Interstate Brick Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 2, 1950

91 N.L.R.B. 1428 (N.L.R.B. 1950)

In the Matter Of INTERSTATE BRICK COMPANY, EMPLOYER and CON-
STRUCTION AND GENERAL LABORERS LOCAL 79, INTERNATIONAL HOD
CARRIERS', BUILDING AND COMMON LABORERS' UNION OF AMERICA,
AFL, PETITIONER
Case No. 20-RC-1100.Decided November Q, 1950
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 David Karasick, 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 [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Reynolds].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged at Salt Lake City, Utah, in the man-
ufacture and sale of heavy clay products, brick, clay pipe, and tile.
During the fiscal year ending March 31, 1950, the Employer's pur-
chases were in excess of $400,000, of which a substantial part origi-
nated outside the State of Utah. During the same period, the Em-
ployer sold finished products valued at $1,000,000, of which between
$36,000 and $60,000 represented shipments to points located outside
the State.
We find that the Employer is engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing of the Act. We also find that, because the Employer's shipments
outside the State are in excess of $25,000, it will effectuate the policies
of the Act to assert jurisdiction.,'
2. The Petitioner and the Intervenor, Clay Workers Union No. 101,
are labor organizations claiming to represent employees of the Em-
ployer.
3. The question concerning representation :
The Employer contends that a 5-year contract between it and the
Intervenor is a bar to this proceeding. If this contention is rejected,
the Employer requests that the Board rule that the contract is binding
on any new representative which,may be chosen in an election.
1 Stanislaus Implement and Hardware Company , Limited, 91 NLRB 618.
91 NLRB No. 225.
1428
INTERSTATE BRICK COMPANY 1429
From 1939 to 1947 the Employer and the Intervenor executed a
series of annual collective bargaining contracts. On July 21, 1947,
they signed a 5-year agreement effective until February 1, 1952. It
is this. contract which the Employer contends is a bar.
The Board has frequently held that in the absence of a showing
of custom in the industry, a contract for more than 2 years is pre-
sumed to be unreasonable and therefore a bar to a representation peti-
tion only during the first 2 years of its existence. At the hearing in
this case there was no showing that 5-year contracts are customary in
the brickmaking industry in the Salt Lake City area. As the July
1947 contract has already been in effect for much more than 2 years,
we find therefore that it is not a bar to this proceeding?
We also deny the request of the Employer for a ruling that the exist-
ing contract is binding on any successor representative. It is not the
function of the Board, in a representation case, to pass upon the valid-
ity or legal effect of a contract after a new bargaining representative
has been selected.3
We find that a 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.
4. In accordance with an agreement of the parties, we find that the
following employees at the Employer's Salt Lake City, Utah, plant,
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargain-
ing within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act :
All production, maintenance, and distribution employees, including
the working foreman,4 but excluding salesmen, office and clerical em-
ployees, confidential employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
' Cushman 's Sons, Inc., 88 NLRB 121 ; Puritan Ice Company, 74 NLRB 1311.
Boston Machine Works Company , 89 NLRB 59.
The record shows that the working foreman is a production employee who possesses no
supervisory powers . We shall include him in the unit.