Tampa Sand & Material Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 26, 1951

95 N.L.R.B. 621 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

TAMPA SAND & MATERIAL COMPANY, INC. 621
unit for the purposes of collective bargaining, with respect to rates of
pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment.
CHAIRMAN HERZOG and MEMBER MURDOCK took no part in the con-
sideration of the above Supplemental Decision and Certification of
Representatives.
TAMPA SAND & MATERIAL COMPANY, INC. and UNITED STONE AND
ALLIED PRODUCTS WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER . Case
No. 10-RC=1052. July 26, 1951
Second Supplemental Decision and Order
On December 8, 1950, the Board issued a Decision and Direction
,of Election in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that a unit of all
employees at the Employer's concrete products plants at Tampa,
Florida, excluding office and clerical employees, professional em-
ployees, guards, watchmen, and supervisors as defined in the Act,
was appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.' On January 8, 1951, the Peti-
tioner won the election thereby directed by a vote of 134 to 3. Of a
total of 170 ballots cast, 31 were challenged. The majority of the
challenged ballots was cast by employees whose inclusion in the unit
was first disputed by the parties at the time of the election, and had
not been formally resolved by the Board's Decision and Direction. As
the challenged ballots were insufficient in number to affect the results
of the election, the Petitioner was thereafter certified as representa-
tive of the employees in the stated unit.2
On March 13, 1951, the Petitioner requested that the Board clarify
the certification by the specific inclusion of employees at the Em-
ployer's asphalt plant, and cement finishers, laborers, and truck drivers
assigned from the sand yard main property of the Employer to various
ITampa Sand c6 Material Company, Inc ., 10-RC-1052, not reported in printed volumes of
Board decisions . Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act , the Boaid has
delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three -member panel [ Chairman
Herzog and Members Murdock and Styles].
2 The Intervenor , Local 925 of the International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL,
filed objections to the conduct of the election on the ground that the Board agent conduct-
ing the election erroneously notified certain employees whose inclusion in the unit was
in dispute , that lie would challenge their ballots. The objections were investigated by the
Regional Director for the Tenth Region who thereafter issued his report in which he
found that the objections raised no substantial or material issues with respect to either the
conduct or results of the election and recommended that they be dismissed No exceptions
having been filed to the report of the Regional Director , the findings therein and the
recommendation to dismiss were adopted by the Board . In making his report , the Regional
Director specifically did not make any finding on the issue of whether the challenged
employees were properly within the bargaining unit found appropriate Tampa Sand ct
Material Company, Inc, 10-RC-1052 ( Supplemental Decision and Certification ) not re-
ported in printed volumes of Board decisions.
95 NLRB No. 76.
622 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
construction projects in and around the city of Tampa. Pursuant to
an order of the Board reopening the record and remanding proceedings
to the Regional Director, a hearing was held before Charles M. Paschal,
Jr., hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing
are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed .3
The Employer operates a block manufacturing plant and storage
yard, a sand and raw material storage yard, and a ready-mix concrete
plant. The parties agree that the appromixately 177 employees work-
ing at these locations are within the unit as it is presently comprised.
The Petitioner contends, however, that 14 employees at an asphalt
plant operated by the Employer and 32 other employees working on
construction projects for the Employer are also within the unit found
appropriate and requests amendment and clarification of the certifica-
tion to specifically include those employees. The Employer asserts
that neither the asphalt plant nor construction project employees
should be within the appropriate bargaining group. Twenty-five of
the employees in the disputed groups cast challenged ballots at the
election.
The Employer owns and operates an asphalt plant located approxi-
mately 5 miles from the remainder of its operations. The plant pro-
duces paving materials, at a fixed fee per ton, for another business
firm which furnishes the raw materials and uses the entire production.
There is no interchange of materials or personnel among the asphalt
plant and the other operations of the Employer. The 14 employees
assigned to the asphalt plant are separately supervised and have no
contact with the remainder of the Employer's work force, although
their rates of pay are comparable. Under these circumstances and
upon the entire record, the Board finds that the employees at the
asphalt plant are not a part of the bargaining unit found appro-
priate for the employees at the concrete products plants of the Em-
ployer and denies the request to clarify and amend the certification
to include that group within the bargaining unit.
In addition to the manufacture of concrete and allied products, the
Employer also contracts to perform certain types of concrete construc-
tion work in the course of which it furnishes the materials and labor.
There are 32 employees, classified respectively as cement finishers,
apprentices, and laborers, who perform this work .4 • The cement fin-
At the reopened hearing , the Employer renewed its motion for dismissal of the petition
herein on the grounds that its operations were not within the jurisdiction of the Board.
For the reasons stated in the previous decision in this case and in Tampa Sand & Material
Company, 91 NLRB 865, the motion is herewith denied.
4 The parties are agreed that temporary employees now assigned to work at a special
project in St. Petersburg , Florida, should not be included in the unit . While the Petitioner
requested that employees in the concrete placement division classified as truck drivers
should be included in the unit the record shows that no employees in that group are so
classified. .
TAMPA SAND & MATERIAL COMPANY, INC. 623
ishers, with the assistance of their apprentices and the laborers, do
the finishing and placement of concrete at the projects where they are
under the separate supervision of the Employer's foremen. Materials
used at the construction projects are hauled to the job sites by employees
who are admittedly within the bargaining unit. The concrete place-
ment crews report for work either at the sand yard main property
of the Employer or at the project itself while it is in progress. While
the work hours of these employees sometimes vary from those of the
other employees of the Employer, and there is no interchange of
employees in the placement crews and the other plants, all employees
are on a central payroll and receive top supervision from the main
plant. Upon these facts and inasmuch as the cement finishers, appren-
tices, and laborers are engaged in work which is a supplement to that
of employees working at the concrete plants, the Board finds that these
employees are included within the unit referred to. in the Decision
and Direction of Election in the instant proceeding. Accordingly,
the Board grants the request of the Petitioner to clarify and amend
the certification to specifically include cement finishers, apprentices,
and laborers in the concrete placement division of the Employer .5 The
Board will further direct that the certification be amended to spe-
cifically exclude foremen6 in the concrete placement division, and
employees working at the Employer's Tampa asphalt plant.
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Supplemental Decision and Certifica-
tion of Representatives be, and it hereby is, amended specifically to
include in the unit therein referred to, all cement finishers, apprentices,
and laborers in the concrete placement division of the Employer's
Tampa operations, and to specifically exclude all foremen in the con-
crete placement division, and all employees at the Employer's asphalt
plant.
See Weyerhaeuser Timber Co., 81 NLRB 472. The Employer contends that an elec-
tion should be directed to determine whether these employees wish to become a part
of the bargaining unit. We find no merit in this contention . The concrete placement
crew employees are and were a part of the bargaining unit found appropriate in the
Decision and Direction of Election in this proceeding. While it is true that the unit
placement of these employees was not litigated at the hearing preceding the Board's
decision , as found herein they are a constituent part of the unit found appropriate.
Although some of the employees in this group were challenged as voters in the election,
the Board notes that their ballots could not have been determinative of the result.
O The parties agreed and the Board finds that William Cooper and Troy Crews, regular
foremen, and G. K. Philpot , acting foreman , are supervisors within the meaning of the
Act and should be excluded from the bargaining unit.