American Gilsonite Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 14, 1953

106 N.L.R.B. 762 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

762 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
it did. Standing alone, I do not believe that the facts are sufficient to sustain the General
Counsel's contention Accordingly, I find that by its insistence on the Union's certification by
the Board the Respondent did not unlawfully refuse to bargain within the meaning of Section
8 (a) (5) of the Act.
It is found that by offering jobs to the striking employees and by granting merit and general
wage increases on March 26, 1952, without advising or consulting with the Union. the Re-
spondent did not engage in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (5) and (1)
of the Act. If the Respondent had the right to demand certification by the Board before rec-
ognizing the Union, it follows that it was not obligated to bargain or consult with the Union
until that condition had been met. Further, with respect to its good faith insofar as the
granting of the wage increases is concerned, Hershel Thornburg, Respondent's manager of
wage and salary administration, testified credibly and without contradiction to the effect
that the Respondent, in September 1951, filed a petition with the Wage Stabilization Board
for increased wage-rate ranges covering its sales operations throughout the United States;
and, that the proposed rate increases were approved on March 19, 1952.
[Recommendations omitted from publication ]
AMERICAN GILSONITE COMPANY and H. K. FRONTZ, JR.,
Petitioner and UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA,
LOCAL NO. 4261, CIO. Case No. 30-RD-41. August 14, 1953
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 Eugene Hoff-
man, 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, Styles, and
Peterson].
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 employees of the Employer. i
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the
representation of employees of the Employer within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
iThe Petitioner, an employee of the Employer, asserts that the Intervenor is no longer the
bargaining representative of the employees in the proposed unit, as defined in Section 9 (a) of
the Act. It was stipulated at the hearing that the Intervenor is currently recognized by the
Employer as the exclusive representative of such employees. The Intervenor's most recent
contract with the Employer, which terminated on June 30, 1953, covers, in addition to the
employees in the proposed unit, all employees at the Employer's Bonanza, Utah, mine.
106 NLRB No. 128.
AMERICAN GILSONITE COMPANY 763
4. The Petitioner seeks a decertification election in a unit
of over-the-road truckdrivers and shop employees of the
Employer at its Craig, Colorado, plant. The Intervenor
contends that the proposed unit is inappropriate because it
does not include the employees at the Employer's Bonanza,
Utah, mine. The Employer does not oppose the petition.
The Craig plant is approximately 125 miles from the
Bonanza mine. The employees at Craig are engaged in hauling
the ore from Bonanza to the railroad shipping point at Craig.
They are separately supervised and consist of over-the-road
truckdrivers, mechanics who service the trucks, a laborer
who performs janitorial duties in the garage, and an elec-
trician who spends a substantial portion of his time in re-
pairing the trucks. As the over-the-road truckdrivers at Craig
are the only such drivers in the Employer's employ, we find
that they may constitute a separate appropriate unit. However,
as the other employees sought have duties and skills similar
to those of employees at Bonanza, they may not be severed
from the existing contract unit. We find, accordingly, that all
over-the-road truckdrivers of the Employer, excluding shop
employees, office and plant clerical employees, and super-
visors as defined in the Act, may constitute a unit appro-
priate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
We shall direct that an election by secret ballot be held
in the foregoing voting group. If the employees in the voting
group do not select the Intervenor, the Intervenor will be
decertified as to them; if, on the other hand, they select the
Intervenor, they will be taken to have indicated their desire
to remain in the unit with the other employees of the Employer
now represented by the Intervenor.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
Member Peterson, concurring:
The drivers involved herein have been a part of a plantwide
unit for only 3 years. In view of this short bargaining history of
inclusion in a broader unit, 2 and the recognition which the Board
has accorded to the highly divergent interests and conditions of
employment to over-the-road truckdrivers, 3 I agree with the
conclusion of my colleagues that these drivers should be given
an opportunity to indicate whether they desire to continue being
represented by the Intervenor. Accordingly, I concur in direct-
ing a self-determination election among them.
2 See my dissent in W. C. Hamilton and Sons , 104 NLRB 627.
3 Woodlin Metal Products Company, 106 NLRB No. 50, and cases cited therein.