Colorado Builders Supply Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 18, 1950

90 N.L.R.B. 2002 (N.L.R.B. 1950)

In the Matter of COLORADO BUILDERS SUPPLY COMPANY (COBUSCO),
EMPLOYER and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS,
LocAL 9, AFL, PETITIONER
Case No. 30-RC-282.-Decided August 18,1950
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before Clyde F.'
Waers, 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 1 finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
National Labor Relations Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. The Employer contends that an election conducted on March
1, 1950, is a bar to the petition. herein. On February 2, 1950, upon a
joint petition (Case No. 30-RC-221) 2 filed by the Teamsters Con-
struction Worker Union, Local 13, and the International Association
of Machinists, District Lodge 86, the Board directed an election in the
plant-wide unit at the Employer's plant here involved. On February
27, 1950, the Petitioner herein filed its petition 3 seeking to sever from
that unit five mechanics. The election in the plant-wide unit was held
as scheduled on March 1. The ballots of the mechanics were im-
pounded. The unions lost the election. The impounded ballots would
not have affected the results of the election. Certification of the results
of that' election has been withheld, pending disposition of the instant
case. Under these circumstances, we find no merit in the Employer's
contention that the March election is a bar to the petition herein .4
A question affecting, commerce exists concerning the representation
of certain employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section
9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner seeks to- represent a unit composed of all mechanics
in the Employer's heavy duty equipment division. Although the Em-
Chairman Herzog and Member Murdock did not participate in this decision.
2 Unpublished.
$ This petition was supported by cards signed by employees in the unit petitioned for
and dated before the hearing in Case No. 30-RC-221.
4 J. I. Case Company, 81 NLRB 651 . See also The Great Atlantio cf Pacific Tea Company,
81 NLRB 880.
90 NLRB No. 276.
2002
COLORADO BUILDERS SUPPLY COMPANY 2003
ployer offered no evidence with respect to the appropriateness of the
unit, it contends generally that such unit is inappropriate.
The Employer, among other things, is engaged in the sale and the
repair of various heavy duty Diesel engines used in connection with
the construction industry. The mechanics, here sought, demonstrate
and repair such equipment. Although the Employer has no appren-
ticeship program, these employees are hired as skilled mechanics. Nor-
mally there is no interchange of functions or personnel between these
mechanics and the other employees. They are separately housed and
have their own immediate separate supervision. Without deciding
whether the mechanics are a true craft group, we find that the me-
chanics in the Employer's heavy duty equipment division constitute
a distinct homogeneous group of skilled employees who constitute
a separate appropriate unit for bargaining purposes .5 We shall there-
fore direct an election in the following described unit :
All mechanics in the heavy duty equipment division at the Employ-
er's Mariposa and Evans Streets, Denver, Colorado, plant, excluding
all other employees, guards, and supervisors 6 as defined in the Act.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
purposes of collective bargaining with the Employer, an election by
secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than
30 days from the date of this Direction, under the direction and su,-
pervision of the Regional Director for the Region in which this case
was heard, and subject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62 of National La-
bor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, among the employees in
the unit found appropriate in paragraph numbered 4, above, who
were employed during the payroll period immediately preceding the
date of this Direction of Election, including employees who did not
work during said payroll period because they were ill or on vacation
or temporarily laid off, but excluding those employees who have since
quit or been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or rein-
stated- prior to the date of the election, and also excluding employees
on strike who are not entitled to reinstatement, to determine whether
or not, they desire to be represented, for purposes of collective bar-
gaining, by International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 9,,
AFL.
5 Brown-Ely Co., 87 NLRB 27 ; Strong Company , 86 NLRB 687.
6 Excluded from this category is Walter Ziegler. During the regular supervisor's ab-
sence 1 or 2 days twice each month , Ziegler is in charge of the mechanics. During these
periods he has no authority to hire or fire employees , although if the occasion arose he may
make recommendations concerning an employee's dereliction of duty. As Ziegler 's super-
visory authority is very limited and sporadic, we find that he is not a supervisor within
the meaning of the Act. See Strong Company, supra.