Vance & Thurmond General Contractors

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 7, 1966

161 N.L.R.B. 1602 (N.L.R.B. 1966)

1602 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
[Text of Direction of Election is omitted from publication.4 5]
* The Parties did not agree on any formula for determining eligibility to vote. The Em-
ployer took no position on the eligibility question while the Petitioner stated that it
"believe[d ] that as many laborers should vote as possible " and "that it would be best in
favor of leniency as to all employees to have worked for this employees [ sic] within the
prior year.". However, since the parties did not agree on any formula for determining
eligibility and since the evidence adduced at the hearings does not support a deviation
from our usual , eligibility requirements , eligibility will be determined by the usual payroll
period. R. B . Butler, Inc., 160 NLRB 1595.
s An election eligibility list, containing the names and addresses of all the eligible voters,
must be filed by the Employer with the Regional Director for Region 23 within 7 days after
the date of this Decision and Direction of Election . The Regional Director shall make the
list available to all parties to the election . No extension of time to file this list shall be
granted by the Regional Director except in extraordinary circumstances Failure to comply
with this requirement shall be grounds for setting aside the election whenever proper
objections are filed. Excelsior L nderwear Inc., 156 NLRB 1236.
Vance & Thurmond General Contractors i and Laborers Interna-
tional Union of North America, Local Union No . 18, AFL-CIO,
Petitioner . 'Case 23-RC-.619. ' December 7,1966
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of, the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended, hearings were held before John W.
Bowlin and Clayton Corley, Hearing Officers. The Hearing Officers'
rulings made at the hearings are free from prejudicial error and are
hereby affirmed. The Employer and Texas Highway-Heavy Branch
of the Associated General Contractors filed briefs in support of the
Employer's position. The Petitioner and Building and Construction
Trades Department, AFL-CIO, filed briefs in support of the Peti-
tioner's position.
Upon the entire record in this, case; 'the National Labor Relation's
Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act, and it will effectuate the purposes 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. In its petition, the Petitioner "requested an election hi a unit of
the Employer's employees working as laborers on construction jobs in
Bryan, Texas.2 The Employer contends that the unit is inappropriate.
3 The name of the Employer appears as amended at the first hearing.
2 During the first hearing, the Petitioner moved to amend its petition to include "all em-
ployees working as laborers on building and construction jobs in Bryan, Texas ." From the
record, it appears that the Petitioner was attempting to emphasize the building construc-
tion aspect of the work . For the reasons stated in R. B . Butler, 160 NLRB 1595, we
deny this motion.
161 NLRB No. 145.
VANCE & THURMOND GENERAL CONTRACTORS 1603
The Employer, a partnership with its principal office in Bryan,
Texas, is engaged in the construction industry as a general contrac-
tor. At the time of the second hearing, on September 27, 1966, it was
engaged in the construction of buildings in Bryan, Texas, and College
Station, Texas (about 5 miles from Bryan).
The Employer had in its employ at the time of the second hearing
10 carpenters, 1 carpenter apprentice, 14 laborers, and 3 truckdrivers.
The Employer's construction laborers perform heavy-duty manual
work such as site clearance, hand excavation, transportation of mate-
rials, cleanup work, and assistance in pouring of concrete., Laborers
also assist carpenters in their work when there, are no carpenter
apprentices employed on the job. Laborers are not required to have
any special skills or training. There is no difference in the work per-
formed by construction laborers in building construction and paving
wOrk.3
Carpenters employed by the Employer are journeymen and per-
form the usual duties of such craftsmen . Carpenter apprentices assist
carpenters in their work.
The requested employees work for the Employer on a j ob-to-job
basis' While working for the Employer, they may be transferred
from a building job to a paving , job and vice versa. Such transfers
may take place on a daily basis.
Construction laborers are paid considerably less than the Employ-
er's other employees. The Employer grants, a Christmas bonus to all
employees who happen to be in the Employer 's employ at that time of
the year.
The Employer asserts that it has no collective-bargaining agree-
ments with any labor organization . It admitted , however, that,
together with three other construction contractors in Bryan, it meets
with the local Carpenters Union' on a regular basis to establish the
wage rates to be paid to carpenter employees . Further, the Employer
uses the local Carpenters ' Union hiring hall to obtain its carpenter
employees.' The Employer also recruits some of its carpenter appren-
tices through',the local Carpenters Union.
The Employer contends that the requested, unit, is inappropriate
because "it is not co-extensive with any administrative subdivision of
8 At the time of the first hearing, the Employer had one paving project ; at the time of
the second hearing, this project had been completed.
* At the second hearing, the Employer 's general superintendent ( who is also one of its
partners ), stated that all of the Employer 's employees , including himself, were considered
to be nonpermanent employees. However, he admitted there were two construction laborer
employees who had been employed for more than 1 year. At the first'hearing, he stated
that the Employer had a group of five construction -laborer employees which ."stays with
us pretty well all year."
8 At the first hearing, the Employer denied that it hired its carpenters through the local
Carpenters Union hiring hall . However , at the second hearing, the Employer admitted that
it called "the [ local Carpenters Union ] business agent and ask[ed] him for men."
1604 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the company's operation" and does not "reflect any separate segment
of employees which manifest distinct lines of demarcation from the
remainder of the company's employees performing construction work
in Bryan, Texas." For the reasons stated in B. B. Butler, Inc., 160
NLRB 1595, we find the Employer's contentions to be without
merit. Accordingly, we find that the following employees constitute
a unit appropriate for collective-bargaining purposes within the
meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act :
All employees working as laborers on the Employer's construc-
tion jobs in the Bryan, Texas, area,,, excluding all other employ-
ees, office clerical employees, professional employees, watchmen,
guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election is omitted from publication.' $]
6 The Bryan, Texas, area includes College Station , Texas.
7The parties did not agree on any formula for determining eligibility to vote. The Em-
ployer stated that our position only is that the petition in this case should be dismissed."
The Petitioner merely suggested that "the standard should be liberal enough to take in
the maximum amount of laborers that can enjoy the franchise guaranteed by the Act."
Therefore , as the parties suggested no formula for determining eligibility and as the
evidence adduced at the hearing is insufficient to warrant any deviation in our usual
eligibility requirements , eligibility will be determined by the usual payroll period. See.
if. B. Bg,tler, Inc., 160 NLRB 1595.
8 An election eligibility list, containing the names and addresses of all the eligible voters,.
must be filed by the Employer with the Regional Director for Region 23 within 7 days
after the date of this Decision and Direction of Election . The Regional Director shall make•
the list available to all parties to the election . No extension of time to file this list shall be
granted by the Regional Director except in extraordinary circumstances . Failure to comply
with this requirement shall be grounds for setting aside the election whenever proper-
objections are filed. Excelsior Underwear Inc., 156 NLRB 1236.
Temple,. Associates , Inc., and Laborers International Union of
North America, Local Union No. 18, AFL-CIO, Petitioner..
Case 03-RC-2654. December 7,1966
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended, hearings were held before John W.
Bowlin and Clayton Corley, Hearing Officers. The Hearing Officers'
rulings made at the hearings are free from prejudicial error and are
hereby affirmed. The Employer and Texas Highway-Heavy Branch.
of the Associated General Contractors filed briefs in support of the
Employer's position. The Petitioner and Building and Construction
Trades Department, AFL-CIO, filed briefs in support of the Peti-
tioner's position.
161 NLRB No. 144.