Colorado Builders' Supply Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 1, 1939

18 N.L.R.B. 29 (N.L.R.B. 1939)

In the Matter Of COLORADO BUILDERS' SUPPLY COMPANY and INTER-
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION of BRIDGE, STRUCTURAL AND ORNAMENTAL
IRON WORKERS, SHOPMEN'S LOCAL UNION No. 507
Case No. R-1380.-Decided December 1, 1939
Steel Fabrication Industry-Investigation of Representatives : petition for,
dismissed , where no question concerning the representation of employees in a
unit which could be found appropriate has arisen.
Mr. Paul S. Kuelthau, for the Board.
Mr. James Q. Newton, Jr., and Mr. Richard M. Davis, of Denver,
Colo., for the Company.
Mr. M. 0. Man fro, of Denver, Colo., for the Union.
Mr. Richard A. Williams, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On April 10, 1939, International Association of Bridge, Struc-
tural and Ornamental Iron Workers, Shopmen's Local Union No.
507, herein called the Union, filed with the Regional Director for the
Twenty-second Region (Denver, Colorado) a petition alleging that
a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the represen-
tation of employees of Colorado Builders' Supply Company,' Den-
ver, Colorado, herein called the Company, and requesting an inves-
tigation and certification of representatives pursuant to Section 9
(c) of the National Labor Relations Act; 49 Stat. 449, herein called
the Act. On May 3, 1939, the National Labor Relations Board,
herein called the Board, acting pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the Act
and Article III; Section 3 of National Labor Relations Board Rules
and Regulations-Series 1, as amended, ordered an investigation
and authorized the Regional Director to conduct it and to provide
for an appropriate hearing upon due notice.
On May 4, 1939, the Regional Director issued a notice of hearing,
copies of which were duly served upon the Company and the Union.
I Incorrectly designated in the petition as "The Colorado Builders Supply Co."
18 N. L. R. B., No. 3.
29
30 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Pursuant to the notice, a hearing was held on May 11 and 12, 1939,
at Denver, Colorado, before Charles E. Persons, the Trial Examiner
duly designated by the Board. The Board, the Company, and the
Union were represented by counsel and participated in the hearing.
Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine wit-
nesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded
all parties. During the course of the hearing the Trial Examiner
made several rulings on motions and on objections to the admission
of evidence. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Ex-
aminer and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed.
In accordance with a stipulation signed by all parties, the Board
on August 2, 1939, ordered certain specified corrections to be made
in the transcript of the hearing.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Colorado Builders' Supply Company, a Colorado corporation, is
engaged in steel fabrication and in jobbing miscellaneous building
materials. It maintains plants in Denver and Pueblo, Colorado,
and employs salesmen who solicit sales throughout Colorado and
five neighboring States. Five per cent of the steel and 90 per cent
of the building materials used in the Company's business are obtained
from sources outside Colorado. The Company's annual sales ap-
proximate $750,000.00, about one-third of which represents items
shipped to destinations outside Colorado.
IT. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Association of Bridge, Structural, and Ornamental
Iron Workers, Shopmen's Local Union No. 507, is a labor organiza-
tion affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, admitting to
its membership employees engaged in the fabrication of iron, steel,
lead, bronze, copper, aluminum, and other metals.
III. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Union contends that all production employees of the Com-
pany at both its plants, including foremen but excluding truck
drivers, auto mechanics, and warehousemen, constitute a unit appro-
priate for the purposes of collective bargaining. The Company
denies the appropriateness of this unit on the ground that employees
of the two plants should not be combined into a single unit for the
purposes of collective bargaining.
COLORADO BUILDERS' SUPPLY COMPANY 31
The two plants at Denver and Pueblo, respectively, are 125 miles
apart. Organization by the Union began early in 1937, in Denver,
and on November 16, 1937, the Company and the Union entered into
a contract for a 1-year period, covering the Denver employees. This
agreement granted exclusive recognition to the Union as representa-
tive of the Denver employees, and was automatically renewable from
year to year unless either party gave 4 months' notice of a desire to
terminate it. On May 7, 1939, this agreement was supplanted by
another contract between the parties covering wages, hours, and
working conditions of the Denver employees, and providing for a
closed shop. Like its predecessor, this contract is automatically re-
newable from year to year unless 4 months prior to the end of a
given year either party gives notice of a desire to terminate it. In
conjunction with the contract, the parties entered into a "Supple-
mentary Agreement," the substance of which was that the May 7,
1939, contract would "automatically become applicable to the em-
ployees of the Pueblo shop when, as, and if the National Labor
Relations Board certifies the Union as the sole collective bargaining
agency for the employees of the Pueblo shop."
At the hearing, it appeared that although the Union represented
on April 10, 1939, nearly all of the 29 Denver employees eligible to
its membership it had received only two applications for member-
ship from among the 26 Pueblo employees. At the Pueblo plant
substantially all of the operations relate to the fabrication of re-
enforcing steel bars. Only one-third of the Denver employees per-
form this type of fabrication work, and a large part of the Denver
plant is devoted to the storage and sale of miscellaneous building
materials. With rare exceptions, there is no interchange of em-
ployees between the two plants, although occasionally the superin-
tendent and foremen of the Denver plant visit the Pueblo plant to
repair or install machinery. The Company's main office, which
handles all matters relating to the Company's sales and accounts, is
located at the Denver plant.
In considering whether,,in view of the foregoing facts, the Denver
and Pueblo plants now properly may be deemed to constitute a single
bargaining unit, we note that while the Union has a contract cover-
ing the Denver employees, it does not appear to have any substantial
membership among the Pueblo employees. There is, moreover, no
collective bargaining history which could be said to support the
Union's contention that the two plants constitute a single appropriate
unit. While there is some interrelation between the operations of
the two plants, it is scarcely of such a nature as to outweigh the
foregoing considerations. In view of all the evidence adduced at
the hearing, therefore, we are unable to conclude that employees of
32 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Company's two plants should be embraced within a single bar-
gaining unit at the present time.
Accordingly, we find that the unit sought by the Union is not
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining and we shall,
therefore, dismiss the petition of the Union without prejudice.
IV. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
Since, as stated in Section III above, we are unable to find an
appropriate unit within the scope of the petition filed in this case,
we find that no question has been raised concerning the representation
of employees of the Company in an appropriate bargaining unit.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, and upon the entire
record.in the case, the Board makes the following:
CONCLUSION OF LAW
No question concerning the representation of employees of the
Colorado Builders' Supply Company in a unit appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining has arisen within the meaning of
Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act.
ORDER
.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusion
of law, the National Labor Relations Board hereby dismisses the
petition for investigation and certification filed by International
Association of Bridge, Structural, and Ornamental Iron Workers,
Shopmen's Local Union No. 507.
MR. EDWIN S. SMITH, dissenting :
I dissent from the decision that the employer-wide unit is inappro-
priate in this case.
Here the only union involved 'desires a unit consisting of the
employees of the Company's Denver and Pueblo plants. To the
extent that both plants engage in the fabrication of steel, the work
of the two plants is identical. Wages, hours, and working condi-
tions of all employees are similar at both plants. The Company's
main office, located in Denver, handles all matters relating to sales,
finance, and accounts and controls matters of general policy, includ-
ing bargaining relations with the Union. The plants are not at
such distance from each other that the combination of the two plants
into a single bargaining unit is impracticable. On the other hand,
if each plant is made a separate unit the Company is in a position
to pit one plant against the other with consequent unfortunate ef-
fects upon the bargaining process. While this does not actually
COLORADO BUILDERS' SUPPLY COMPANY 33
appear to have taken place in this case, the possibility of such a
procedure affords basis for the Union's effort to match the common
management and organization of the Company, on the one hand,
with unitary representation of employees of both plants, on the other.
The Act directs the Board in each case to select the bargaining
unit which will insure to employees "the full benefit" of their right
to self-organization and to collective bargaining and which will
"otherwise effectuate" the policies of the Act. One of the specified
purposes of the Act is to encourage the practice and procedure of
collective bargaining. By holding the employer-wide unit to be
inappropriate the Board seems to me to be denying the full benefits
of collective bargaining to the employees of the Company.
In view of the foregoing, I would find that both plants together
constitute the appropriate unit.