Olinger Construction Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 2, 1960

129 N.L.R.B. 560 (N.L.R.B. 1960)

560 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
R. P. Olinger, Lee Ray Olinger , and Norbert E. Olinger,' Co-
partners , d/b/a Olinger Construction Company and Local 841
and Local 181, International Union of Operating Engineers,
AFL-CIO,' Petitioner. Case No. 05-RC-1901. November 2,
1960
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before a hearing offi-
cer of the National Labor Relations Board. The hearing officer's rul-
ings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby
affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Leedom and Members
Rodgers and Jenkins].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Boards finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the National Labor Relations Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent employees of
the Employer.
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Sections
9(c) (1) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act, f or the f ollowing reasons:
The Employer contends that the petition should be dismissed. The
Petitioner seeks a unit of operating engineers, equipment mechanics
and their helpers, oilers, and equipment servicemen of the Employer
employed in governmental work projects within the State of Indiana.
The Petitioner would exclude from such unit similar employees of the
Employer employed on farms and private construction jobs, and all
other employees, such as carpenters, laborers, gradecheckers, and truck-
drivers. These employees are currently unrepresented. The Em-
ployer is engaged principally in road and bridge construction and
maintenance. The employees sought operate and maintain power-
driven equipment used in construction, such as cranes, bulldozers, trac-
tors, dirt movers, graders, etc. Although the work done by these op-
cerators requires varying degrees of skill, some of which is not acquired
without two to four seasons on the jobs, the Board has held that such
employees do not constitute either a craft or departmental unit.' In
' The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing.
2 The Employer objected to the hearing officer ' s granting of the motion to join Local 181
with Local 841 which filed the petition Therein. However , in view of our dismissal of the
petition on the ground indicated below , the hearing officer ' s ruling is not prejudicial to
the Employer and we need not pass upon the issues raised by the objection thereto
8 See Lewis & Bowman, Inc , 109 NLRB 796 , 799 Although the Board granted a motion
for reconsideration in that case ( 109 NLRB 1194 ) and directed an election in a unit of
such employees, such decision was based upon other considerations , not present in the
instant case . Cf. Phelps -Dodge Corporation, 60 NLRB 1431, 1442
129 NLRB No. 67.
FAULHABER COMPANY 561
the circumstances, as the proposed unit does not include other em-
ployees of the Employer who are currently unrepresented, we find that
it is inappropriate, and we shall dismiss the petition herein.
[The Board dismissed the petition].
Faulhaber Company and International Brotherhood of Team-
sters, Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of America,
Teamsters Local No . 20. Case No. 8-CA-1960. November 3,
1960
DECISION AND ORDER
On June 22, 1960, Trial Examiner Leo F. Lightner issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Inter-
mediate Report attached hereto. The Trial Examiner also found that
the Respondent had not engaged in certain other unfair labor prac-
tices as alleged in the complaint, and recommended that these par-
ticular allegations be dismissed. Thereafter, the General Counsel and
the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and sup-
porting briefs.
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 [Members Rodgers, Jenkins, and Fanning].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in
this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations of the Trial Examiner.'
ORDER
Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
1 Respondent does not question the Trial Examiner's finding that it violated Section
8(a) (1) of the Act, but urges only that because this finding was based on a single act of
surveillance no order should issue . We disagree Surveillance of a group of employees
by taking motion pictures is not such conduct which is so limited or insignificant in its
effect that it can be regarded as of an isolated nature Respondent's reliance here upon
Acro Division , Robertshaw -Fulton Controls Company, 127 NLRB 64 , is misplaced . In that
case , no exceptions were filed to the Trial Examiner ' s Intermediate Report and Recom-
mended Order , and the Board merely adopted pro forma the Trial Examiner ' s recommenda-
tion that no remedial order issue.
129 NLRB No. '68.
586439-61-vol. 12 9-3 7