Lloyd A. Fry Roofing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 3, 1951

92 N.L.R.B. 1170 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

In the Matter of LLOYD A. FRY ROOFING COMPANY AND VOLNEY FELT
MILLS, INC., EMPLOYERS and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF PULP,
SULPHITE, AND PAPER MILL WORKERS, A. F. OF L., PETITIONER
Case No. 34-RC-03. Decided January 3, 1951
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ' ELECTION
Upon an amended petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Miles J.
McCormick, 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 Employers are jointly and severally engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the Act 2
2. The labor organization involved claims to, represent certain em-
ployees of the Employers.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employers within the meaning of Section 9
(c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
' The hearing officer referred to the Board motions to dismiss , severally filed by the
Employers . The motions are denied. The contention that the petition should be dismissed
because there is no contention that the employees of Fry wish to be included in a unit
with those of Volney, is without merit . Under Section 9 (b) of the Act, the Board, and
not the parties , decides the scope of the unit appropriate for bargaining . Nor is there
any merit to the contention that the petition should be dismissed because of Section 9 (c)
(5) of the Act. The extent to which the employees have been organized , has not been
relied on in determining the appropriate unit. See paragraph numbered 4, below. We
further find no merit in the Employer 's contentions relating to the Petitioner 's showing of
interest . A labor organization 's showing of interest is an administrative matter for the
determination of the Board , and is not subject to collateral attack by the parties . Penick
& Ford , Ltd., Inc ., 86 NLRB 659 ; Stokely Foods, Inc., 78 NLRB 842. Moreover, we are
satisfied that the Petitioner has made an adequate showing in this proceeding.
2 The two Employers operate plants in several other States of the Union . Some of these
plants are located on the same site , and others are located 100 to 200 miles apart. The
only plants involved in this proceeding are their two plants at Morehead City, North
Carolina . Lloyd A. Fry Roofing Company , et at ., 89 NLRB 854 ; The Borden Company,
Southern Division, 91 NLRB 628.
In the earlier proceeding involving Fry and Volney , supra, it was stipulated that Volney
was a subsidiary of Fry. The record does not indicate any change in the relationship
of the Employers , but a similar stipulation was refused in the instant case, the repre-
sentatives of the Employers in this proceeding disclaiming any knowledge of relationship
between Fry and Volney.
92 NLRB No. 164.
1170
LLOYD A. FRY ROOFING COMPANY 1171
4. The Petitioner seeks a single unit comprising all production and
maintenance employees of the Employers at Morehead City, North
Carolina, excluding office and clerical employees, watchmen, foremen
and tour bosses, and all other supervisors. While in substantial agree-
ment as to the composition of the unit, the Employers contend, in
effect, that only separate units of the employees of each Employer are
appropriate. There has been no history of collective bargaining with
respect to the employees concerned.
The unit sought by the Petitioner embraces the production and main-
tenance employees of Lloyd A. Fry Roofing Company and Volney Felt
Mills, Inc., herein collectively called the Employers and separately
called Fry and Volney, respectively. Volney is engaged in the manu-
facture of roofing felt, a necessary ingredient in the manufacture of
felt roofing material, in which Fry is engaged. The corporations op-
erate plants in separate buildings about 200 feet apart and connected
by an enclosed ramp which affords communication between them. The
operations of the local plants are under the control of a single manager
and assistant manager. One office manager likewise is in charge of the
office work which is necessary for both corporations. Each plant has
a separate superintendent who has under him a foreman or "tour boss"
for each shift. A watchman on the Fry payroll guards both plants.
At present the Morehead City operations of Fry use approximately 60
percent of the output of the Volney plant. The other 40 percent is
shipped to other Fry plants in other States. The roofing felt, pro-
duced by Volney, is put in Volney's warehouse, located on Volney's
premises. Fry requisitions this felt and treats it with asphalt and
gravel. The result is roofing material which is sold by Fry in the
trade.
The 40 employees of Volney and the 60 employees of Fry are hourly
paid. They presently use separate entrances,3 punch separate time
clocks, and are kept on separate payrolls. The processes required
for each plant operation are different and there is no interchange
of production employees between the plants. Maintenance employees,
however, do repair work in both plants. Employees of each plant
are hired by the superintendent of that plant with the approval of
the manager or assistant manager of the joint operations. Each plant
has a machine shop for maintenance, but if Fry has work requiring
a lathe, that work is done in the Volney plant, and the cost is charged
to Fry.
On the same properties. with the Volney and Fry plants is the plant
of Trumbell Asphalt Company, herein called Trumbell, which sup-
plies Fry with the asphalt used in treating the felt which is supplied
At the time of the hearing , a fence was being erected around the premises which would
require all employees of both corporations to use the same entrance.
1172 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
by Volney in the preparation of Fry's finished product.' The record
reveals no connection between Trumbell and either Volney or Fry,
and neither the Petitioner nor the Employers contend that employees
of .Trumbell should be included in the appropriate unit.
The Employers, alleging that different skills are required in the
operation of the roofing plant and the felt plant, contend that two
separate units for the employees of each plant should be established.
The Petitioner, on the other hand, urges the single unit, pointing out
the fact that the two plants are under the same management and
control, and that the operations of one are merely a continuation
of the operations of the other. Although the Employers assert that
Volney employees possess different or superior skills, it does not appear
that the distinction in the skills required as between the two plants
is any different than would normally be found as between two depart-
ments of a single plant producing different components of a single
product. The final authority to hire and, discharge employees of
both Employers is vested in the manager and assistant manager
of the entire operation, and employees of both Employers receive
comparable wages and are subject to similar hours of employment
and other conditions of employment.5
Under the circumstances, including the substantial identity of
control, the integrated operations, and the common determination
of labor policies, we are of the opinion that Fry and Volney together
constitute a single employer within the meaning of Section 2 .(2)
of the Act, and that their employees at Morehead City, North Caro-
lina, comprise a single unit appropriate for purposes of collective
bargaining.6
Accordingly, we find that all production and maintenance em-
ployees of Fry and Volney at their Morehead City, North Carolina,
roofing and felt plants, excluding office and clerical employees, watch-
men,7 foremen and tour bosses,8 and all other supervisors, constitute
a unit appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
4 The three plants on these properties now operated by Fry, Volney, and Trumbell were
formerly operated by Madix Asphalt Roofing Corporation. See Case No. 34-CA-76.
Employees of both Volney and Fry enjoy the same vacation plan on a, Nation -wide basis.
South Georgia Pecan Shelling Company, et al., 85 NLRB 591; cf. American Relays and
Controls, Inc., 81 NLRB 178; and Orleans Materials it Equipment Co., Incorporated, 76
NLRB 351.
7 As noted above , a watchman , listed on the Fry payroll , protects the property of both
plants . He has no janitorial duties and is clearly employed as a guard within the meaning
of the Act. C. V. Hill and Company, Inc., 76 NLRB 158; Wiley Mfg. Inc., 92 NLRB 40.
8 Foremen at the Fry roofing plant and tour bosses at the Volney felt plant may effec-
tively recommend the hire and discharge of employees under them.