependent," Petitioner also
asserts that there is an "interchange" of employees between the two
establishments. We find, however, that the unit sought by the Peti-
tioner is inappropriate, for the reasons stated below.
The record does not bear out Petitioner's contention that Superior
is a subsidiary or alter ego of Chapman-Dyer. The latter corporation
is controlled by its cofounder and president, Marvin Chapman, who,
together with his wife and two sons, Marvin, Junior, and Ronald, own
all its stock. Superior, on the other hand, is evidently controlled by
its president, James Gillespie, who owns 140 of its 143 shares of issued
stock. The two Chapman sons, identified above, hold one share apiece
in Superior,4 and one of the sons is a member of its board of directors.
It also appears that Gillespie, the dominant figure in Superior, is a
director, corporate officer, and full-time executive employee of
Chapman-Dyer. However, Gillespie owns no stock in Chapman-
Dyer, nor is Marvin Chapman, Sr., the dominant figure in Chapman-
Dyer, a stockholder, director, or officer of Superior.
There is also no evidentiary support for Petitioner's contention that
employees are "interchanged" between Chapman-Dyer and Superior,
and that the two companies' operations are "interdependent." As
noted above, Chapman-Dyer is by no means Superior's only customer,
nor does it depend on Superior as ,% major source of supply. Superior
has its own separate premises, as well as a separate payroll; its super-
visors and employees do not even enter the adjacent Chapman-Dyer
establishment except for the purpose of making deliveries. Nor do the
Chapman-Dyer employees perform any work at Superior's warehouse,
except when Chapman-Dyer, acting for C & D, sends mechanics to
the Superior property to adjust or repair equipment owned by C & D
and leased to Superior.'
In view of the substantially diverse ownership, the lack of opera-
tional integration, and the separate management and control of
Chapman-Dyer and Superior, we find that Chapman-Dyer and Supe-
rior are separate independent entities and that a unit combining the
3 Although the contract will not expire until February 1964, it is not raised as a bar to
the present petition.
4 The remaining Superior stockholder, owner of one share, is Elmer Jones, an accountant
employed by Chapman-Dyer.
5 C & D, using Ohapman-Dyer employees, furnishes such repair services to all its
equipment-rental customers.
212 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employees of these two companies is not appropriate for purposes of
collective bargaining.
Since the proposed unit is inappropriate, we find that no question
concerning representation has arisen in this case, and we shall accord-
ingly dismiss the petition.
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
Highway Truck Drivers and Helpers, Local 107, affiliated with
the International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Ware-
housemen and Helpers of America and George F. Paravicini,
individually and trading as D.L.W. Transportation Company.
Case No. A0-63. November 09, 1963
ADVISORY OPINION
This is a petition filed by Highway Truck Drivers and Helpers,
Local 107, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, herein called the
Petitioner, for an Advisory Opinion in conformity with Sections
102.98 and 102.99 of the National Labor Relations Board's Rules and
Regulations, Series 8, as amended.
On October 18, 1963, George F. Paravicini, individually and trading
as D.L.W. Transportation Company, herein called the Employer or
primary employer, filed an "Answer to Petition for Advisory Opin-
ion." Thereafter, on October 23, 1963, Bernard Samoff, Regional
Director for the Fourth Region of the National Labor Relations
Board, herein called Regional Director, filed a motion to intervene set-
ting forth jurisdictional facts developed in the course of his investiga-
tion of an unfair labor practice charge filed on September 23, 1963, by
the Employer against the Petitioner in Case No. 4-CP-63. On Octo-
ber 28,1963, the Employer filed an answer to motion to intervene, and
on the same date, the Petitioner filed a reply to jurisdictional facts.
The motion of the Regional Director to intervene is hereby granted.
In pertinent part, the petition, the answer, the intervention, and the
answer and reply to the intervention allege as follows :
1. There is pending a complaint in equity filed by the Employer
against the Petitioner docketed as Court of Common Pleas No. 5 of
Philadelphia County, June term, 1963, No. 5003, in which the Em-
ployer seeks an injunction against the Petitioner's picketing of his
truck at the stops and points of delivery which the Employer makes
in the course of his business. The complaint in equity alleges that the
Petitioner, by its picketing, "is presently engaged in a course of con-
145 NLRB No. 23.