Hart Concrete Products Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 26, 1951

94 N.L.R.B. 1565 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

HART CONCRETE PRODUCTS CO. 1565
Employer's total operations as revealed in this record that it is en-
gaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
It appears that in 1950 the Employer made direct out-of-State
purchases for its Dairies Division amounting in value to $370,000,
indirect out-of-State purchases for its Stores Division in substantial
amount, and, through its Ice Division, furnished within the State
$72;000 worth of services essential to an instrumentality of commerce.
As the indirect outflow of the Ice Division alone, without regard to
the substantial inflow of the Dairies and Stores Division, far exceeds
the minimum requirements which the Board considers in determining
whether to assert jurisdiction,-' we find that it will effectuate the poli-
cies of the Act for the Board to assert jurisdiction in this case which
involves the Dallas plant of the Employer's Oak Farm Dairies
Division.
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 theActe
4. The following employees of the Employer constitute a unit ap-
propriate for pfirposes of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9 (b) of the Act:
All inside employees of the Dallas plant of the Employer's Oak
Farm Dairies Division, including stock clerks, shipping clerks, bottle
and case receiving clerks, and the laboratory assistant, but excluding
office clerical employees, truck drivers, the special driver, the. chief
operating engineer, the laboratory technician, and all other employees
excluded- by the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
5 Hollow Tree .Lumber Company, 91 NLRB 635.
6 The showing of the Petitioner is an administrative matter. O. D . Jennings t Co.,
68 NLRB 516. The Board is satisfied that the Petitioner has made a -sufficien t showing
of interest to warrant an election.
HART CONCRETE PRODUCTS Co. and UNITED STONE AND ALLIED
PRODUCTS WORKERS OF AMERICA , CIO, PETITIONER . Case No. 10-
RC-1234. June 26, 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 William J. Rains, hearing
94 NLRB No. 225.
1566 DECISIONS' OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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 a Florida company engaged in the manufacture
,of concrete blocks and ready-mix concrete. During the 12 months
prior to this proceeding, it purchased materials, equipment, and sup-
plies valued at $800,000, of which approximately $135,000 represent
goods which originated outside the State of Florida and were shipped
directly to the Employer. During the same period, the Employer
made sales of finished products in the sum of $1,400,000, of which
approximately $1,328,000 represent products sold to local customers,
none of which was shipped out of Florida or incorporated in products
shipped out of the State. During this period, the balance of the Em-
ployer's sales, totaling more than $50,000, was made to two out-of-
State contractors, Thomas Bryan & Associates of Texas and Lewis
McDowell of New York, who were engaged in constructing a munic-
ipal sewer system for the city of Tampa., Florida. All of the Em-
ployer's products furnished to these contractors were utilized in the
construction of the Tampa sewer system. In addition, all the ingre-
dients used in the Employer's products sold to these firms were pur-
chased from producers within the State of Florida.
Neither of the two contractors maintains offices outside the State in
which it is located. Each, however, holds construction contracts with
customers in States other than Florida amounting to more than $1,000,-
000. Their contracts with the city of Tampa total $1,000,000 and
$500,000, respectively. The Employer has moved to dismiss the peti-
tion on the grounds that, although it furnishes material valued in
excess of $50,000 to out-of-State construction contractors performing
work in Florida,' the Board is without jurisdiction to proceed as the
two concerns utilize the Employer's entire product within Florida, and
have no direct outflow of goods from that State measurable in terms of
dollars.
The Employer relies upon our decision in Hollow Tree Lumber Com-
pany ' in support of its motion to dismiss. In that case, the Board
asserted jurisdiction over an employer on the ground that it furnished
materials valued in excess of $50,000 per year to enterprises which, in
turn, utilized these materials in the production of goods destined for
.out-of-State shipment and valued at more than $25,000 a year. The
Employer therefore argues that because the contractors involved here-
in did not incorporate its concrete products in goods shipped out
1 The Employer furnished materials valued at $43,872.48 and $28,349.71 to the two
firms, respectively. The Board has previously ruled that where an Employer furnishes
to more than one concern services and materials whose total value is $50;000, this
jurisdictional requirement is satisfied. Waterways Engineering Corporation, 93 NLRB
No. 128.
91 NLRB 635.
NASHVILLE CORPORATION 1567
of the State of Florida, that decision precludes the assertion of juris-
dliction in this case. In the Hollow Tree case, however, the Board an-
nounced, as one of the alternative standards of jurisdiction, that if the
.enterprises supplied were "performing services outside the State, in
the value of $25,000 per annum or more" (emphasis added) jurisdic-
tion would be assumed over a supplier of goods or services valued at
$50,000. Here, the Employer does furnish the requisite amount of
materials to construction concerns which concededly hold construction
contracts totaling more than $1,000,000 with customers in States other
than those in which they maintain their principal places of business.
We conclude, therefore, under all the circumstances, that a disruption
in the orderly labor relations between the present Employer and its
employees would impede the flow of commerce, caused by the contrac-
tors' construction projects in various States, sufficiently to warrant
the invocation of Board procedure. Accordingly, we find that the
Employer's operations affect commerce within the meaning of the Act,
and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction
in this case.
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. We find that all regular production and maintenance employees
employed at the Employer's plant in Tampa, Florida, including mixer
drivers and truck drivers, but excluding all office clerical employ-
ees, casual employees, salesmen, guards, night watchmen, professional
employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
CHAIRMAN HrRZOG and MEMBER HOUSTON took no part in the con-
sideration of the above Decision and Direction of Election.
NASHVILLE CORPORATION AND Avco MANUFACTURING CORPORATION and
JEROME A. COOPER. Case No. 10-CA-223. June 27, 1951
Decision and Order
On December 19, 1950, Trial Examiner Robert E. Mullin issued
his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding
94 NLRB No. 233.