Interstate Granite Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 9, 1939

11 N.L.R.B. 1046 (N.L.R.B. 1939)

In the Matter Of INTERSTATE GRANITE CORPORATION and GRANITE
CUTTERS' INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA , CHARLOTTE
BRANCH
Cases Nos. C-445 and R-589.-Decided March 9,1939
Granite Products Manufacturing Industry-Interference, Restraint, or Coer-
cion: charges of, dismissed-Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining: all
granite cutters, carvers, surface-machine operators, carbo sawyers, lathe oper-
ators, sandblast operators, tool sharpeners, polishers, rotary and gang sawyers,
setters, dressers, letterers, and individuals who prepare and place necessary
composition, including foremen in categories ; interrelated duties ; no basis shown
for unit of only white employees-Employee Status: lease of department and in-
dividual employment "contracts" purporting to alter status for insurance pur-
poses, not controlling under Act ; granite cutters, carvers, surface-machine oper-
ators, and tool sharpeners in leased department not independent contractors but
employees under Act-Collective Bargaining: charges of failure, dismissed, upon
finding that union represented less than majority-Discrimination: charges of,
dismissed-Investigation of Representatives: controversy concerning representa-
tion of employees: employer's refusal to grant recognition of union; strike-
Election Ordered
Mr. Reeves R. Hilton , for the Board.
Mr. Frank K. Sims, Jr., and Mr. William Mason, of Charlotte, N. C.,
for the respondent.
Miss Edna Loeb, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
ORDER
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On September 24, 1937, Granite Cutters' International Association
of America, Charlotte Branch, herein called the Union, filed with the
Regional Director for the Fifth Region (Baltimore, Maryland) a pe-
tition alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen concern-
ing the representation of employees of Interstate Granite Corpora-
tion, Charlotte, North Carolina, herein called the respondent, and
requesting an investigation and certification of representatives pursu-
ant to Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449,
herein called the Act. On October 9, 1937, the Union filed with the
Regional Director charges alleging that the respondent had engaged in
11 N. L. R. B., No. 89.
1046
INTERSTATE GRANITE CORPORATION ET AL. 1047
and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within
the meaning of Section 8 (1), (3), and (5) and Section 2 (6) and (7)
of the Act.
On November 20, 1937, the Board, acting pursuant to Section 9 (c)
of the Act and Article III, Section 3, of National Labor Relations
Board Rules and Regulations-Series 1, as amended, ordered the Re-
gional Director to conduct an investigation and to provide for an
appropriate hearing upon due notice, and, acting pursuant to Article
II, Section 37 (b), and Article III, Section 10 (c) (2), of the Rules
and Regulations, further ordered that the representation proceeding
and the proceeding with respect to the alleged unfair labor practices
be consolidated for purposes of hearing, and that one record of the
hearing be made.
On December 2, 1937, the Board, by the Regional Director, issued its
complaint, alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was en-
gaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the mean-
ing of Section 8 (1), (3), and (5) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the
Act. Copies of the complaint and accompanying notice of hearing
were duly served upon the respondent and upon the Union.
With respect to the unfair labor practices the complaint alleged in
substance (1) that the respondent discharged M. B. Shell on or about
September 27, 1937, and thereafter refused to reinstate him because
of his union activities; (2) that the respondent refused during the
month of August 1937, and still refuses to bargain collectively with
the Union as the duly authorized representative of the respondent's
employees in the appropriate bargaining unit; and (3) that the re-
spondent by such acts and by other acts interfered with, restrained,
and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act.
On December 10, 1937, the respondent filed its answer in which it
admitted the allegations of the complaint relating to the nature and
scope of its business but argued that the Board had no jurisdiction over
it or its employees engaged in the manufacture and preparation of its
products for sale, and that the Act, if construed to give the Board
jurisdiction over these operations of the respondent, was unconstitu-
tional ; -alleged that since August 31, 1937, it had not engaged in the
cutting of granite, and had not employed any granite cutters, carvers,
surface-machine operators, or tool sharpeners; and denied the other
material allegations of the complaint.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held in Charlotte, North Caro-
lina, on December 13, 14, and 15, 1937, before Lawrence J. Kosters,
the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board. The Board and
the respondent appeared by counsel, the Union by a representative,
and all participated in the hearing. At the commencement of the
1048 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
hearing, counsel for the respondent entered a special appearance for
the purpose of moving to dismiss the complaint and the entire pro-
ceeding on the ground that the Board did not have jurisdiction over
the respondent, as set forth in its answer. The Trial Examiner re-
served decision upon the motion. Following the introduction of a
stipulation of facts concerning the respondent's business, the motion
was denied by the Trial Examiner and the respondent entered a gen-
eral appearance reserving its rights under the said special appearance.
Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses,
and to introduce evidence bearing. upon the issues was afforded all
parties. During the course of the hearing counsel for the Board and
counsel for the respondent moved that the pleadings be amended to
conform with the proof. The Trial Examiner granted these motions.
At the conclusion of the Board's case and again at the end of the
hearing counsel for the respondent moved to dismiss the complaint
on the ground that the evidence adduced did not substantiate the alle-
gations of the complaint, and also moved to dismiss the petition. The
Trial Examiner denied these motions.
On February 3, 1938, the Trial Examiner filed his Intermediate
Report in which he found that the respondent had engaged in and
was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the
Act, and further found that the respondent had not engaged in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (5) of the Act. The
respondent thereafter filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and
to various rulings of the Trial Examiner, and also filed a brief. For
reasons hereinafter discussed the Board hereby reverses the ruling of
the Trial Examiner denying the respondent's motion to dismiss the
complaint on the ground that the evidence did not substantiate the
allegations therein. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial
Examiner on other motions and on objections to the admission of
evidence and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has also considered the ex-
ceptions to the Intermediate Report. As indicated by our findings,
conclusions of law, and order set forth below, we sustain the excep-
tions to the findings of the Trial Examiner that the respondent
engaged in unfair labor practices.
Upon the entire record in the consolidated cases, the Board makes
the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Interstate Granite Corporation is a North Carolina corporation en-
gaged in the manufacture and distribution of granite monuments on
INTERSTATE GRANITE CORPORATION ET AL. 1049
a wholesale basis. It operates a plant in Charlotte, North Carolina,
where it employs approximately 55 workers. The principal raw
material used by the respondent is granite. Approximately 95 per
cent of the granite and most of the equipment purchased by the re-
spondent are shipped to its plant from points outside North Carolina.
From January 1 to December 1, 1937, the total value of the respond-
ent's products was $155,533.24. Approximately 75 per cent of the
finished products are shipped to customers outside North Carolina.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Granite Cutters' International Association of America, Charlotte
Branch, is a labor organization affiliated with the American Federa-
tion of Labor, admitting to its membership white employees of the
respondent.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The background
The Union first started an organizational campaign in Charlotte,
North Carolina, in the spring of 1935 before the effective date of the
Act. Officers were elected and two granite cutters in the respondent's
employ became the Union's president and secretary. In March 1935
the respondent discharged the two employees expressly because of
their union activities, and reinstated them on the condition that they
withdraw from the Union. The discharges destroyed the Union's
morale and put an end to its organizational activities for a period
of 2 years.
In August 1937 interest in the Union was revived and on August
19 the Union secured a branch charter. A new membership campaign
was begun, and by August 31 a number of the respondent's employees
had signed cards designating the Union as their representative for
purposes of collective bargaining.
B. The alleged refusal to bargain
1. The appropriate unit
The complaint alleges that the granite cutters, carvers, surface-
machine operators, carbo sawyers, lathe operators, sandblast oper-
ators, tool sharpeners, polishers, and rotary and gang sawyers, em-
ployed at the respondent's plant, constitute a unit appropriate for
the purposes of collective bargaining. These classes of employees are
eligible to membership in the Union. In its answer the respondent,
upon information and belief, admitted the propriety of the above unit.
1 George Wrenn and O. K. Helms.
1050 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Union contends that only the white employees in the cate-
gories listed in the complaint constitute the appropriate bargaining
unit. Although the Union does not admit negroes to membership,
it has presented no argument that would support their exclusion
from the appropriate unit. Furthermore, no evidence is found in
the record of any differentiation in function which would constitute
a basis for such exclusion. Accordingly, we find that no such limi-
tation upon the unit would be justified.2
In the respondent's process of manufacture, rough stone blocks
from the quarry are first taken to the sawing department where
gang sawyers cut them into slabs representing the size of monuments
to be manufactured. Some of the stone has to be polished and
accordingly goes from the gang saws to the polishing department.
The cutting-department workers then break the slabs into the neces-
sary sizes and cut them in various designs. The partially completed
monuments are next taken to the carving and lettering department
where they are inscribed with the desired patterns and lettering by
means of sandblasting. The last step in the process is the delivery
of the monuments to the shipping department where they are dressed
and finished, and then crated for shipment from the plant.
It is apparent that the employees working upon the stone in the
sawing, polishing, cutting, and carving and lettering departments
and in the dressing and finishing section of the shipping department
have interrelated duties upon which the finishing of the monuments
depends. Some of these employees, however, namely, setters, dressers,
and letterers, are not included within the unit which the complaint
alleges to be appropriate.
The function of setters or bed setters is to level slabs of stone,
set them up securely, build plank beds around them, and then
plaster them. The slabs are ruined if they are not exactly level
when set. The bed setters also relieve the polishers and operate the
polishing mills. Letterers spread liquid rubber on the stone and
cut or lay out in the rubber the designs and lettering desired upon
the finished monument. They then apply the sandblast machine to
the stone where the rubber has been cut away and the specified de-
signs are produced. A dresser receives the finished stone, washes it
with acid, and "dresses" it with the sandblast machine. The record
demonstrates that skill is required for each of the above operations.
We find, moreover, that these workers fall within the Union's juris-
4 Matter of American Tobacco Company , Incorporated, Richmond Smoking Branch and
Committee for Industrial Organization, Local No. 472 , 9 N. L. R . B. 579; Matter of
Floyd A. Fridell, individually and trading as Carolina Marble & Granite Works and Gran-
ite Cutters ' International Association of America , Charlotte Branch, 11 N. L R. B 249.
INTERSTATE GRANITE CORPORATION ET AL. - 1051
diction, as defined in its international constitution,3 and are therefore
eligible to its membership. According to the said constitution, the
Union's jurisdiction also embraces the "work of prepaying and
placing of composition necessary." We shall include in the unit
setters, dressers, letterers, and employees who do the work of pre-
paring and placing necessary composition.
It appears, moreover, that the Union desires to represent, and that
its membership is open to, such foremen as are properly classified,
by reason of their work, in any of the above categories of eligible
employees. The respondent does not request the exclusion of such
foremen from the unit. There is, therefore, no reason why the
desires of the labor organization should not be determinative, and
we shall include such foremen in the bargaining unit.
A question has arisen concerning the inclusion in the bargaining
unit of H. J. von Harbin and W. (Will) S. Haines. Von Harbin
is a versatile employee who is capable of doing and does varied work
in several departments of the respondent's plant. He is employed
primarily, however, as a general repairman or master mechanic, and
spends from 50 to 75 per cent of his' time working in that capacity.
He is not paid by the hour as are most of the respondent's em-
ployees but earns a salary of $50 per week, the same salary earned
by a departmental foreman, who is not, apparently, the kind of fore-
man whom we have included in the unit. In view of the nature of
his duties and his rate of pay, we find that von Harbin is not prop-
erly classified in any of the categories of employees listed above.
We shall exclude him from the bargaining unit.
Haines is the respondent's only designer or draftsman and spends
about half his time in the designing office making diagrams or blue-
prints essential for the guidance of the cutters. He works during
the remainder of the time in the sandblast department, laying out
lettering in rubber in the manner described above. Since he devotes
so much of his time to the latter work, we find that his interests are
closely allied with those of the classes of employees named above, and
that for the purposes of this proceeding he is a letterer. Accordingly,
we shall include him in the unit.
There is one further question. Although the respondent in its
answer admits the propriety of the alleged bargaining unit, it claims
that since August 31, 1937, it has not operated its cutting department
or employed any cutting-department workers, namely, granite cut-
ters, carvers, surface-machine operators, or tool sharpeners. The
8 The Union "claims the right of jurisdiction over cutting , carving , dressing, lettering and
all metal lettering , sandblasting , sawing and setting all granite ( natural and artificial)
and hard stone on which granite cutters ' tools are used. This includes . . . polishing or
dressing . .
1052 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
respondent introduced evidence that on the latter date the said work-
ers were laid off and that for approximately 3 weeks the department
was closed for repairs. During the shut-down the respondent exe-
cuted in favor of S. T. Efird, cutting-department foreman, a written
lease of its entire cutting and finishing department, including the
use of all machinery, equipment, and tools, and agreed to furnish
motive power for its operation. Under the lease Efird inaugurated
a system of bids and individual contracts with the workers under his
supervision. It is upon the basis of these changes that the respondent
rests its contention that the cutting-department workers are no
longer its employees, within the meaning of the Act, but are now
independent contractors.
The respondent and Efird claim that the entire arrangement was
consummated for the purpose of avoiding payment of workmen's
compensation premiums which were so substantial that they rendered
unprofitable the operation of the cutting department. Without de-
ciding whether or not the respondent and Efird have accomplished
the alleged purpose by resorting to these devices, we are of the opin-
ion that the lease and the course of practice thereunder have not
altered the relationship existing between the respondent, Efird, and
the workers in the cutting department, within the meaning of the
Act.4 Efird is required to pay no rent for the use of the valuable
property leased. The cutting and finishing work essential to the
respondent's business is done in the leased department as before, but,
by the terms of an agreement embodied in the lease, such work is now
attended by a series of bookkeeping transactions. The respondent
sells stone to Efird; the latter has it cut and finished according to the
respondent's specifications; and the respondent then repurchases it for
the same price, plus a stated 25 per cent of the ultimate sale price of
the finished monument. No money passes upon the occasion of these
alleged sales, and despite the provision for his compensation upon a
percentage basis, Efird continues to receive only $50 per week, his
salary as foreman. Furthermore, he continues to perform the func-
tions of a foreman under virtually the same supervision and control
of the respondent. The respondent has continued through Efird to
direct personnel policy in the department. This is clearly shown by
the fact that substantially the same crew has been retained at the
respondent's express request. There is evidence, moreover, of an
interchange of workers. At the respondent's direction, individuals
admittedly employed by the respondent in other departments of the
plant perform work in the leased department. The respondent also
exercises supervision- over the quality of,work done in the department
4 Matter of Seattle Post -Intelhgencer Department of Hearst Publications , Inc and
Seattle Newspaper Guild, Local No 82, 9 N. L. R B 1262.
INTERSTATE GRANITE CORPORATION ET AL . 1053
and calls defects to Efird's attention. Furthermore, the respondent
has continued to pay the wages of Efird's crew, directly during the
first few weeks after the reopening, but now indirectly, charging such
wages against Efird's alleged accumulated profits, which are recorded
in a separate set of books which the respondent keeps for him.
Before the shut-down of the cutting department the employees
worked regularly at an hourly rate of pay. Since its reopening they
are working under what appears to be a variation of the piece-work
employment system. Each worker submits a bid to Efird stating
the sum of money which he will accept for cutting or finishing an
individual piece of stone. If Efird approves the bid, he and the
worker enter into a "contract" for the performance of such work.
This "contract" is not reduced to writing, but the agreed price is
merely set down upon the card which is kept for each piece of stone.
Despite the contention that by virtue of these individual contracts the
workers are independent contractors and no longer employees, within
the meaning of the Act, we are satisfied that the character of their
work, the functional relationship thereof to the respondent's business,
and the extent of the respondent's supervision and control over such
workers are essentially the same as those which prevailed prior to
August 31. Accordingly, we find that the said cutting and finishing
department workers, listed in the respondent's answer as granite
cutters, carvers, surface-machine operators, and tool sharpeners, are
employees of the respondent, within the meaning of Section 2 (3)
of the Act.,
We find that all the granite cutters, carvers, surface-machine op-
erators, carbo sawyers, lathe operators, sandblast operators, tool
sharpeners, polishers, rotary and gang sawyers, setters, dressers, let-
terers, and individuals who prepare and place necessary composition,
employed by the respondent, including foremen who fall in the above
categories, and including the granite cutters, carvers, surface-machine
operators, and tool sharpeners who work in the cutting and finishing
department, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collec-
tive bargaining, and that said unit will insure to such employees the
full benefit of their right to self-organization and to collective bar-
gaining and otherwise effectuate the policies of the Act.
2. Representation of the Union in the appropriate unit
The respondent's pay roll for the week ending August 31, 1937,
the date of the shut-down, contains the names of 58 employees. The
record does not indicate the exact number of employees in the appro-
5 Matter of Seattle Post-Intelligencer Department of Hearst Publications , Inc. and
Seattle Newspaper Guild, Local No. 82, 9 N L. R B. 1262
1054 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
priate unit, but it is clear that the said unit includes more than 30
individuals. Of the 16 membership cards of the Union which were
introduced into evidence, only 14 correspond with the names upon
the pay roll. We find that the evidence does not establish that the
Union at any time represented a majority of the employees in the
appropriate unit. We shall, therefore, dismiss the complaint in so
far as it alleges that the respondent has engaged in unfair labor prac-
tices within the meaning of Section 8 (5) of the Act.
C. The discharge of M. B. Shell
M. B. Shell worked for the respondent for approximately 19 months
as a granite cutter. He joined the Union in August 1937 and was
a member of its bargaining committee which met with the respondent
on August 31 and on several occasions thereafter in an attempt to
bargain collectively in behalf of the employees. He was laid off by
the respondent on August 31 when the cutting department was closed
for repairs. On the day preceding the reopening of the department,
Shell asked Efird for work and was told by the latter of the new
system of employment. Although Shell was at first reluctant to work
under such an arrangement, he accepted employment on September 23
and worked for 2 days upon a monument scheduled for rush ship-
ment on Monday, September 27. Illness prevented him from report-
ing to his job on the latter date, and it was therefore necessary for his
work to be completed by another cutter. When Shell returned to the
plant on September 28, Efird told him that because of a lack of stone
broken up for cutting," there was no work immediately available to
him. Shell testified that Efird promised to let him know when more
work was available but failed to do so. According to Efird's testi-
mony, however, Shell was told to return to work the following day
but did not return. In view of all the evidence, we find Efird's testi-
mony worthy of credence.
On October 4 the bargaining committee of the Union visited R. E.
Scoggins, president of the respondent, and requested Shell's rein-
statement. Scoggins stated that he employed no cutters and referred
the committee to Efird. On the same date the Union authorized a
strike, primarily because of its fruitless efforts to bargain collectively
with the respondent. As a result of the strike the plant was closed
on October 5 and 6. On October 5 the union committee conferred
with Efird and Sims, his attorney,' and asked that Shell be reinstated.
Efird stated that Shell had not been discharged but only laid off, and
Although Shell was the first worker to be laid off for such cause following the execu-
tion of the lease, it appears that since that time from four to six individuals have suffered
like lay-offs.
' Sims, as noted above, was also one of the respondent's attorneys at the hearing.
INTERSTATE GRANITE CORPORATION ET AL. 1055
although he refused to reinstate Shell with back pay, as requested,
Efird told the committee that he was willing to give Shell contract
work on the following day. Shell did not take advantage of this
offer, however, because of the strike which was then in progress. By
October 7 or 8 the strike had been abandoned and with the exception
of Shell and one other union member, all the employees had returned
to their jobs. On the night of October 7 Efird by telephone asked
Shell to report for work on October 8. According to Shell's testi-
mony, he told Efird that he did not want any more contract work and
further, that he had no desire to be a strikebreaker. Efird denied
that Shell said anything regarding strikebreaking and testified that
the latter agreed to accept his offer of a job. Regardless , however,
of what was actually said , Shell did not return to work with his fellow
employees on October 8 or at any time thereafter.8
On this record we find that Shell was not discharged or refused
reinstatement by the respondent because of his membership in the
Union and his activities in its behalf. We shall accordingly dis-
miss the allegations of the complaint in so far as they relate to
Shell..
IV. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
On August 31, 1937, and on several occasions thereafter, the Union
requested the respondent to bargain collectively with it, claiming
to represent a majority of the respondent's employees. The re-
spondent refused to bargain with the Union and raised questions
regarding the appropriate unit in view of the lease and agreement,
and also regarding the Union's representation of a majority of the
employees in such unit. The Union and the respondent were unable
to resolve these questions informally or to come to any agreement
concerning them. The Union therefore authorized a strike on Oc-
tober 4, 1937, as set out in Section III C above.
We find that a question has arisen concerning representation of
employees of the respondent.
V. THE EFFECT OF THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION UPON
COMMERCE
We find that the question concerning representation which has
arisen, occurring in connection with the operations of the respondent
described in Section I above, has a close, intimate, and substantial
relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States,
8 On November 9, 1937, Shell secured a permanent position with Southeast Granite Com-
pany, Elberton , Georgia, at substantially higher wages than he had earned either before
or after the execution of the lease.
1056 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and has led and tends to lead to labor disputes burdening and ob-
structing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
VI. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
The question which has arisen concerning the representation of
employees within the appropriate unit can best be resolved by the
holding of an election by secret ballot:
Because of the length of time which has elapsed between the
hearing and this Direction of Election, we shall direct that the em-
ployees eligible to vote shall be those employees within the appro-
priate unit who were employed during the pay-roll period imme-
diately preceding the date of this Direction of Election. We do not
intend thereby to exclude from voting persons who have been tem-
porarily laid off between the time of the hearing and the time of
the election, as distinguished from persons who have quit or been
discharged without discrimination within the meaning of the Act.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire
record in the case, the Board makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The operations and business of the respondent constitute a con-
tinuous flow of trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States,
within the meaning of Section 2 (6) of the Act.
2. Granite Cutters' International Association of America, Char-
lotte Branch, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, is a
labor organization, within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
3. The respondent has not refused to bargain collectively with the
representatives of its employees, thereby engaging in an unfair labor
practice, within the meaning of Section 8 (5) of the Act.
4. The respondent has not discriminated in regard to the hire or
tenure of employment of M. B. Shell, thereby discouraging member-
ship in a labor organization and engaging in an unfair labor prac-
tice, within the meaning of Section 8 (3) of the Act.
5. The respondent has not interfered with, restrained, or coerced
its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7
of the Act, thereby engaging in an unfair labor practice, within the
meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act.
6. A question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the repre-
sentation of employees of Interstate Granite Corporation, Charlotte,
North Carolina, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section
2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
7. All the granite cutters, carvers, surface-machine operators, carbo
sawyers, lathe operators, sandblast operators, tool sharpeners, polish-
INTERSTATE GRANITE CORPORATION ET AL . 1057
ers, rotary and gang sawyers, setters, dressers, letterers, and individ-
uals who prepare and place necessary composition, employed by the
respondent, including foremen who fall in the above categories, and
including the granite cutters, carvers, surface-machine operators, and
tool sharpeners who work in the cutting and finishing department,
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargain-
ing, within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of
law, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations
Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the
complaint against Interstate Granite Corporation, Charlotte, North
Carolina, be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National
Labor Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, and pursuant to Article III, Sections 8
and 9, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-
Series 1, as amended, it is hereby
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation authorized by the Board
to ascertain representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining
with Interstate Granite Corporation, Charlotte, North Carolina, an
election by secret ballot shall be conducted within fifteen (15) days
from the date of this Direction, under the direction and supervision
of the Regional Director for the Fifth Region, acting in this matter
as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject to
Article III, Section 9, of said Rules and Regulations, among all the
granite cutters, carvers, surface-machine operators, carbo sawyers,
lathe operators, sandblast operators, tool sharpeners, polishers, rotary
and gang sawyers, setters, dressers, letterers, and individuals who
prepare and place necessary composition, employed by the respond-
ent during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of the
issuance of this Direction, including foremen who fall in the above
categories, and including the granite cutters, carvers, surface-machine
operators, and tool sharpeners who work in the cutting and finishing
department, to determine whether or not they desire to be represented
by Granite Cutters' International Association of America, Charlotte
Branch, for the purposes of collective bargaining.
MR. DONALD WAKEFIELD SMiTir took no part in the consideration
of the above Decision, Order, and Direction of Election.