Ernest Renda Contracting Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 23, 1961

130 N.L.R.B. 1515 (N.L.R.B. 1961)

ERNEST RENDA CONTRACTING CO.- INC:, ETC . 1515
All lithographic production employees, excluding all other em-
ployees, office clerical employees, professional employees, watchmen
and guards, and all supervisors as defined in the Act."
If a majority of the employees in the above-described voting group
vote for the Petitioner, they will be taken to have voted for separate
representation, and the Regional Director is instructed to issue a
certification of representatives to the Petitioner for that unit. If a ma-
jority of the employees in the voting group vote for the Pressmen,
they will be taken to have indicated their desire to remain a part of
the overall unit now represented by the Pressmen, and the Regional
Director will issue a certification of results of election to such effect.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
'2 The parties stipulated and we find that Bennet and Adams employed by Logan
Printing Company are supervisors within the meaning of the Act. We shall therefore
exclude them.
Ernest Renda Contracting Co., Inc. and Nenna & Frain Co ., Inc.'
and Local Union 14458 , District 50, United Mine Workers of
America, Independent , Petitioner. Case No. 4-RC-4420. March
23, 1961
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before a hearing
officer of the National Labor Relations Board. His rulings made at
the hearing are free from prejudicial, error and are affirmed.
Pursuant to Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the
Board has delegated its powers herein to a three-member panel [Mem-
bers Rodgers, Leedom, and Fanning].
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 named below claims to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
' The name of the Employer appears as amended at the bearing.
2 The Employer Companies moved to dismiss on the ground that their operations do
not meet the Board 's jurisdictional standards . The two Companies are separately in-
corporated in New Jersey and maintain offices at a single location in New Jersey. Since
1957 they have performed work for various municipalities in Pennsylvania . They are
currently engaged in the construction of a sewer system in the town of East Stroudsburg,
Pennsylvania , under a joint contract. This contract, originally scheduled for completion
in 18 months , is in the amount of $1,443,000. As the record shows that the Employer
,Companies ; are -,New Jersey corporations., maintaining a , home office in that State ,and
performing services in ` excess of $50,000 in,valuation in Pennsylvania outside their home
State , we find that they are engaged in commerce and that it will effectuate the policies
of the Act to assert jurisdiction . Compare Local 176, United Brotherhood of Carpenters
etc. (Dimeo Construction Company), 122 NLRB 980 , footnote 3.
130 NLRB No. 159.
1516 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD'
3. A question affecting commerce-exists concerning the representa-
tion of certain employees of the Employer within the meaning of
Section 9(c) (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The following employees of the Employer constitute a unit ap-
propriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within Section
9(b) of the Act:
All employees of the Employer employed at the East Stroudsburg,
Pennsylvania,3 sanitary sewer project excluding the engineering staff,
office clerical employees, watchmen, timekeepers, master mechanics,
superintendents, assistant superintendents, general foreman, and all
other supervisors within the meaning of the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
8 The Petitioner contends that the unit should embrace future projects in Pennsylvania,.
New Jersey , and New York. The Employer would limit the unit to its present project.
The Employer has no other construction employees at this time . On the record we find
that a unit confined to the current project is the only feasible and appropriate unit for
collective bargaining . Arthur it. Johnson Corporation , et at., 97 NLRB 1466, 1467.
Fuchs Transfer Company and Brotherhood of Railway and
Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers , Express and Station
Employees. Case No. 5-CA-1720. March 211,, 1961
DECISION AND ORDER
On December 1, 1960, Trial Examiner Stephen S. Bean issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as, set forth in the copy of the Inter=
mediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed
exceptions to the Intermediate Report, together with a supporting
brief.'
The Board 2 has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the In-
termediate Report, the, exceptions and brief, and the entire record' in
the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner.'
'The Respondent 's request for oral argument is denied as.the record, including the
exceptions and brief , adequately presents the issues and positions of the parties.
'Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the
Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three -member panel
[ Members Rodgers, Leedom , and Fanning].
S We agree with the Trial Examiner that Respondent independently violated Section
8(a) (1) of the Act by interrogating Collins concerning his union activities and the union
130 NLRB No. 154.