Edward Hines, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 20, 1950

90 N.L.R.B. 1140 (N.L.R.B. 1950)

III the Matter of EDWARD MINES, INC., EMPLOYER and NEW MEXICO
STATE COUNCIL OF LUMBER AND SAWMILL WORKERS,. AFL, PETI-
TIONER and TRUCKDRIV'ERS, CHAUFFEURS AND WAREHOUSEMEN AND
HELPERS, LOCAL 941, AFL, PETITIONER
Cases Nos, 33-RC-171 and 33-RC-182.-Decided July 20, 1950
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon separate petitions 1 duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Harry W.
Clayton, Jr., 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-mem-
ber panel [Members Reynolds, Murdock, and Styles].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer, at 'its place of business in El Paso, Texas, is
engaged in the purchase and sale of lumber and building materials
such as cement, composition roofing, doors, plywood, builders' hard-
ware, and paint. During the year 1949 the Employer's purchases of
merchandise totaled $806,206.09. Of these purchases, merchpidise
valued at $290,673.04 was shipped to the Employer from points out-
side the State of Texas. During the same period, the Employer's
sales totaled $980,270.09. About $73,580 of the products sold were
shipped to customers outside the State of Texas. We find, contrary
to the contention of the Employer, that the Employer is engaged in
commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Adt.2
. 2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent employees
of the Employer.
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section
9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, for the following
reasons:
New Mexico State Council of Lumber and Sawmill Workers, AFL,
herein referred to as "Council," seeks to represent the Employer's
I The above -numbered cases were consolidated by an order of the Regional Director dated
May 12, 1950.
3 Hattiesburg Lumber and Supply Company , 83 NLRB 501 ; Oettinger Limber Company,
81 NLRB 632.
90 NLRB No, 168. i
1140
EDWARD HINES, INC. 1141
maintenance employees, helpers, lumber handlers, unloaders, loaders,
checkers, and graders. Truck Drivers, Chauffeurs and Warehouse-
men and Helpers, Local 941, AFL, seeks to represent the Employer's
truck drivers and warehousemen. The Employer opposes both units
contending that only a single unit of all its employees is appropriate
for purposes of collective bargaining.
There are 13 employees involved in this proceeding, 5 of whom are
classified as truck drivers, 5 as helpers, and 3 as warehousemen.3 The
work performed by these 3 categories of employees is substantially the
same. The truck drivers spend about 50 percent of their time making
deliveries away from the plant. The remaining 50 percent of their time
is spent working in the plant loading and unloading lumber and other
materials, cleaning up, and performing miscellaneous other tasks.
Generally, a helper accompanies each truck driver on deliveries.
When in the plant the helpers do the same work as the truck drivers.
The warehousemen also spend most of their working time loading and
unloading materials and otherwise performing essentially the same
duties in the plant as the truck drivers and helpers. In addition, the
warehousemen are responsible for checking materials that are shipped
out of the plant to insure that the proper materials in the correct
amounts are placed on the trucks for delivery. This operation,
although important to the Employer's business, occupies only a small
portion of the warehousemen's working time.
It appears from the foregoing that all the employees involved in
these cases perform similar work under substantially identical condi-
tions of employment, and it does not appear that any of these employ-
ees have employment interests separate and different from the other.
Accordingly, we believe that an appropriate bargaining unit should
include all three categories of employees, namely, the truck drivers,
helpers, and warehousemen. Because neither of the units proposed by
the Petitioners is sufficiently inclusive we find that they are inappro-
priate. In view of the further. fact that neither Petitioner has made
an adequate showing of interest among the employees in the over-all
unit which we believe to be appropriate in this case, we shall not
direct an election among the employees in such unit, but shall dismiss
the petitions herein.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petitions herein be, and they hereby
are, dismissed.
s The unit requested by the Council does not conform to the job titles used by the Employer.
However, the record indicates that they seek to represent the warehousemen and helpers,
but not the truck drivers.