Brown & Root, Inc.,

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 30, 1981

258 N.L.R.B. 1002 (N.L.R.B. 1981)

DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Brown & Root, Inc. and Plumbers & Steamfitters,
Local Union #568, Gulfport, MS. a/w the
United Association of Journeymen and Appren-
tices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry
of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO-
CLC; and International Brotherhood of Boiler-
makers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forg-
ers and Helpers, Subordinate Lodge No. 110,
AFL-CIO, Jointly, Petitioners. Case 15-RC-
6572
September 30, 1981
DECISION ON REVIEW AND ORDER
BY MEMBIRS FANNING, JENKINS, AND
ZIMMERMAN
On January 7, 1980, the Acting Regional Direc-
tor for Region 15 issued a Decision and Direction
of Election in the above-entitled proceeding in
which he found appropriate the requested unit of
pipefitters, pipewelders, boilermakers, boiler-
welders, pipefitters' helpers, and boilermakers'
helpers employed at the Employer's Daniel Power
Plant jobsite in Escatawpa, Mississippi. Thereafter,
in accordance with Section 102.67 of the National
Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations,
Series 8, as amended, the Employer filed a timely
request for review of the Acting Regional Direc-
tor's decision on the grounds, inter aia, that he
made erroneous findings as to substantial factual
issues and departed from officially reported Board
precedent in finding the requested unit to be appro-
priate.
By telegraphic order dated February 5, 1980, the
Board granted the Employer's request for review
and stayed the election.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its au-
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the entire record in
this case with respect to the issues under review
and finds that the Acting Regional Director erred
by finding that the employees in the requested unit
shared a distinct community of interest sufficiently
different from other employees.
The Employer is a Texas corporation engaged in
the business of heavy construction. The unit sought
here is involved in constructing a boiler at a power
plant located in Escatawpa, Mississippi.
The Joint Petitioners seek to represent a unit
composed of pipefitters, pipewelders, pipefitters'
helpers, boilermakers, boilerwelders, and boiler-
makers' helpers, excluding all other employees. 1
'The Joint Petitioiners also had included pipefiller and hboilernmaker ap-
prentices and plumbers in the unit dsccription. he Acting Regional D)i-
recltor found that the rectlrd does Iot reveal whether the Imnploycr cm-
The Employer contends that its operation is so in-
tegrated that only an overall unit of all its skilled
employees is appropriate.
The record shows that the Employer's construc-
tion operation at the Daniel Power Plant is direct-
ed by a project director with the assistance of an
assistant project manager, various superintendents,
general foremen, and other foremen. The Employ-
er employs approximately 560 employees at this
project, with the construction work force assigned
to several departments including pipe, boilermaker,
ironworkers, instrument, millwright, insulator, elec-
trical, and building. Although the record does not
reveal the number of employees in each depart-
ment, it shows that employees wear hard hats
whose color is coordinated to department assign-
ment or classifications within a department. 3 Each
department is separately supervised.
All skilled employees receive the same hourly
wage rate and the same fringe benefits. All employ-
ees are eligible for the Employer's upgrading or
cross-training programs, and are covered by the
same work and safety rules. The exception to this
pattern is that a few skilled employees in the build-
ing department receive a slightly lower wage rate.
All employees start and stop work at the same time
and take their lunch breaks at the same time.
There are no separate craft layout areas but pipe-
fitters, pipewelders, boilermakers, and boiler-
welders share a common storage area. The pipe fa-
bricating department fabricates all pipe used on the
project. The stress relief crew and rod room em.
ployees provide services to all welders throughout
the Employer's operation.
Gerald Goff, a pipewelder, described the pipe
department supervision as including a superintend-
ent, a general foreman, a pipewelder foreman, and
two pipefitter foremen. Goff testified that he works
in a 15-man crew that includes pipewelders, pipefit-
ters, and riggers. In the work procedures he de-
scribed, riggers use a crane or "come along" to lift
the pipe into place, after which the pipefitters set it
for welding. Next, the stress relief crew preheats
the pipe for welding and the pipewelders use an
ploys any employee as a plumber and that the Employer does not employ
any employee in an apprentice category. Henice the Acting Rgiinal Di-
rector made no unit placement filidings as to these classifications. No re-
quest for review was filed regarding these findings by the Acting Region-
al Director
II the alternaltie. the Enmployer cointends that the unit wo uld have to
he (ill a departmental basis
lFor cxample. pipefiters swear green hard hats hut pipeueldcrs wear
hlack hatls with a greetl stripe eein though hoth clasificalions are as-
sigined Io) the pipe departmentl Similarl! . bhoilermakers wear gray hard
hats but hoilerwelders wear black hats ith a green stripe evenl though
both classificationls are aigield to the boilermaker department Other ex-
amples of hard hat colors iclude ironllsrkers Ah lii wear lrange. cletcri-
cialls ho . ea;r )ellow, lhabortrs ho weaar hite. and Instrumenlt fitters
Who wear ellou; ith a greenl stripe
258 NLRB No. 130
1002
BROWN & ROOT. INC.
electric welding machine to weld the joint. Finally,
the stress relief crew releases the stress resulting
from the welding process.4 Goff also testified that
he does no structural, instrument, or boiler weld-
ing.
The testimony of two boilerwelders revealed
that the boilermaker department is supervised by a
superintendent, a general foreman, and two fore-
men. One boilerwelder, James Mitchell, testified
that he had observed pipewelders working on the
same line but not on the same weld. Mitchell also
testified that ironworkers worked on gratings, han-
drails, and beams in the same area as boilerwelders
and boilermakers. Another boilerwelder, Michael
Knight, testified he observed pipefitters fitting pipe
after which the Employer called in several boiler-
welders to weld it. Knight distinguished the work
of boilerwelders and pipefitters on the basis that
boilerwelders weld tubes and riser tubes but
pipewelders weld pipe only.
A substantial portion of the record consisted of
testimony by Larry Ashley, the Employer's vice
president in charge of power plant construction.
Ashley testified, inter alia, that the Employer has
job classifications but no job descriptions and that
the Employer does not recognize or follow tradi-
tional craft jurisdictions in assigning work or in
transferring or laying off employees. He testified
that employees in various job classifications work
together in close proximity in building a boiler and
hooking it together, offering as an example that pi-
pefitters work with crane operators, riggers, and
structural ironwelders in fitting and setting pipe for
the pipewelders. Ashley also testified that instru-
ment welders, pipewelders, and boilerwelders take
the same tests and receive the same certification for
welding from the Employer. He testified that
boilerwelders have performed structural welding.
Finally, Ashley testified that all the Employer's
employees are eligible for the Employer's free up-
grading and cross-skills training program.
In his report, the Acting Regional Director
found that the employees in the requested unit gen-
erally work in and around the boiler and on pipes
leading to the boiler. He found that the boiler-
welders have been called upon quite often to weld
pipe normally welded by pipewelders. He found
that the nature of the work performed by other
craft employees is distinct. Thus, on his findings
that the employees in the requested unit work
closely on the same or similar work, using similar
skills, he concluded that they share a distinct com-
'The Employer', ice presidett. arry Ashle. vwhoe cstim,tlon is de-
scribed elsevhere in this Decision. offered a similar descriptiton of this
particular ork hut ilth more emphasis on the ario us loh claisfic;alions,
that work together in close proximit t1 huildinlg i hboilcr structure and
hooking it together.
munity of interest which is distinguishable from
that of the Employer's other employees. Hence, the
Acting Regional Director found the requested unit
to be an appropriate unit for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining. We disagree.
In the construction industry, the Board has
found a separate unit of craft employees to be ap-
propriate. ' The Board also has found appropriate a
unit of employees that constitute a clearly identifi-
able and functionally distinct group of employees.'
The record in the instant case fails to reveal that
the petitioned-for unit satisfies the requirements of
either a craft unit or a functionally distinct group
with common interests separate from the Employ-
er's other skilled employees.
The record fails to show that the employees in
the requested unit participated in or completed a
traditional apprenticeship program or achieved
journeyman status in a craft. Instead, the record
shows that the Employer offers its own tests and
certification to prospective skilled employees. For
example, the various welders employed by the Em-
ployer-some of whom the Joint Petitioners would
include in the requested unit (pipewelders and boi-
lerwelders) and others that they would exclude
(structural welders and instrument welders)-take
the same welding tests and receive the same certifi-
cation. Furthermore, the Employer assigns and uti-
lizes its employees according to its needs rather
than following strict jurisdictional or craft lines.
An example is that boilerwelders have performed
structural welding and pipewelding. Also, there is
testimony that the Employer does not follow rigid
job classifications in transferring or laying off
skilled employees but instead retains the more
skilled employees for jobs as a project winds down.
We also note that the Joint Petitioners would in-
clude in the requested unit certain employees called
pipefitters' helpers and boilermakers' helpers who
are not part of an apprenticeship program and per-
form a variety of tasks not necessarily restricted to
a particular craft.
Nor does it appear from the record that the Joint
Petitioners are seeking a departmental or two-de-
partment unit. Although the employees in the re-
quested unit are assigned to either the pipe or boi-
lermaker department, the record shows that other
employees are assigned to those departments that
the Joint Petitioners would exclude. Two ready ex-
amples are the stress relief crew and the rod room
employees who are assigned to the pipe department
and have direct work contact with pipewelders and
boilerwelders. The Joint Petitioners' attorney de-
;R. B fhal,,, li1. I) NI R 1595 tIrtoi: l)i I, hlr Llu llg
( t.. 2 I N R II 1414 ( 17 ,)
" D - tttl t ( '9lZlru m ot ( Pl;~l p t', 1 5( N R I ~? I I t)4 )
I X)
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
scribed such employees as service employees and
stated that they should be excluded. Another classi-
fication that the Joint Petitioners would exclude
are the riggers who are assigned to the pipe depart-
ment and work closely with boilermakers.
In addition, we find insufficient evidence to sup-
port the Acting Regional Director's finding that
the nature of the work performed by other crafts is
distinct. 7 As discussed, supra, the requested unit
would include certain welders and exclude other
welders even though, on the record here, the Em-
ployer's various welders take the same test, receive
the same certification, and are used interchangeably
by the Employer. Furthermore, it is plain that em-
ployees in the requested unit work in close proxim-
ity with other of the Employer's skilled employees
in jobs directly related to the construction of the
boiler. Thus, pipefitters work closely with crane
operators, riggers, and structural iron welders. The
stress relief crew coordinates its work with the
pipewelders and boilerwelders. The rod room em-
ployees service all of the Employer's welders. Boi-
lerwelders have performed structural welding. We
also note that the employees in the requested unit
are not commonly supervised separately from the
Employer's other skilled employees. In short, we
find that the Joint Petitioners have not submitted
sufficient evidence to show that employees in the
requested unit perform work that is distinct from
the Employer's other skilled employees.
I In reaching this conclusion, the Acting Regional Director relied on
his findings that the employees in the requested unit work closely on the
same or similar work. using similar skills.
Finally, we find that the record is replete with
numerous examples of common interests between
employees in the requested unit and the Employ-
er's other skilled employees. These common inter-
ests range from wage rates and fringe benefits to
eligibility for the Employer's free upgrading and
cross-training programs coupled with an absence of
any formal apprenticeship programs.
In sum, we find that the record evidence fails to
establish that the requested unit is either a craft
unit or a functionally distinct group with common
interests sufficiently separate from the Employer's
other skilled employees at the boiler jobsite to war-
rant a separate appropriate unit. Since the Joint Pe-
titioners neither presented evidence as to the ap-
propriateness of an alternate unit nor indicated a
desire to participate in an election in a unit other
than the requested unit, we shall dismiss the peti-
tion. 8
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the petition be, and it is
hereby is, dismissed.
Our decision is based on the record evidence here and should not be
construed as precluding a finding of a separate craft or departmental unit
in the Employer's operations in other circumstances where the record
warrants such a finding.
We find no merit in the Emploser's contention that it was prejudiced
by the Hearing Officer's refusal to grant a 30-day continuance following
the Joint Petitioners' amendment of the requested unit. The Acting Re-
gional Director noted that the Employer had failed to appeal timely the
Hearing Officer's ruling and correctly concluded that the amendment
was not a deviation from the unit described in the petition as to warrant
a postponement.
1004