D. B. Thornton Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 14, 1951

94 N.L.R.B. 1188 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

1188 DECISIONS; OF. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
bargaining unit 2 and may be represented apart from the remaining
employees in the plant.3
We find that the following employees at the Employer's Knoxville,.
Tennessee, plant, constitute separate units appropriate for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of
the Act :
(1) All foundry department employees, excluding office and clerical
employees, guards, all other employees, and all supervisors as defined.
in the Act.
(2) All production and maintenance employees, excluding all foun-
dry department employees, all office, clerical, technical, and profes-
sional employees, executives, and all supervisors as defined in the
Act.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication in this
volume.]
'National Farm Machinery Cooperative, Inc. (Ohio Cultivator Division), 88 NLRB 125;
W. A. Jones Foundry A Machinery Co., 83 NLRB 211; The Fayscott Corporation, 78
NLRB 1256.
' As no labor organization now seeks to represent all the plant employees in a single
unit, we will make no alternative unit finding.
D. B. THORNTON AND Lucy THORNTON D/B/A D. B. THORNTON CO., PE-
TITIONER and INTERNATIONAL HOD CARRIERS ', BUILDING & COMMON
LABORERS ' UNION OF AMERICA , CONSTRUCTION & GENERAL LABORERS?
LOCAL No. 438, AFL
D. B. THORNTON AND Lucy THORNTON D/B/A D. B. THORNTON CO.,.
PETITIONER and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS,.
CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEIVIEN & HELPERS OF AMERICA, SALES DRIVERS.
& BUILDING CONSTRUCTION DRIVERS & HELPERS LOCAL No. 859, AFL.T
Cases Nos. 10-RM-71 and 10-RM-73. June 14, 1951
Decision, Direction of Election , and Order
Upon separate petitions duly filed. under Section 9. (c) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before
Paul L. Harper, hearing officer. 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 [Members Houston, Reynolds, and Styles].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The' Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
Act.
' This Union's name appears as amended at the hearing.'
94 NLRB No. 201.
D. B. THORNTON CO.. f189
. 2. International Hod Carriers', Building & Common Laborers'
Union of America, Construction & General Laborers' Local No. 438,
AFL, hereinafter called Hod Carriers, and International Brotherhood
of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, Sales
Drivers & Building Construction Drivers & Helpers Local No. 859,
AFL, hereinafter called Teamsters, are labor organizations and
claim to represent employees of the Employer.
3. In July and August of '1950, representatives of Teamsters and
Hod Carriers presented claims for recognition as representatives of
those employees of the Employer within their respective jurisdictions,
and proposed a contract. The Employer refused to sign a contract,
and suggested that the Unions consent to an election to be conducted
by the Board. Upon the refusal of the Unions to consent to an elec-
tion, the Employer filed the instant petitions.. At the hearing, Team-
sters renewed its claim for recognition of the employees of the
Employer within its jurisdiction. Although Hod Carriers did not
appear at the hearing, we do not construe the failure to appear, stand-
ing alone, as-a disclaimer of Hod Carriers' interest in the representation
of the employees involved herein.2
Accordingly, we find that a question affecting commerce exists con-
cerning the representation of employees of the Employer within the
meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) (B) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the
Act.
4. The appropriate units :
On April 19, 1951, the Employer filed petitions seeking an election
in a unit of laborers in Case No. 10-RM-71 and in a unit of truck
drivers in Case No. 10-RM-73. The petition as to truck drivers was
amended at the hearing to include truck drivers, warehousemen, and
their helpers.
The Employer is engaged in the sale of building supplies at its
Atl'anta,'Georgia, plant. The operations of the plant are divided into
two departments : The ready-mixed concrete and mortar department,
hereinafter called the mixing department, and the warehouse depart-
ment. .
There are approximately 29 truck drivers in the mixing department,
who are engaged in hauling materials from the Employer's plant to
various job sites. There are also three truck drivers in the warehouse
department whose duties include hauling sand and stone from the
mixing department to job sites. The Board has heretofore held that
truck drivers comprise a skilled and well-defined group with distinct
functions and interests warranting their establishment as a unit for
the purpose of collective bargaining.3
3 Hygrade Food Product8 Corporation, 82 NLRB 428.
3 Eisner Grocery Company, 72 NLRB 721; John A. Denie 's Sons Co ., 86 NLRB 682.
1190 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
There are two laborers attached to the warehouse department.
Their duties include unloading rail cars and moving materials.
While the record is not clear on this point, it is presumed that these
two laborers are the "warehousemen" whom the Employer seeks to
include in the same unit with the truck drivers. These two laborers
and the three truck drivers in the warehouse department are under the
same immediate supervision, and are all paid on an hourly basis.
However, in view of the difference between the skills and interests
of the truck drivers and the laborers, we will exclude the latter from
the proposed unit.
Under these circumstances, we find that a unit of truck drivers, at the
Employer's Atlanta, Georgia, plant, excluding outside salesmen,
laborers, office and clerical employees, engineers, professional employ-
ees, guards, and supervisors 4 as defined in the Act is appropriate for
collective bargaining purposes within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of
the Act.
In Case No. 10-RM-71, the Employer requests a separate unit of
"laborers," excluding salesmen, clerks, warehousemen, truck drivers,
engineers, professional employees, guards, and supervisors. The la-
borers referred to in this petition, approximately 12 in number, are
employed in the mixing department together with 4 mixer operators,
and 2 mechanics, who are not included in either of the instant peti-
tions. As these yard laborers constitute only an arbitrary segment of
the Employer's production and maintenance employees, we find that
this unit would not be appropriate for bargaining purposes.
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition in Case No. 10--RM-71 be, and
it hereby is, dismissed.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
A As the warehouse foreman has the authority to hire and discharge employees under
his supervision , we exclude him from the unit as a supervisor.
NATIONAL CHEMICAL,& MANUFACTURING COMPANY and DISTRICT 65,
DISTRIBUTIVE , PROCESSING AND OFFICE WORKERS OF AMERICA,
PETITIONER . Case No. 2-RC-3217 . June 14, 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 Thomas A. Ricci,
94 NLRB No. 180.