J. R. Reeves and A. Teichert & Sons, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 29, 1950

89 N.L.R.B. 54 (N.L.R.B. 1950)

In the Matter of J. R. RrEvrs AND A. TEICHERT & SONS, INC., Err-
PLOYERS and INTERNATIONAL AssocLATION Or MACIIINISTS, LOCAL
LODGE No. 33, PETITIONER
Case No. 00-RC-.576.-Decided March P,9,1950
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before Harry Ba,m-
ford, hearing officer . The hearing officer's rulings made at the hear-
ing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmned.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board finds:
1. The business of the Employers :
J. R. Reeves, an individual , hereinafter referred to as Reeves, is
a general 'contractor engaged in the construction of highways , roads,
streets, and railroads in the vicinity of Sacramento, California. His
principal offices are located in Sacramento , California, where he also
maintains a permanent repair shop. During the year 1948 , Reeves
purchased materials , consisting of lumber, cement, and iron, in the'
approximate amount of $400,000, all of which were obtained from
local sources . Reeves also purchased equipment consisting of tractors
and trucks having an approximate value of $100 ,000, of which 50
percent originated from outside the State. During the same period,
Reeves' income from his business totaled $1,400,000, almost all of,
which represents income from projects undertaken in the State of
California . Among these projects were the construction of the North
Sacramento Freeway which is on U. S. Highway 40 and certain con-
struction work for the Western Pacific Railroad . For these two 1_in-
dertakings above, Reeves received $500,000.
We find that the operations of Reeves affect commerce within
the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act; and moreover, as
Reeves ' activities include the construction of U. S. highways and rail-
roads which are essential to the flow of commerce among the States,
we find that it will effectuate the policies of the Act for the Board
to assert jurisdiction over Reeves ' operations.'
' Strong Company , 86 NLRB 687 ; Brown-Ely Co., 87 NLRB 27.
89 NLRB No. 1.
54
J. R. REEVES AND A. TEICHERT & SONS ', INC. 55
A. Teichert & Sons, Inc., hereinafter referred to as Teichert, is a
California corporation engaged principally in the construction of
highways, streets, roads, flood-control projects, and levees. It also
operates a rock, sand, and gravel plant. This plant as well as Teich-
ert's principal offices are located in the vicinity of Sacramento, Cali-
fornia. During the 5-month period beginning January 1, 1949, and
ending May 31, 1949, Teichert's income from construction contracts
totaled $2,300,000. The largest contracts were with the United States
Engineers Corps, from whom it received $930,000 for the construction
of flood-control projects in Los Angeles County. It also received
$112,000 for the construction of State highways. In addition, Teich-
ert has a substantial. interest in two out-of-State joint ventures with
other contractors, viz, a $7,000,000 dam in Oregon and a $20,000,000
darn in Nebraska. At the hearing, it was estimated that both proj-
ects will take 4 years to complete.
During the 5-month period afore-mentioned, Teichert's purchases
totaled $770,000, of which $160,000 represents purchases for equip-
ment, and the balance, purchases for materials. While both material
and equipment were obtained from local sources, over 50 percent of the
equipment originated from out-of-State points.
From the record as a whole, we find that Teichert is engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of the Act 3
2. The Petitioner and Operating Engineers, Local Union No. 3,
International Union of Operating Engineers, herein called the Inter-
venor, are labor organizations claiming to represent the employees
of the Employers.
3. We find that a question affecting commerce exists concerning
the representation of employees of the Employers, within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The appropriate unit :
The Petitioner seeks to combine into a single unit all the mechanics,
their helpers and apprentices employed by Reeves and Teichert at
their repair yards in and near Sacramento, California., including the
heavy-duty mechanics and heavy-duty welders. The Employers and
the Intervenor, while agreeing with the scope of the unit requested
by the Petitioner, contend that the heavy-duty mechanics and welders
should be excluded on the ground that they have a separate history of
collective bargaining apart from the other mechanics here sought.
In connection with their respective construction operations,, Reeves
and Teichert maintain repair yards where all the equipment and ma-
2 This equipment included Hi-Boy mixers, dump tractors and trailers , a Buckeye ditcher,
and steel forms.
3 Ozark Dam Constructors , 77 NLRB 1136.
56 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
chinery used in their contract projects are brought for general repair,
overhaul work, and storage. Reeves operates 1 repair yard in Sacra-
mento while Teichert operates 2 yards, 1 of which is located in Sacra-
mento on property adjoining its principal offices and is known as the
main yard, and the other of which is located 6 miles outside Sacra-
mento and is known as the Perkins yard. Each of these 3 yards has
its own supervisory force and complement of employees. The 3 yards
employ a total of approximately 25 mechanics of whom 10 are classi-
fied as heavy-duty mechanics and welders. Of these 10, 2 are attached
to the yard of Reeves, 2 to the Perkins yard of Teichert, and 6 to the
main yard of Teichert. These employees are engaged in the repair,
overhaul, and maintenance of heavy-duty equipment, such as tractors,
shovels, draglines, rollers, rooters, finishing and trenching machines.'
The remaining mechanics of Reeves and Teichert who are also here
sought, are responsible for the repair, overhaul, and maintenance of
automotive equipment, such as trucks, trailers, concrete truck mixers,
and oil spreaders.5 Except for the heavy-duty mechanics who are,
on occasion, assigned to field operations, all the mechanics here in-
volved perform their duties in the yards to which they are attached.e
Although the heavy-duty mechanics in each yard work in separate
shops, the evidence does not show and no claim is made by the Em-
ployers or the Intervenor that their duties require skills which are
notably different from those of the automotive mechanics.
For 8 years or more, the Intervenor has continuously served as
the bargaining agent of the heavy-duty 'mechanics and welders of the
two Employers, executing joint contracts on their behalf. During
this period, the automotive mechanics of the two Employers have
been represented by the Petitioner and their contracts have also been
joint. In their dealings with the two unions, both Reeves and
Teichert have been represented by two different employer associa-
tions, of which they are members. The association known as North-
ern and Central California Contractors Association, herein called
Northern, has represented the Employers in their negotiations with
the Intervenor, while the association known as Sacramento Valley
Associated Industries, herein called Sacramento, has represented
" The operators of this equipment have traditionally been represented by the Intervenor.
5 This equipment has traditionally been operated by members of the Teamsters Union.
6 It appears that as a general rule, the services of heavy-duty mechanics are not required
in the field operations of the two Employers unless there is a break -down of equipment
involving major repairs . Break-downs involving minor repairs as well as the general main-
tenance of equipment in the field are handled by the operators . However , on large field
projects located at a considerable distance from the repair yards, the Employers may, if
it is practicable , assign heavy-duty mechanics to the projects to be on hand for whatever
repair work becomes necessary or they may hire local mechanics for this purpose.
J. R. REEVES AND A. TEICHERT & SONS, INC. 57
the Employers in their negotiations with the Petitioner.' The collec-
tive bargaining agreements negotiated by these two associations have,
however, been signed by the Employers themselves. The last con-
tract between the Employers and the Intervenor terminated on June
15, 1949,8 while the last contract with the Petitioner terminated March
1, 1949.
The Petitioner's principal objective in this proceeding is to expand
the bargaining unit it has historically represented by adding the
heavy-duty mechanics and welders who have traditionally been rep-
resented by the Intervenor. In the alternative, the Petitioner desires
certification for the automotive mechanics. The Intervenor, on the
other hand, not only opposes a merger of the two historical groups,
but requests that its name be placed on the ballot in any election
ordered among the automotive mechanics.
As a general rule, where, as here, two historical bargaining groups
with common employment interests are sought to be merged into a
single unit by the bargaining representative of one of the groups,
the Board will, as a matter of policy, provide for a separate election
for the employees sought to be added to ascertain their desires on the
question.9 However, before directing such an election, the Board
must be administratively satisfied that the moving union has sufficient
representative interest among the employees in question."' In the
instant case, the Petitioner has failed to make the necessary showing
of interest among the heavy-duty mechanics and welders. Under
these circumstances, and because the Intervenor has not expressed
a desire for a certificate for the heavy-duty mechanics, we shall not
order an election to be held among this group of mechanics. As for
the automotive machanics for whom the Petitioner is seeking a cer-
tificate,ll the Intervenor has not made a showing of representation
among them. We shall therefore not place its name on the ballot in
the election hereinafter ordered.
We find that all the mechanics, their helpers and apprentices of
Reeves and Teichert employed at the three repair yards here involved,
excluding the heavy-duty mechanics and heavy-duty welders, all office
and clerical employees, guards, professional employees, and supervisors
7 Sacramento has also acted on behalf of the Employers in their dealings with the
Teamsters Union.
8 This contract by its terms, applied to "employees who perform work falling within
the work jurisdiction of the ( Intervenor)." This jurisdiction as recognized by the Em-
ployers and the Petitioner extended to heavy-duty mechanics and welders and to the
operators of the heavy-duty equipment. _
Q Goldberg Brothers Manufacturing Company, 81 NLRB 1037; Columbia Pictures Cor-
poration, 80 NLRB 1381 ; Petersen and Lytle,.00 NLRB 1070.
is Illinois Cities Water Company, 87 NLRB 109.
"General Box Company, 82 NLRB 078.
58 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purpose of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
purposes of collective bargaining with J. R. Reeves and A. Teichert
Sons, Inc., Sacramento, California, an election by secret ballot shall
be conducted as early as possible, but not later than 60 days from the
date of this Direction, under the direction and supervision of the
Regional . Director for the Region in which this case was heard, and
subject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62 of National Labor Relations
Board Rules and Regulations, among the employees in the unit found
appropriate in paragraph numbered 4, above, who were employed
during the payroll period immediately preceding the date of this
Direction of Election, including employees who did not work during
said payroll period because they were ill or on vacation or temporarily
laid off, but excluding those employees who have since quit or been
discharged for cause and have not been rehired or reinstated prior to
the date of the election, and also excluding employees on strike who
are not entitled to reinstatement, to determine whether or not they
desire to be represented, for collective bargaining purposes, by Inter-
national Association of Machinists, Local Lodge No. 33.
CIrAnn\rAN, HEnzoG and MEMBER STYLES took no part in the consider-
ation of the above Decision and Direction of Election.