Queen City Railroad Construction, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 10, 1965

150 N.L.R.B. 1679 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

QUEEN CITY RAILROAD CONSTRUCTION, INC. 1679
Queen City Railroad Construction , Inc. and International Union
of District 50, United Mine Workers of America , Petitioner.
Case No. 10-RC-6150. February 10, 1965
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hearing was held before Hear-
ing Officer Maynard H. Jackson. The Hearing Officer's rulings
made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby
affirmed. Thereafter, a brief was filed by the Employer herein.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connec-
tion with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch
and Members Brown and Jenkins].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the.meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
3. Queen City Railroad Construction, Inc., the Employer, is
engaged in the construction and maintenance of railroad trackage
in the Southern United States. The Petitioner seeks to represent
all employees working out of the Employer's ' Atlanta, Georgia,
office. The Employer contends that no election should be held
because the employees sought are hired on a temporary basis at
individual jobsites and it therefore does not have a stable work
force. There is no prior history of collective bargaining for the
employees sought.
The Employer presently maintains an office in Atlanta, Georgia,
in addition to its main office in Cincinnati, Ohio. The Atlanta
office handles work on jobsites located in the States of Georgia,
Mississippi, South Carolina, Alabama, Tennessee, and Florida.
The payroll of employees working out of the Atlanta office has
ranged from as few as 10 to as many as 45 track laborers. At the
time of the hearing, the Employer had 2 projects in operation out
of its Atlanta office, employing approximately 34 track laborers.
Four new contracts were then being negotiated bby the Employer,
which is continuously bidding for additional jobs. Of the 34
laborers employed at the time of the hearing, approximately 20
had been working for the Employer continuously for the 3 months
preceding and 10 laborers had been employed continuously for the
6 months preceding the hearing. These track laborers are hired
at the jobsite and terminated at the completion of the project under
150 NLRB No. 167.
1680 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
contract. However, if there is work available when a particular job
is finished and the employee's work has been satisfactory, he will
be retained. Further, Thomas, the Employer's general manager and
vice president testified that although no former employee has a right
to be called for another job, the Employer prefers to hire former
employees, when available, if their past performance has been
satisfactory.
As it appears that the Employer has a nucleus of track laborers
who have been employed a substantial period of time during the
past year and who have a continuing interest in working conditions
in the unit, and as there is no indication that the Employer will
not continue to employ a substantial force of track laborers in the
future, we reject the Employer's contention that no election should
be held at this time.'
Accordingly, we find that a question affecting commerce exists
concerning the representation of certain employees of the Employer
within Section 9(c) (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The parties otherwise are in essential agreement, and we find
that the following employees of the Employer constitute a unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act: All employees working out
of the Employer's Atlanta, Georgia, office, including leadmen,2 but
excluding all office clerical employees, professional employees,
guards, and supervisors as defined by the Act.3
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
1 Daniel Construction Company, Inc ., 133 NLRB 264 ; and Trammell Construction Com-
pany, Ineorporated, 126 NLRB 1365
2 Contrary to the Petitioner , the Employer would exclude the two leadmen as super-
visors The leadinen have no authority to hire, discharge , discipline, or affect the status
of employees while it appears that leadmen may make recommendations , such recom-
mendations are subject to independent investigation by the job foreman The leadinen
work alongside the rest of the crew 75 percent of the time and, although they may, on
occasion, direct the work of employees, such direction of work appears to be ioutine in
nature The leadinen are not designated on the Employer ' s records as supervisors, and
they receive the same hourly wage rate and work under the same conditions of employ-
ment as the other laborers at the jobsite Unlike the foremen and like the other em-
ployees, the leadmen receive no paid holidays and vacations As the two leadmen do not
possess any of the statutory Indicia of supervisory authority , we shall include them in
the unit.
3 Although the Board has on occasion utilized special eligibility formulas in the con-
struction industry ( see Daniel Construction Company, Inc , supra ; Trammell Construc-
tion Company , Incorporated, supra ), the parties herein did not raise any eligibility issues
and the record contains insufficient evidence concerning the work history of employees
to permit a determination as to which employees , if any , who would be ineligible under
the Boaid ' s usual eligibility requirements should be permitted to vote in this election
Accordingly , although we have specified the usual eligibility requirements , we shall permit
former employees who do not qualify under these eligibility requirements to vote by
challenged ballot.