Holt Bros.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 17, 1964

146 N.L.R.B. 383 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

HOIIP BROS. 383
main location at Hallandale have sufficient community of interest to
warrant their inclusion in the same appropriate unit. `However, in
view of the transitory nature of the road construction work and the
mobility and interchange of employees working on' such projects, and
the fact that the Petitioner does not desire to include all road con-
struction employees, we are unable to agree with the Regional Di-
rector's inclusion of only those road construction employees who may
at some time fortuitously work in Dade and Broward Counties and
instead shall exclude all employees working on road construction and
paving.
Accordingly, with respect to unit No. 1, we find that the following
employees constitute an appropriate unit for purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act :
All service, maintenance, and quarry employees of Curcie Brothers,
Inc., Crucie Brothers Trucking, Inc., and Beach Boulevard 'Service,
Inc., working at and out of their plant at 3190 Hallandale Beach
Boulevard, Hallandale, Florida, including truckdrivers, but exclud-
ing employees working at road construction and paving projects, em-
ployees at the LaBelle rock pit in Hendry County, office clerical em-
ployee, professional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in
the Act.
The case is hereby remanded to the Regional Director for the
Twelfth Region for the purpose of conducting an election in unit
No. 1, as modified herein, except that the eligibility period shall be
the payroll period immediately preceding the date below.
Holt Bros. and Operating Engineers, Local No. 3, International
Union of Operating Engineers , AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case
No. 20-RC-5596. March 17, 1964
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 Hearing Officer Elizabeth,
M.. Bianchi of the National Labor Relations Board. The Hearing
Officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial- error
and are hereby affirmed. ,
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds,:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act and it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert juris-
diction herein.
140 NLRB No., 45. ..
744-670-66-vol . 146-26
384 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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 certain employees of the Employer with the meaning of Sec-
tion 9(c) (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
A. The parties, stipulated, and, we find,. that all production and
maintenance employees, field and shop mechanics, their helpers and
apprentices, and partsmen working in and out of the Employer's
shops in Stockton, Modesto, Tracy, Merced, and Los Banos, Califor-
nia, excluding office and plant clerical employees, salesmen, profes-
sional employees,, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act, con-
stitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
5. The Employer contends that no election should be directed at
this time because of pending unfair labor practice charges filed by
the Employer against the Petitioner alleging that the Petitioner had
violated' Section 8 (e) of the Act by entering into .a contract with an
employer association requiring that the terms,of the contract apply
to subcontractors performing work off the jobsite, and granting im-
munity to employees who refuse to cross picket lines without regard
to whether the strike has been ratified by the bargaining representa-
tive of the striking employees.
As stated by * the Employer, the Board does. not normally conduct
represento,tion elections while unresolved unfair labor practice charges
are pending, unless the charging party requests the Board to proceed
with the election.' But this rule was formulated in cases involving
charges alleging violations of Section-8(a) and (b) of the Act, where,
if the charges were true, a free election could not normally be held
because of the restraint and coercion of employees flowing from the
unfair labor practices. However, in contrast, a charge alleging a
violation of Section 8 (e), if true, would not necessarily restrain or
coerce employees and thus prevent-a fair election, because this section
of the Act deals only with terms of agreement between an employer
and a labor organization, regardless of whether it is publicized to
-employees. In the absence of any allegation that the Petitioner
sought to utilize the contract with the employer association to in-
fluence the employee choice of 'a bargaining representative, we do not
believe that the pendency of the instant charges will make a free
-election in this case impossible at the present time? Accordingly,
we shall direct an immediate election.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
Edward J . Schiachter Meat Co., Inc., 100 NLRB 1171 . But at. Columbia Pictures
'Corporation, et al., 81 NLRB 1313.
2 Cf. Superior Wood Products, Inc., 145 NLRB 782.