Pine Hall Brick and Pipe Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 19, 1951

93 N.L.R.B. 362 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

362 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
3. Respondents and each of them have engaged in and are engaging in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act, and have
restrained and coerced employees of Western, Inc., in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, by intimidatory conduct designed to prevent
said employees from working for Western, Inc., while the strike was in progress
and to coerce them into joining with the union adherents in the strike and in
other concerted activities.
4. Respondents and each of them have engaged in and are engaging in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (4) (A) and (B) of the
Act, by inducing and encouraging members of Local No. 303 employed by cus-
tomers of Western, Inc., to engage in a concerted refusal in the course of their
employment to use, handle, or work on Western's products or to perform any
services for their respective employers, objects thereof being (a) to force and
require their respective employers to cease using, selling, handling, or otherwise
dealing in Western's products and to cease doing business with Western, Inc.,
and (b) to force and require Western, Inc., to recognize and bargain with Local
No. 303 as the representative of its employees although said Local had not been
certified as the representative of such employees under the provisions of Section
9 of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication in this volume.]
PINE HALL BRICK AND PIPE COMPANY and UNITED STONE AND ALLIED
PRODUCTS WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER . Case No.
34-RC-255. February 19,1951
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 Miles J. McCormick, hear-
ing 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-mem-
ber panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Murdock 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 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. The Petitioner requests a unit of all production and maIll-
tenance employees at the Employer's three plants and its central yard,
93 NLRB No. 54.
PINE HALL BRICK AND PIPE COMPANY 363
including employee truck drivers, part-time construction workers,
part-time brick masons, and the watchman, but excluding contract
truck drivers, office clericals, guards, professional employees, and
supervisors as defined in the Act. The Employer contends that each
of its plants and its central yard should constitute a separate unit.
The Employer also disputes the inclusion of its employee truck
drivers.
The Employer manufactures and sells bricks, clay pipe, and other
clay products. It maintains a central office and yard in Winston-
Salem, North Carolina. Approximately 30 miles from Winston-
Salem the Employer has three plants located within 10 miles of each
other. At plants 1 and 3 the Employer manufactures bricks and at
plant 2 it manufactures vitrified clay pipe, flue lining, wall coating,
and other clay products. Bricks and pipe are kept in stock at the
Employer's central yard. Separate orders for bricks or pipe are filled
from the respective plants, but combined orders for both bricks and
pipe are filled from the central yard. The records for the three plants
are kept at the central office. Although there is no interchange of
production employees, one brick mason does maintenance work at all
three plants. In addition, the part-time construction crew and the
part-time brick masons perform construction and maintenance work
at all three plants. When the truck drivers at the central yard are
not engaged in working there, they drive to the plants and operate
their trucks as plant trucks. In other respects the plants and the
central yard are operated as separate units, having separate pay-
rolls, books, and supervision.
The Employer contends that each of the plants and the central
yard should be treated as a separate unit because they are not located
together, the plants have separate supervision and records, greater
skill is required in the manufacture of the clay products, and because
the workweeks at the plants differ.
However, in the absence of any bargaining history, we are per-
suaded that a single unit for the three plants and the central yard is
appropriate, for the following reasons: (a) The plants and the yard
are located near enough to each other to facilitate contact among the
employees; (b) the Employer's operations are partially integrated
through its central office and yard, as outlined above; (c) the truck
drivers from the central yard, the roving brick mason, the part-time
construction crew and the part-time brick masons perform work at all
three plants; (d) the workers at all three plants use allied skills; and
(e) all of the workers enjoy the same benefits.'
The Employer would exclude the employee truck drivers at the
plants and central yard because it employs some contract drivers and
has contemplated hiring only contract drivers. However, the Em-
2 CP. Allied Mills, Inc., 89 NLRB 1552 ; The Harris - Clay Company, 88 NLRB 934.
364 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ployer has no immediate plans for replacing the employee drivers.2
Therefore, we find that, notwithstanding the fact that the drivers
work longer hours and some of them are paid by the tonnage they haul
rather than hourly, as are the other employees, they receive the same
employee benefits received by the production and maintenance em-
ployees and their interests are substantially the same as the interests
of the production and maintenance employees. In view of these facts,
and because no other union seeks to represent them, we shall include
the employee truck drivers in the unit.3
We find that all production and maintenance employees at the
Employer's central yard and plants 1, 2, and 3, including the employee
truck drivers, the roving brick mason, the watchman,' the part-time
construction crew and the three part-time brick masons, but excluding
the contract truck drivers, office clericals, guards, professional em-
ployees, and all supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
5. The part-time construction crew and the three part-time brick
masons perform construction and maintenance work at all three plants.
While working for the Employer they are placed on the payroll and
receive all of the benefits of the regular employees. Although they
work for others when not employed by the Employer, they are called
by the Employer whenever it has construction work to be performed.
During the 18 months preceding the hearing the construction crew
had worked principally for the Employer and anticipated at least 4
or 5 months' work in the immediate future. During the year 1950
the brick masons spent more than 50 percent of their time in working
for the Employer and expected several months' work in the immediate
future. The Petitioner requests that both groups be declared eligible
to vote in the election. The Employer agrees as to the eligibility of
the construction crew and takes no position with regard to the brick
masons. Because it appears that these two groups have a reasonable
expectation of further employment with the Employer, we find that
they have a sufficient interest in the wages, hours, and working con-
ditions at the Employer's operations to entitle them to a voice in the
selection of a bargaining respresentative. Accordingly, we find them
eligible to vote in the election.5
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
2 Cf. Merry Brothers Brick and Tile Co., 64 NLRB 1548.
3 Cf United States Hoffman Machinery Corporation, 91 NLRB No . 56; Geneva Forge,
Inc, 90 NLRB No. 212.
4 The watchman spends more than 50 percent of his time in caring for the boilers, and
therefore , in agreement with the parties , we shall include him in the unit. See Lake
Superior District Power Company , 87 NLRB 8.
5 Cf. The Pure Oil Company, 50 NLRB 890.