Fullana Construction Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 21, 1953

104 N.L.R.B. 1109 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

FULLANA CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. 1109
unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act:
All journeymen mechanics employed at the Employer's plant
at Ambridge, Pennsylvania, including mechanics' helpers,
mechanic apprentices, maintenance men, body and fender
mechanics, helpers and apprentices and their group leaders,
but excluding all office and clerical employees, salesmen,
service employees, parts department employees, washers,
lubrication men, janitors, towing employees, undercoating
employees, service station employees, guards, professional
employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed herein in
Case No. 6-RD-84, be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
FULLANA CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. (EXTENSION SAN
AGUSTIN PROJECT, RIO PIEDRAS) and UNION DE TRABA-
JADORES DE LA CONSTRUCTION Y RAMAS ANEXAS DE
PUERTO RICO, (UGT), Petitioner. Case No. 24-RC-542.
May 21, 1953
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Francisco
Romero, 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, Murdock, 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.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent
certain employees of the Employer.
3. No 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, for the
following reasons:
The Petitioner seeks the establishment of a bargaining unit
of the employees working in the Employer's construction
project called Extension San Agustin Project. The Employer
contends that an election 7l held on August 14, 1952, in a unit of
i That election was conducted by order of the Board in Fullana Construction Company,
24-RC-336, issued July 17, 1952.
104 NLRB No. 153.
283230 0 - 54 - 71
1110 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Employer's employees working in the San Agustin housing
development is, at this time, a bar to the election sought by
the Petitioner.'
The Employer is a general building and construction con-
tractor engaged in the construction of private housing develop-
ments, two of which are located near Rio Piedras, Puerto
Rico. The first project at this site, begun by the Employer in
October of 1951 and now substantially completed, is the San
Agustin housing development. In June of 1951 the Employer
began construction of a second group of homes on a tract of
land just south of the San Agustin housing development and
separated from it by a highway. It is among the employees
working in this second development, called Extension San
Agustin Project, that Petitioner now seeks a representation
election.
The records in this and the previous case involving the
Employer 3 indicate that these two developments constitute a
single unit for the purposes of collective bargaining. As indi-
cated above, the developments are adjacently situated. Although
they have been designated by different names and were sepa-
rately approved by the appropriate planning board, they have
been treated by the Employer as a single construction project.
Thus, the same equipment, offices, and warehouse have served
in the construction of both developments. Most of the employees
working in the original project were either transferred to the
southern project or were laid off the northern project when it
was completed and were later hired, if available, in the southern
project as construction progressed there. All supervisoryper-
sonnel and timekeepers were transferred from the north to the
south project. The Employer has maintained separate payrolls
for each project only for accounting purposes and carries both
on a single bank account.
The Decision and Direction of Election issued in the pre-
vious case4 designated as the appropriate unit, "Allconstruc-
tion and maintenance employees employed by the Employer at
its San Agustin housing development at Rio Piedras."
In view of the facts set forth above and the records in these
cases, we believe that the unit here petitioned for is not an
appropriate unit, but an accretion tothe unit in which the Board
ordered an election in the previous case . We find, therefore,
that the election held on August 14, 1952, is a bar to the elec-
tion sought in this proceeding, and we shall dismiss the petition
filed in the instant case.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition herein, be, and it
hereby is, dismissed.
2Section 9(c) (3) of the Act provides in part: "No election shall be directed in any bargaining
unit or any subdivision within which , in the preceding twelve - month period, a valid election
shall have been held."
3 The parties incorporated in this case the record in the previous case by stipulation.
4See footnote 1, above.