Marvel Roofing Products, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 19, 1954

108 N.L.R.B. 292 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

292 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication]
Member Rodgers took no part in the consideration of the
above Decision and Direction of Election.
unit irrespective of the number of hours they work or the tenure of their employment. As
the record does not disclose the nature of their duties or the regularity of their employment,
we will permit seasonal employees to vote subject to challenge if they are employed during
the eligibility period prescribed in the Decision and Direction of Election herein. Cf. L:
Wiemann Company, 106 NLRB 1167.
MARVEL ROOFING PRODUCTS, INCORPORATED; WESTERN
PROCUREMENT COMPANY, INCORPORATED; NEW
MEXICO FELT MILLS, INCORPORATED 1 and CHAUF -
FEURS, TEAMSTERS AND HELPERS, LOCAL UNION 492,
AFL, Petitioner. Case No. 33-RC-469. April 19, 1954
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 Byron E. Guse,
hearing officer. The hearing officer' s rulings made at the
hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby
affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
1. The three companies listed above are New Mexico
corporations occupying the same premises in Albuquerque,
New Mexico. Western Procurement Company, Incorporated,
is engaged in buying and selling basic raw materials used in
the manufacture of asphalt composition roofing products by
New Mexico Felt Mills. During the year 1953, Western
Procurement Company purchased scrap paper, sawdust, asphalt
coating and saturants, and other products valued at $240,520
from outside the State of New Mexico, and products valued at
$42,500 from within the State. All of its sales, amounting to
$365,767, were made within the State to New Mexico Felt
Mills.
New Mexico Felt Mills, Incorporated, manufactures asphalt
composition roofing products. All but 7 percent of its materials
is purchased from Western Procurement Company. During
the year 1953, all of its manufactured products, valued at
approximately $612,133, were sold within the State to Marvel
Roofing Products.
Marvel Roofing Products, Incorporated, in turn, sells all
the roofing products manufactured by New Mexico Felt Mills
in New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado, Texas, Oklahoma, and
'The names of the companies appear as corrected at the hearing.
108 NLRB No. 58.
MARVEL ROOFING PRODUCTS, INCORPORATED 293
Kansas. In addition, Marvel Roofing Products purchased
other finished products from outside the State in the value of
$190,213. During this period, its sales outside the State
amounted to $512,977, and its sales within the State amounted
to $ 504,737.
With 1 exception,' all 3 companies have the same officers
and are owned by the same group of stockholders. The same
office arid clerical staff perform duties for all 3 companies,
with each company sharing part of the bookkeeping and
clerical costs. The building, which is occupied by all 3
companies, is owned by New Mexico Felt Mills, which collects
rent from the other 2 companies. Wages, hours, and working
conditions at each company are established by Mr. J. Frank
Cox, Jr., the general manager of all 3 companies. Virgil
Batterman, general superintendent of Western Procurement
Company and New Mexico Felt Mills, is responsible for hiring
and discharging employees of both companies. At Marvel
Roofing Products, Mr. Cox exercises this power jointly with
Mr. C. H. Mosshart who is the vice president of all 3 companies.
Under these circumstances, we find that the 3 companies
constitute a single integrated enterprise and are, for purposes of
determining jurisdiction, a single Employer.' As the total
annual out-of-State sales of the 3 companies exceed $500,000,
we find that the Employer is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the Act, and that it will effectuate the policies
of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.4
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent
certain employees of the Employer.
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.
4. The appropriate unit:
The Petitioner seeks a single unit of all production and
maintenance employees of the Employer, including truck-
drivers, warehousemen, and helpers, but excluding office
clerical employees, plant clerical employees, professional
employees, salesmen, laboratory technicians, guards, and
supervisors as defined in the Act. In the alternative, the
Petitioner expressed its willingness to represent separately
the employees at each of the 3 companies. Although taking no
position with respect to the scope of the unit, the Employer
contends that the paper foreman, the head fireman, the roof
mill foreman, and the night cleanup foreman should be excluded
as supervisors. The Petitioner agrees to the exclusion of the
2 The president of the New Mexico Felt Mills, Baxter I. Scoggins, Jr., does not hold an
office in either of the other two companies.
3 Rushville Metal Products, Inc., 107 NLRB 1146.
4 Stanislaus Implement and Hardware Company, Limited, 91 NLRB 618. In agreeing to
assert jurisdiction here, Chairman Farmer and Members Rodgers and Beeson are not
thereby to be deemed as concurring with the Board's present jurisdictional standards.
294 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
roof mill foreman ,5 but would include the other 3 employees
whom it considers to be nonsupervisory leadmen.
Scope of the Unit
In view of our finding in paragraph numbered 1, above, that
the 3 companies involved herein constitute a single Employer,
and because of the integrated nature of their operations and the
centralized control exercised over all employees , we find that
the requested single-employer unit of the employees of all
3 companies is appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining.
The paper foreman and head fireman : The paper foreman
is in charge of a two-man paper -coectioncrewwhich collects
scrap paper from customers in the surrounding area and de-
livers the paper to the plant. He directs the work of the paper
pickers and has the authority effectively to recommend their
hire and discharge . The head fireman is responsible for the
overall operation of the steam boiler and for the maintenance
of the proper temperature in storage tanks. He is employed on
the day shift and directs the work of other firemen who may
be working on that shift. In addition , the head fireman issues
instructions to the night firemen . He also has authority
effectively to recommend the hire and discharge of all firemen.
We find that the paper foreman and the head fireman are
supervisors within the meaning of the Act . Accordingly, we
will exclude them from the unit.
The night cleanup foreman: The night cleanup foreman and
another employee keep the plant clean and maintain the ma-
chinery. Before going on duty, the cleanup foreman receives
instructions which in turn he transmits to the other employee.
Both of them then proceed to perform the necessary work.
As the night cleanup foreman ' s authority over his assistant
is merely one of routine direction , we find that he is not a
supervisor within the meaning of the Act. We will therefore
include him in the unit.
Accordingly, we find that all production and maintenance
employees at the Employer ' s Albuquerque , New Mexico , plant,
including truckdrivers , warehousemen and helpers , and the night
cleanup foreman, but excluding office clerical employees,
plant clerical 'employees , professional employees , salesmen,
laboratory technicians , guards, the paper foreman, the head
fireman, the roof mill foreman , and all other supervisors as
defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes
5 The roof mill foreman is in charge of between 10 and 17 employees who constitute the roof
mill shift. He is responsible for the scheduling of the shift and its operation. The record further
discloses that not only does the roof mill foreman direct the roof mill shift in the performance
of their duties, but that the roof mill foreman has authority effectively to recommend hiring
and discharges. In these circumstances we will, in accordance with the parties' agreement,
exclude the roof mill foreman as a supervisor within the meaning of the Act.
J. A. UTLEY COMPANY 295
of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b)
of the Act.6
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
6At the hearing, the parties agreed to exclude all so-called temporary part-time employees
who are employed by the Employer for less than 30 days. However, such employees, if they
perform functionally related work, are included in the unit irrespective of the number of
hours they work or the tenure of their employment. L. Wiemann Company, 106 NLRB 1167.
For this reason, we will include in the unit all part-time employees who perform functionally
related duties. However, in accordance, with Board practice, only those employees who are
regularly employed by the Employer within the meaning of Board decisions will be eligible to
vote in the election hereinafter directed. Cf. C. & H. Foods, Inc., 100 NLRB 1483, 1485; J. C.
Penney Company, 86 NLRB 920, 923.
The Employer recently hired three cleanup men for a special job to be completed in a
few weeks. In accordance with the parties' agreement, we will exclude them as casual em-
ployees.
J. A. UTLEY COMPANY and LeROY KERRIDGE
MILLWRIGHTS LOCAL UNION NO. 1102 UNITED BROTHER-
HOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA,
Affiliated with THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR,
AND ITS AGENT, R. M. LAING and LeROY KERRIDGE.
Cases Nos. 7-CA-847 and 7-CB-142. April 20, 1954
DECISION AND ORDER
On November 27, 1953, Trial Examiner Ralph Winkler issued
his Intermediate Report in the above - entitled proceeding , finding
that the Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in certain
unfair labor practices and recommending that they cease and
desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set
forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. The
Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent Company had
not engaged in certain other unfair labo" practices alleged
in the complaint and recommended dismissal of those al-
legations. Thereafter, the Respondents and the General Counsel
filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report, and the Respondents
filed briefs in support of their exceptions.'
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Ex-
aminer at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was
committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has
considered the Intermediate Report, the exceptions and briefs,
1 The Respondents have requested oral argument. In our opinion, the record, the exceptions,
and briefs fully present the issues and the positions of the parties. Accordingly, the requests
are denied.
108 NLRB No. 78.