Ready Mixed Concrete Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 8, 1954

110 N.L.R.B. 1251 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

READY MIXED CONCRETE COMPANY 1251
We find that the following employees of the Employer at its Farm-
all Works at Rock Island, Illinois, constitute a unit appropriate for
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of.Section 9 (b)
i,f< the Act :
All production and maintenance employees excluding salaried
employees, supervisory employees on hourly rates above the rank of
working group leaders, factory clerical employees, office clerical
employees, student executives, plant protection employees (except
production and maintenance employees who act as volunteer firemen),
patternmakers and patternmaker apprentices, employees of the elec-
trical department (department 58) including lamp cleaners, all
employees of the toolroom, department 27, machine repair, depart-
ment 57, and machine repair, department 19.
[Text of Direction of Election 8 omitted from publication.]
MEMBERS MURDOCK and BEESON took no part in the consideration
of the above Decision and Direction of Election.
s We find no merit in Intervenor 's contention that the designation of the UAW-CIO
local on the ballot as FE Local 109 will create confusion in the minds of the voters as
to the identity of the participants in the election Accordingly , the Petitioner shall
appear on the ballot as in the caption herein. See , International Harvester Company,
East Moline Works, footnote 4, supra.
READY MIXED CONCRETE COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD
OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF
AMERICA, CHAUFFEURS, TEAMSTERS AND HELPERS LOCAL No. 608,
A. F. L. Case No.1 7-RC-1 792. December 8,195,
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 Harry Irwig, hearing officer.
The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from preju-
dicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer, a Nebraska corporation, is engaged in the process-
ing and sale of ready-mixed concrete. During the year 1953, the
Employer made sales valued at approximately $1,219,000, approxi-
mately $344,000 of which went into building construction work at the
Lincoln Air Force Base, near Lincoln, Nebraska.'
Upon these facts, we find that the Employer is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the Act, and we further find, in accordance with
The Employer maintains , in addition to its main plant in Lincoln , a secondary plant
just outside the Lincoln Air Force Base to supply contractors at the Lincoln Air Force
Base.
110 NT,RB No. 202.
1252 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the jurisdictional standards recently established in Maytag Aircraft
Corp.,2 that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert juris-
diction herein.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section
9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. We find, in agreement with the parties, that all truckdrivers,
excluding all other employees, office clerical and professional employ-
ees, guards, the superintendent, dispatchers, and supervisors, consti-
tute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining with-
in the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
MEMBER MURDOCK , concurring :
I concur in the assertion of jurisdiction. While I would have
asserted jurisdiction under the old Hollow Tree standard 3 as well as
because the operations at Lincoln Air Force Base substantially affect
the national defense, and although I dissented from the establishment
of the new national defense standard in Maytag Aircraft,' I consider
myself bound by the decision of the majority therein.
I think it appropriate to point out, however, that in asserting juris-
diction under Maytag Aircraft, my colleagues necessarily either have
determined that the concrete furnished the Air Force base was sold by
the Employer pursuant to Government contract, or they have aban-
doned the requirement of the new Maytag standard that goods or
services directly related to national defense be provided "pursuant to
Government contracts (including subcontracts)." As the record here-
in discloses no evidence of such a contract, the public as well as Board
personnel including myself are left in doubt whether the Maytag
standard has been amended sub silentio so that no longer is it neces-
sary to have such contracts, or whether the standard is not to be uni-
formly applied by the Board.
Finally, while the concurrence of Member Peterson indicates that
the concrete supplied by the Employer would be considered to be
"directly utilized" in the products, processes, or services of interstate
s Maytag Aircraft Corp., 110 NLRB 594. In accord with the decision in Jonesboro
Grain Drying Cooperative, 110 NLRB 481, Member Peterson would also assert jurisdic-
tion because the Employer supplies materials which are directly utilized in the products,
services , or processes of interstate enterprises and are valued at more than $100,000.
Member Peterson considers himself bound by the jurisdictional standards set forth in
the majority opinions in the Maytag and Jonesboro cases.
3 Hollow Tree Lumber Company, 91 NLRB 635, modified by Jonesboro Grain Drying
Cooperative, 110 NLRB 481.
4 Maytag Aircraft Corp, 110 NLRB 594
GENERAL STEEL CASTINGS CORPORATION 1253
purchasers, under the Jonesboro "indirect outflow" standard, I note
that the majority have failed to make such declaration. The public
should be informed of the interpretation which my colleagues will
apply to this important phrase in the new jurisdictional standards.
,GENERAL STEEL CASTINGS CORPORATION and UNITED STEELWORKERS
OF AMERICA, CIO, ACTING ON BEHALF OF LOCAL 2323. Case
No. 4-RC-2502. December 8,1954
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 William Draper Lewis, Jr.,
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are
free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.'
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 em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section
9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Employer is engaged in the manufacture of steel castings
at its Eddystone, Pennsylvania, plant. The Petitioner seeks to add
the Employer's magnaflux and betatron operators to the production
and maintenance unit it now represents at this plant. The Employer
opposes the Petitioner's request that these employees be granted a
self-determination election, contending that these employees should
not be included in a production and maintenance unit.2 If, however,
the Board does not agree with its position, the Employer contends
that an election should be directed only in a unit of magnaflux oper-
ators. In the event, however, that the Board finds that both groups
of employees may be included in the production and maintenance unit,
the Employer asserts that separate elections should be directed for
each group of employees.
In 1942, the Petitioner was certified as bargaining representative
for the Employer's production and maintenance employees. In-
spectors were excluded from the bargaining unit by agreement of the
i At the hearing, the petition was amended to show the name of the Petitioner as it
appears in the caption.
2 The Employer did not state its basis for opposing the Petitioner's unit request other
than to assert that the requested employees should be excluded from a production and
maintenance unit.
110 NLRB No. 197.