Florida Jafra Steel Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 10, 1951

94 N.L.R.B. 386 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

386 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
der, Louisiana, constitute separate units appropriate for the purposes
of collective bargaining within the meaning of the Act :
All truck drivers including truck owners, and shooters including
truck driver helpers," but excluding bulldozer operators s and all
other supervisors as defined in the Act.
5. The record indicates that employment among the Employers'
employees is relatively stable. We therefore find no merit to the
contention that a substitute payroll period be used to determine eligi-
bility to vote in elections hereinafter directed. Accordingly, we shall
use the Board's usual payroll eligibility period.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication in this
volume.]
8 Reference is made in the record to "truck driver helper. " It is not clear , however,
whether such a classification independently exists or whether the terminology used is
synonomous with the employee classification "shooter." Accordingly, both classifications
are included in the unit.
° It is abundantly clear from the record that the bulldozer operators are supervisors
within the meaning of the Act.
FLORIDA JAFRA STEEL CO., MIAMI JAFRA CORPORATION, AND JAFRA
INCORPORATED and SHOPMEN'S LOCAL No. 698, INTERNATIONAL Asso-
CIATION OF BRIDGE, STRUCTURAL & ORNAMENTAL IRON WORKERS,
AFL, PETITIONER. Case No. 10-IBC-1057. May 10, 1951
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 Clarence D. Musser, 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 three corporations involved in this proceeding are each
engaged in a different phase of the steel business. Florida Jafra Steel
Co., herein called Florida, manufactures structural steel; Miami Jafra
Corporation, herein called Miami, manufactures steel bars and joists;
and Jafra Incorporated, herein called Jafra, sells the products of both
Florida and Miami. Jafra also sells and erects steel fence manu-
factured by other companies.
Miami and Jafra each rent space in a so-called "compound" in
Miami, Florida. Florida also rents space in the compound, although
at the time of the hearing it was engaged in moving its operations to
a newly acquired plant in Ojus, Florida, 12 miles from the city of
Miami. The officers of all three corporations are the same four indi-
viduals. Each corporation employs a separate plant manager and a
94 NLRB No. 70.
FLORIDA JAFRA STEEL CO., 387
foreman , and each has its own production employees.' There is no
regular interchange of production employees among the three firms.
The record indicates, however, that there is but one office, the expenses
of which are apportioned among the three corporations. Separate
payrolls are maintained but all payroll matters are under the ultimate
supervision of A. F. Beyerle, who is treasurer of all three corporations.
Employees of the three corporations are paid comparable wages
for the same work. They all use the same time clock. One mechanic
or maintenance man works on all machinery of any of the corporations
that may require it. Jafra's trucks do hauling for all three corpora-
tions and other local steel companies as well.
In view of the foregoing, we find, contrary to the contention of the
three corporations, that Florida, Miami, and Jafra are so interde-
pendent as to constitute a single Employer within the meaning of
Section 2 (2) of the Act.
During the past year, the Employer 2 made purchases of materials
and supplies valued in excess of $342,000. Of this amount, $231,000
represented purchases made directly from sources outside the State of
Florida, and $111,000 represented purchases from local suppliers of
materials which originated outside the State. During the same period,
the Employer received commissions aggregating $25,820 from Vir-
ginia Steel Company, Birmingham, Alabama, for sales made locally
of material shipped into the State. The commissions received were
approximately 10 percent of the value of the sales. Substantially all
other sales by the Employer were also made locally.
The Employer's inflow of materials and services rendered to com-
panies engaged in commerce meet the aggregate of ratio test for
asserting jurisdiction enunciated in the Rutledge Paper Products
case.8 Thus, the $231,000 of direct inflow is approximately 46 percent
of the minimum direct inflow requirement of $500,000; the $111,000
indirect inflow is about 11 percent of the $1,000,000 minimum indirect
inflow requirement; and the $25,820 commissions received for intra-
state services rendered to a 'company which annually ships more than
$25,000 of its product outside the State of manufacture, is more than
50 percent of, the $50,000 minimum requirement for local services
rendered to companies over which the Board will assert jurisdiction.
The total- of these services is in excess of "100 percent."
Accordingly, we find not only that the Employer is engaged in
commerce within the meaning of the Act, but also that it will effectuate
the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction over it.
I Florida and Miami employ welders and laborers ; Jafra employs truck drivers and a
construction crew.
2 As the three corporations are a single Employer within the meaning of the Act, the
Board has considered the totality of their operations in deciding to assert jurisdiction
in this case
3 The Rutledge Paper Products , Inc., 91 NLRB 625.
388 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner seeks to represent a single unit of production and
maintenance employees in the Florida, Miami, and Jafra plants. The
three companies agree with the composition of the unit, but contend
that there should be separate units covering employees of each com-
pany. In view of our finding that the three companies constitute a
single Employer within the meaning of the Act, we find that the
single unit as sought by the Petitioner is appropriate.
We find that the following employees of the Employer at its plants
in Miami, Florida, and Ojus, Florida, constitute a unit appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9 (b) of the Act:
All production and maintenance employees including shipping and
receiving employees, but excluding office clerical, technical, and pro-
fessional employees, watchmen, guards, and supervisors as defined in
the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted, from publication in this
volume.]
MEMBER STYLES took no part in the consideration of the above Deci-
sion and Direction of Election.
INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S AND WAREHOUSEMEN'S UNION,
C. I. 0.; LOCAL 13, INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S AND WARE-
HOUSEMENS UNION; LOCAL 48, INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S
AND WAREHOUSEMEN'S UNION ; AND SAILORS' UNION OF THE PACIFIC,
AFL and PACIFIC MARITIME ASSOCIATION
INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S AND WAREHOUSEMEN'S UNION,
C. I. 0.; LOCAL 13, INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S AND' WARE-
HOUSEMENS UNION ; AND LOCAL 48, INTERNATIONAL LONGSHORE-
MEN^S AND WAREHOUSEMEN'S UNION and W. R. CHAMBERLIN AND
COMPANY. Cases Nos. 20-CD-17 and 20-CD-18 (formerly 21-CD-
26). May 11,1951
Decision and Determination of Dispute
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This proceeding arises under Section 10 (k) of the Act. On No-
vember 8, 1950, W. R. Chamberlin and Company, herein called the
94 NLRB No. 67.