Hatfield Campbell Creek Coal Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 27, 1951

93 N.L.R.B. 999 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

HATFIELD CAMPBELL CREEK COMPANY 999
not agree. We find that the Employer is engaged in interstate com-
merce within the meaning of the Act. Moreover, because it appears
that the Employer's operations are an essential link in services per-
formed by instrumentalities of commerce, we find that it will
effectuate the policities of the Act to assert jurisdiction in this case."
The Employer's motion is accordingly denied.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of certain employees of the Employer within the meaning of
Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The following employees of the Employer constitute a unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act: All chauffeurs employed by the
Employer at its Indianapolis, Indiana, plant, excluding all garage
men, office and clerical employees, guards, professional employees,
and supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
8 See BV C. Kent' d/h/a Loral Transit Lines, 91 NLRB 623; Skyview Transportation Co.,
et al, 92 NLRB 1664 : Red Cab , Ine, 92 NLRB 175; Gastonia Transit Company, 91
NLRB 894 See also Hollow Tree Lumber Company, 91 NLRB 635.
HATFIELD CAMPBELL CREEK COAL COMPANY and NATIONAL MARITIME
UNION OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER. Case No. 9-RC-1027.
March 27, 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 A. McGowan,
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 [Members Houston, Reynolds, and Styles].
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 organizations involved claim to represent certain
employees of the Employer.'
'The United Mine Workers of America, District 17, was permitted to Intervene at
the hearing on the basis of its contractual interest
93 NLRB No. 172.
1000 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
3. The Intervenor has been the collective bargaining representative
of the employees of the Employer since about 1941. On August 10,
1950, the Intervenor and the Employer executed a new contract cover-
ing the employees at the Cincinnati, Ohio, plants and terminals, and
on the river boats of the Employer, to remain in effect until August
15, 1952. The petition in this case was filed on October 23, 1950,
requesting a unit of the Employer's river boat employees only. The
Intervenor and the Employer urge the foregoing contract as a bar to
the petition. As the contract contains a union-security clause not au-
thorized by an election held under Section 9 (e) of the Act, we find it
constitutes no bar to this proceeding.2
Accordingly, we find that a question affecting commerce exists con-
-cerning the representation 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 operates two coal mines in West Virginia, and the
coal mined there is carried in railroad cars to its coal tipple at Reed,
West Virginia, where the coal is processed through the tipple, loaded
into barges, and towed up the river by its tow boats to Cincinnati,
Ohio. There the coal is unloaded and processed through its coal
tipple.
The Petitioner seeks a unit of all unlicensed personnel employed on
the river boats of the Employer, excluding masters, mates, engineers,
pilots, shore employees, and supervisors. The Employer and Inter-
venor contend that an over-all unit composed of all employees at the
Reed, Nest Virginia, and Cincinnati, Ohio, coal tipples, and on the
river boats operated by the Employer is alone appropriate, but they
indicate that they would accept a unit of employees at the Cincinnati,
Ohio, plant and on the river boats, as covered by the Intervenor's con-
tract of August 10, 1950. While contending that the unit of river boat
employees sought by it is appropriate, the Petitioner stated at the
hearing that either a unit of the employees at the Cincinnati, Ohio,
coal tipple and on the river boats, or the over-all unit urged by the
Employer and Intervenor, if found appropriate by the Board, would
be acceptable.
The record discloses that the operations of the Employer at its coal
tipples and on the river boats are to a considerable degree integrated.
The shore employees and boat employees work together in loading,
unloading, and landing the barges. In addition, there have been some
instances of transfers of boat employees to shore jobs, and employees
'on shore and on the boats are somewhat familiar with the work each
performs. Since about 1941, the Intervenor has bargained for the em-
2 Sonotone Corporation, 90 NLRB 1236 The Intervenor also moved to dismiss the
petition on the ground that it failed to allege that the Employer had declined to recognize
the Petitioner . This motion is denied . Advance Pattern, 80 NLRB 29
GOODMAN MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1001
ployees at the Cincinnati, Ohio, coal tipple and on the river boats as a
single unit. -
In view of the foregoing history of bargaining for the river boat
employees and the Cincinnati employees as a single unit, we find that
the separate unit of river boat employees sought by the Petitioner is
inappropriate. However, as the Petitioner has, as an alternative posi-
tion, indicated a willingness to represent the river boat and Cincinnati
employees in a single unit, and as such a unit is in our opinion appro-
priate for collective bargaining purposes, we will direct an election
in that unit.
We find that all unlicensed personnel on the Employer's river boats,
and all employees at its Cincinnati, Ohio, coal tipple excluding mas-
ters, mates," engineers, pilots, office and clerical employees, watchmen 4
and supervisors as defined in the Act constitute an appropriate unit
for collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the
Act.S
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
3As the record discloses that the mates exercise supervisory authority , w e exclude
them fioni the unit
4 As it does not appear from the record that the watchmen spend mole then 50 percent
of their time in nonwatchmen duties, we shall exclude them from the unit . Par afne
Companies, Inc, 85 NLRB 325
6 As the Petitioner has made an adequate showing of interest among employees in the
broader unit herein found appropriate , we shall direct an election among these employees.
If, however , the Petitioner does not wish to participate in an election at this time, it
may withdraw its petition filed in this proceeding upon notice to that effect to the Regional
Director within 10 days from the date of this Direction of Election . El Mundo, 93
NLRB No. 125.
GOODMAN MANUFACTURING COMPANY and UNITED ELECTRICAL, RADIO
AND MACHINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, PETITIONER . Case No. 13-RC-
1713. March 27, 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 Ivan C. McLeod, 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 [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.
93 NLRB No. 166.