Breman Steel Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 6, 1951

93 N.L.R.B. 720 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

720 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Act.
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The General Counsel did not establish by reliable, probative, and sub-
stantial evidence that the Respondent discriminatorily discharged William G.
Ellis.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication in this volume.]
M. W. BREMAN, AN INDIVIDUAL D/B/A BREMAN STEEL COMPANY AND
BREMAN IRON AND METAL COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIA-
TION OF BRIDGE, STRUCTURAL AND ORNAMENTAL IRON WORKERS
LOCAL No. 616, AFL, PETITIONER. Case No. 10-RC-1059. March 6,
1951
Decision and Order
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National La-
bor Relations Act, a hearing was held before John C. Carey, hearing
.officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
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 I Chairman Herzog and Members Reynolds and Murdock].
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 employees
of the Employer.
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the represent-
ation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section
9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, for the following
reasons:
The Petitioner seeks a unit of all the Employer's fabricating shop
employees, including skilled and semiskilled employees and common
laborers. The Employer contends that because of the constant inter-
change among the common laborers of the fabricating shop, the ware-
house and the yards, only an over-all production and maintenance
unit is appropriate. There is no history of collective bargaining
among any employees of the Employer.
The Employer is engaged in the buying and selling of steel and
scrap iron and in the fabricating and selling of structural steel. Its
main operations are located at 329 Decatur Street, Atlanta, Georgia.
At. that location are its fabricating shop, warehouse, and a receiving
and storing yard. In addition, the Employer also operates a receiv-
93 NLRB No. 101.
REYNOLDS METALS COMPANY 721
ing and- storing yard at 1651 Marietta Street, Atlanta, which is about
6 miles from the Decatur Street address. All of the operations are
under the general supervision of a general manager as well as the
plant superintendent who is also the immediate supervisor of the
fabricating shop.
The fabricating shop has about 37 employees of whom approxi-
mately 13 are skilled,' 12 are semiskilled, and 12 are common laborers.
There are 7 common laborers in the warehouse, 5 in the Decatur and
7 in Marietta Streets yards. The common laborers of the fabricat-
ing shop spend about 50 percent of their time working either with
the common laborers in the warehouse or the yards. At times the
common laborers from the warehouse and the yards assist the com-
mon laborers in the fabricating shop.
For a group of employees to constitute an appropriate bargaining
unit, such group must be at least a readily identifiable and homogene-
ous group apart from other employees. Because of the interchange
here present, these elements are obviously lacking. Nor could the
unit be sustained upon a craft basis, as it consists of not only a multi-
craft grouping of skilled production and maintenance employees but
also includes unskilled laborers. The only other basis for finding the
requested unit appropriate would be the extent of the Petitioner's
organization among the employees at the Employer's plant .2 How-
ever, Section 9 (c) (5) of the Act forbids our making a unit finding
on that factor alone. Accordingly, as the unit sought is inappro-
priate, Ave shall dismiss the petition herein.
Order
Upon the basis of the entire record in this case and for the reasons
set forth above, the National Labor Relations Board orders that the
petition filed herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
' These consist of the classifications of blacksmiths, layout men, machinists , punch and
shear men , set-up men , and welders
2 Compare Bushnell Steel Company , 93 NLRB 669, wherein the same Petitioner here
Involved sought an over -all unit in a similar operation
REYNOLDS METALS COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
FIREMEN AND OILERS, A. F . OF L., PETITIONER . Case No. 5-R(i'-650.
March 6,1951
Decision and Direction of Election
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National La-
bor Relations Act, it hearing was held before John J. A. Reynolds, Jr.,
03 NLRB No. 100.
943732-51-47