Donovan Construction Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 22, 1953

105 N.L.R.B. 704 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

704 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
than others, it is evident from the record that "journeymen
brewers" devote a great deal of their time to cleaning equip-
ment, and some are regularly assigned to that function alone.
It thus appears that the classification of "journeymen brewers"
has no real significance as to the skill of the employee so
classified.
It is, therefore, clear from the foregoing, as well as upon
the entire record, that although the duties of the "journeymen
brewers" and the other brewery department employees require
a different kind of experience or training from the duties of
other employees , the degree of experience or training required
to attain proficiency in their work is not extensive , and the
difference in the skill of these employees as compared to
other employees , who the Petitioner contends are not craftsmen,
is no greater than that normally found among different
classifications of production and maintenance employees ,8
Upon all the facts, we conclude that brewing department
employees do not constitute a craft unit or departmental unit
of the type the Board has found should be permitted to sever
from a larger unit . We shall , therefore , dismiss the petition.
Inasmuch as we have found that no question concerning
representation exists because the units requested are in-
appropriate , we deem it unnecessary to pass uponthe contract-
bar contentions of the parties.
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
8See Anheuser-Busch, Inc., supra.
DONOVAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, AND DONOVAN, INC.
and OFFICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL
NO. 12, A. F. of L., Petitioner. Case No . 18-RC- 1907. June
22, 1953
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, ahearingwas heldbefore Jack R. Carrier,
hearing officer . The hearing officer ' s rulings made at the
hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby af-
firmed.
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 , Murdock, and
Peterson].
Upon the entire record in this case , the Board finds:
1. Donovan , Inc., is a family corporation whose entire stock
is owned by George H. and Margare t L. Donovan and their
eight children . Donovan, Inc ., in turn owns all the stock of
Donovan Construction Company. Both corporations have the
same president , vice president, and assistant secretaries.
105 NLRB No. 99
DONOVAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 705
Margaret L. Donovan is secretary of Donovan , Inc., and
treasurer of Donovan Construction Company.
Donovan , Inc., has 2 contracts with the Department of
Defense, 1 to produce shells and another to rehabilitate the
plant building housing its production operations ( building 501
at the Twin Cities Arsenal , New Brighton , Minnesota ). Donovan
Construction Company has subcontracted the rehabilitation
work from Donovan , Inc., and is now engaged in that work. The
production operations of Donovan , Inc., are in their early
stages. All the employees here involved are now on the payroll
of Donovan Construction Company, but will be transferred
en bloc to the payroll of Donovan , Inc., in the very near future,
when the rehabilitation work will be substantially completed.
The operations of the 2 corporations are closely interrelated,
and all policies , including labor relations , are determined by
the aforementioned officers who exercise control over both
corporations.
Because the employees here involved are not yet on its
payroll, Donovan, Inc., contends that it is nota proper party to
this proceeding . However, on the basis of the aforementioned
facts, which show common ownership and control of operations
and labor policies , we find that, for the purposes of this pro-
ceeding, Donovan , Inc., and its subsidiary, Donovan Construc-
tion Company, constitute a single employer within the mean-
ing of Section 2 (2) of the Act.'
The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning
of the Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent
certain employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the
representation of employees of the Employer within the
meaning of Section 9 ( c) (1) and Section 2 ( 6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner requests a single unit of office clerical
and plant clerical employees ; in the alternative it would repre-
sent each category in a separate unit. The Employer contends
that a single unit of office and plant clericals is inappropriate
but apparently does not oppose separate units of these em-
ployees; it further requests that certain employees be excluded
as confidential or supervisory employees from any of the units
eventually established.
The office clericals perform customary office duties in
various administrative departments , such as the accounting,
purchasing , and property departments, or serve as secretaries
to the company officers . There is no dispute that they are
entitled to a unit separate from the production employees.
The plant clericals here involved are a shipping and receiving
clerk, a tool crib clerk , a stockroom supervisor , and two stock-
room clerks . The record shows clearly that their work is
closely related to that of the production employees , that they
work in the production area, that they work different hours
from the office clericals and that they are not interchanged
1 American Cable and Radio Corporation , 101 NLRB 1750.
706 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
with the latter . In accordance with established Board policy,
we will not include both office and plant clerical employees in
a single bargaining unit, but we shall establish a separate unit
for each group!
The Employer contends that Frances Berglund , secretary
to Cayey, purchasing agent, is a confidential employee. The
record does not show that Cayey formulates labor relations
policies . Berglund ' s asserted confidential status is based on
the fact that on occasion she takes dictation from the plant
manager, Joslyn , when his secretary , a confidential employee
excluded by stipulation , is absent . The record does not show
how frequently Berglund substitutes for Joslyn 's secretary
nor whether , when so substituting , she handles any labor
relations matters . We believe that this evidence is insufficient
to warrant a finding that Berglund is a confidential employee
within the Board ' s usual definition of the term .' We shall
therefore include her in the office clerical unit.
The Employer would also exclude Duane Hill as a supervisor.
Hill is the shipping and receiving clerk and is now being
assisted by a laborer; the helper is not supervised by Hill but
by the labor foreman . Hill has no power to hire or discharge
his assistant , nor effectively to recommend such action. The
Employer intends to assign another permanent assistant to
Hill, when production operations have reached the planned peak;
however, the extent of Hill's anticipated supervision over a
future assistant has not yet been decided . In these circumstances
we find that Hill is not a supervisor, and we shall include him
in the plant clerical unit.
The Employer further contends that James Herbert should
be excluded as a supervisor. Herbert is carried on the Em-
ployer's records as stockroom supervisor . He assigns two
stockroom clerks to their work and regularly directs, in-
structs, and advises them. The record shows further that he
can effectively recommend the hire, discharge , transfer,
promotion , and demotion of these clerks , who have no other
immediate supervision . We find that Herbert is a supervisor
within the meaning of the Act, and we shall therefore exclude
him.
Accordingly , we find that the following employees of the
Employer constitute units appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of
the Act:
(a) All office clerical employees of the Employer at the
Twin Cities Arsenal plant at New Brighton , Minnesota, in-
cluding the secretary of the purchasing agent, but excluding
professional employees , technical employees, confidential
employees , guards , and all supervisors as defined in the Act.
(b) All plant clerical employees of the Employer at the Twin
Cities Arsenal plant at New Brighton , Minnesota , including
2 Truscon Steel Company, 88 NLRB 331.
$Standard Brands Incorporated , 101 NLRB 1349.
SOUTHLAND PAPER MILLS, INC. 707
the shipping and receiving clerk, but excluding professional
employees, technical employees, guards, the stockroom super-
visor, and all other supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.]
SOUTHLAND PAPER MILLS, INC,' and LODGE 1808 , INTER-
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, AFL, Petitioner.
Case No. 16-RC-1295. June 22, 1953
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 John F. White,
hearing officer . The hearing officer's rulings made at the
hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby af-
firmed.2
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, Murdock, and
Peterson].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing of the National Labor Relations Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent
certain employees of the Employer.3
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the
representation of employees of the Employer within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner seeks to sever from the existing unit of
production and maintenance employees, a unit of painters,
painter helpers, and the painter leaderman. The Intervenor
challenges the appropriateness of the unit apparently on the
ground that the employees in question do not constitute a
skilled group of employees and on the further ground that there
is a contrary bargaining history on a broader basis. The Em-
ployer takes no position.
The Employer is engaged in the manufacture of newsprint
and paperboard products at its plant in Lufkin, Texas. Since
1940 it has bargained with the Intervenor fora unit of production
and maintenance employees including the employees whom the
Petitioner seeks to sever. There is no evidence that any labor
organization has heretofore sought to represent the painters
separately. However, it appears that, as the result of Board-
directed self-determination elections in 1945,4 and subsequent
iThe correct name of the Employer appears as stated above.
2 At the hearing the Petitioner moved to amend its petition so as to seek certification of a
separate and additional unit consisting of the furnace repair and installation man and helper.
We find, contrary to the Petitioner's contention, that the hearing officer properly sustained the
Intervenor's objection and denied the motion.
3International Brotherhood of Pulp, Sulphite and Paper Mill Workers, Local 401, was per-
mitted to intervene on the basis of its existing contractual interest.
4Southland Paper Mills, Inc., 60 NLRB 63.
105 NLRB No. 107.