G. C. McBride Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 8, 1954

110 N.L.R.B. 1255 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

G. C. McBRIDE COMPANY 1255
It is clear from the record, and we find, that the magnaflux and
betatron operators have a close community of interest with the Em-
ployer's production and maintenance employees, and that they may
be appropriately added to the existing unit represented by the Peti-
-tioner. Contrary to the Employer's contention, we do not perceive
any valid reason why two separate elections should be directed for
these employees who are not sought separately, but as part of an
existing production and maintenance unit. Accordingly, we shall
direct an election in the following voting group : All magnaflux and
betatron operators at the Employer's Eddystone, Pennsylvania, plant,
excluding all supervisors.
If a majority of the employees in the foregoing voting group vote
for the Petitioner, they will be taken to have indicated their desire
to be included in the existing unit of employees at the Employer's
Eddystone plant presently represented by the Petitioner, and the
Regional Director conducting the election is instructed to issue a
certification of the results of election to that effect.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
G . C. MCBRIDE COMPANY and WILSON I. S IIERROD, PETITIONER 1 and
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WARE-
HOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL No . 583, AFL. Case
No. 16-RD-120. December 8,1954
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 William H. Renkel,
Jr., hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing
are free from prejudical error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in quarrying and crushing of rock in
the State of Texas. During the 12-month period ending May 31,
1954, the Employer purchased $170,000 worth of materials in the State
of Texas and $28,000 worth of materials out of the State. During
the same period, the Employer's sales amounted to $419,259. Of
these sales , $220,000, or 53 percent, were made to the southern division
of the Santa Fe Railway System in the State of Texas. The sales
consisted of crushed rock or stone, used for track ballast and road
riprap. In addition, the Employer made sales of $135,000, or 32 per-
cent, to the Texas Highway Department and highway contractors;
$29,000, or 7 percent, to individual cities and counties; and $32,000,
1 The name of the Petitioner appears as amended at the hearing
110 NLRB No. 198.
1256 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
or 8 percent, to contractors performing highway or runway construc-
tion for the United States Engineers or Air Force bases.
As the Employer sold materials valued in excess of $200,000 to the
Santa Fe Railway System, we find that its operations fall within the
purview of our new jurisdictional standards. We do not view the ma-
terials furnished by this Employer to the railroad as being "directly
utilized" in the latter's business operations. The determinative vol-
ume test set out in the Jonesboro 2 decision and applicable to this case
is the $200,000 figure.
Ordinary application of our indirect outflow test for assertion of
jurisdiction would require that the operations of the within-the-State
customer of the Employer involved itself be encompassed in the span
of our jurisdictional standards. Clearly the railroad customer in this
case is a substantial and vital artery of interstate trade and com-
merce. Because of an expressed provision of the statute which we
administer, we are without power to assert jurisdiction over its op-
erations.' However, we deem it significant and therefore controlling
in this case, that the Congress was sufficiently concerned with the op-
eration of railroads to bring them within the scope of Federal regu-
lation by separate statute-the Railway Labor Act.
Accordingly, on the foregoing facts, including the said sales to the
Santa Fe Railway System, we find that the Employer is engaged in
commerce within the meaning of the Act, and that it will effectuate the
policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. A 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 .4
4. We find, in agreement with the parties, that all production and
maintenance employees, including truckdrivers, employed by the Em-
ployer at its Brownwood, Texas, plant, excluding all supervisors as
defined by the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.'
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
2 Jonesboro Graan Drying Cooperative, 110 NLRB 481.
3 Section 2 (2).
4 The Petitioner asserts that the Union is no longer the representative of certain em-
ployees of the Employer, as defined in Section 9 (a) of the Act. The Union is a labor
organization recognized by the Employer as the exclusive bargaining representative for
the employees designated in the petition.
5 The parties agreed to the exclusion of Bush, an office manager, who acts as the Em-
ployer 's representative and performs confidential work for the Employer in the field of
labor relations . In accordance with the agreement of the parties , we shall exclude Bush
from the unit The record shows that since June 1952 , no other office clerical employees
have been in the Employer's employ.