ECM, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 30, 1982

264 N.L.R.B. 1077 (N.L.R.B. 1982)

ECM, INC
ECM, Inc. and Gulf Coast District Council of the
United Brotherhood of Carpenters, AFL-CIO,
Petitioner. Case 12-RC-6151
September 30, 1982
DECISION ON REVIEW, ORDER, AND
DIRECTION OF NEW ELECTION
BY CHAIRMAN VAN DE WATER AND
MEMBERS JENKINS AND ZIMMERMAN
On August 25, 1981, the Regional Director for
Region 12 issued a Decision and Direction of Elec-
tion in the above-entitled proceeding in which he
found appropriate a unit of approximately 40 em-
ployees employed by the Employer in Sarasota
County, Florida. Thereafter, in accordance with
Section 102.67 of the National Labor Relations
Board Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended,
the Employer filed a timely request for review of
the Regional Director's Decision on the grounds,
inter alia, that he made erroneous findings of fact
and departed from precedent. By telegraphic order
dated September 28, 1981, the request for review
was granted. Pursuant to the Board's procedures,
the election was held on September 25, 1981, in the
unit found appropriate and the ballots were im-
pounded pending the Board's decision on review.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the entire record in
this case with respect to the issues under review
and makes the following findings:
The Petitioner seeks to represent all carpenters
and carpenter apprentices employed by the Em-
ployer in Sarasota County, Florida. The Employer,
on the other hand, urges that the unit should in-
clude all employees employed at its Sarasota, Flor-
ida, jobsite. In the alternative, the Employer argues
that a unit confined to its five journeymen carpen-
ters who routinely perform traditional carpentry
functions would be appropriate. There are approxi-
mately 40 employees in the unit sought and ap-
proximately 129 employees overall.
The Employer is the general contractor which at
the time of the hearing was engaged on a project
known as the 888 Condos Project, which involves
the construction of two 18-story towers, two park-
ing garages, and several townhouses in Sarasota,
Florida. Construction on the project began in July
1980. Phase one of the project was expected to be
completed in December 1981 and phase two in
August 1982. At the date of the hearing, August
11, 1981, the Employer did not have any other
projects in Sarasota County.
264 NLRB No. 141
Although the Employer is the general contractor
on the project, it is primarily involved with the
completion of all concrete work. This includes
pouring all concrete, with the exception of the
slabs, and erecting all forming framework. The
pouring of the slabs and all interior and exterior
finishing work is subcontracted. That portion of
the construction work on the towers performed by
the Employer involves a three-step process. First
the mat or foundation is poured; then the columns
supporting the next elevation are extended: and, fi-
nally, the slab for the next elevation is poured and
put into place. The mat operation is an edge form
foundation involving a patent form system. These
forms are assembled by a composite crew of car-
penters and laborers.' The columns are set by
"crew laborers." Then, layout engineers, assisted
by a "crew carpenter," will plumb the columns,
making any adjustments to the forms which are
necessary. When the forms are properly in place,
the ground laborers will then pour the cement. The
next morning the forms are "stripped" or disman-
tled by the composite crews. These forms are then
lowered to the ground where they are oiled by the
ground laborers and raised to the next elevation
where they are reassembled by the composite
crews. This process is repeated until all elevations
are completed.
Of approximately 40 "carpenters" in the unit
sought, there are approximately 5 who perform
tasks similar to those traditionally performed by
journeymen carpenters. These five journeymen car-
penters are assigned work primarily on the parking
garages, under separate supervision. This work in-
volves the preparation of "free" forms, as distin-
guished from prefabricated forms used on the
towers, and requires more of the traditional craft
skills, including the ability to read blueprints.
While the Employer classifies its construction
employees as either carpenters or laborers, it is
clear from the record that there are four basic cate-
gories of employees performing basically three dif-
ferent functions. First, the five carpenters working
in the garage are required to have prior carpentry
experience when hired as their work requires the
construction of "free forms" and the use of some
skills which are traditional to the carpenter craft.
These are referred to in the record as "journey-
men" carpenters. There are approximately 35 other
employees classified as carpenters who work with
laborers, as part of several composite crews, assem-
bling and dismantling the prefabricated forms used
in the construction of the towers. There are an un-
i Hereinafter the term "crew" is utilized to designale those carpenters
and laborers who make up these composite crcas
10)77
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
disclosed number of laborers assigned to these
composite crews. 2 The main factor distinguishing
the "crew carpenters" from the "crew laborers" is
the Employer's assessment of their "smarts" based
on their employment applications and personal in-
terviews. Finally, there are an undisclosed number
of employees classified as laborers who perform all
the earth work, such as digging, cleaning up, pour-
ing cement, and performing miscellaneous manual
labor.
The 35 crew carpenters and an unknown number
of crew laborers work side by side 8 or 9 hours a
day assembling and dismantling prefabricated forms
used in the construction of the towers. Each em-
ployee within the crew, regardless of classification,
works as a team member doing whatever is re-
quired to get the forms in place for the concrete to
be poured. On the other hand, the five journeymen
carpenters are separately supervised, physically
separated from the crew carpenters by their in-
volvement in the garage construction and are en-
gaged in work which requires them to have, when
hired, prior carpentry experience. In sum, the
record indicates that the crew carpenters are not
skilled craftsmen and do not perform traditional
carpentry work. Moreover, their interests and
working conditions are more closely aligned with
those of the crew laborers and other laborers than
with the journeymen carpenters who admittedly
I The Employer employs approximately 90 employees in the broad
classification of laborer, but there is no numerical breakdown in the
record between those laborers working in crews and the other laborers
constitute a separate craft unit. Accordingly, we
find that a unit confined to five journeymen car-
penters is an appropriate unit for collective bar-
gaining, but not the larger, mixed unit found appro-
priate by the Regional Director. See Brown & Root,
Inc., 258 NLRB 1002 (1981); Sunray Ltd., 258
NLRB 426 (1981).
Inasmuch as the unit found appropriate is smaller
than the unit in which the election was conducted,
we shall order that the election conducted on Sep-
tember 25, 1981, be vacated and shall direct an
election in the unit found appropriate herein, as de-
scribed below:3
All journeymen carpenters employed by the
Employer in Sarasota County, Florida, exclud-
ing all crew carpenters, laborers, layout engi-
neers, office clerical employees, guards and su-
pervisors as defined in the Act.
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the election conducted
on September 25, 1981, be, and it hereby is, vacat-
ed.
[Direction of New Election and Excelsior foot-
note omitted from publication.]
3 As the unit found appropriate is substantially different from that re-
quested, the Petitioner is accorded a period of 10 days to submit the req-
uisite showing of interest to support an election. While the Petitioner at
the hearing expressed a willingness to proceed to an election in a broader
unit, if found appropriate, it was not asked and did not indicate whether
it wished to proceed to an election in the smaller unit. In the event the
Petitioner does not wish to proceed with an election as directed, it may
withdraw its petition without prejudice by notice to the Regional Direc-
tor within 7 days from the date of this Decision.
1078