Robert W. Hunt Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 13, 1965

150 N.L.R.B. 986 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

986 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
It however provides no information as to whether they have the
authority to effectively recommend the hiring, transferring, suspen-
sion, layoff, recall, promotion, discharge, or discipline of other em-
ployees or to adjust grievances of other employees. Accordingly,
we are unable to resolve this issue on the present record and hereby
direct that Dan Damiano and Matti Citardi be permitted to vote if
they so desire, subject to challenge.
On the basis of the foregoing, we find the following employees of
the Employer constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:
All full-time and regular part-time inspectors, truckdrivers, and
laboratory employees, excluding regular and part-time professional
engineers, office clerical employees, guards, watchmen, and super-
visors as defined in the Act and all other employees 8
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
8 Because of the uncertainty as to which of the part-time employees will qualify as
regular part-time employees under the formula set forth above , we hereby direct the
Regional Director to determine for showing - of-interest purposes the identity of those em-
ployees who qualify as regular part -time employees , and to redetermine the adequacy of
Petitioner ' s showing of interest . In the event that the Petitioner 's showing of interest
proves to be inadequate, Petitioner shall have 10 days from the date it has been informed
of the Regional Director's determination to demonstrate the necessary showing of interest
If Petitioner falls to do so the Regional Director is hereby directed to dismiss the peti-
tion. The Regional Director's determination shall be final and conclusive only for show-
ing of interest purposes , and the parties shall retain all rights to challenge the eligibility
of voters in accordance with the Board 's Rules and Regulations , Series 8, as amended,
and established Board policy.
Robert W. Hunt Company, Inc. and Sand , Gravel, Crushed
Stone, Ashes and Material Yard Workers , Local No . 1175, of
International Hod Carriers, Building and Common Laborers
Union of America, AFL-CIO, Petitioner . Case No. 93-RC-13388.
January 13, 1965
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hearing was held before Hearing
Officer Julius J. Altman of the- National Labor Relations Board.
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 [Chairman McCulloch and Members Fanning and
Jenkins].
150 NLRB No. 91.
ROBERT W. HUNT COMPANY, INC. 987
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act and it will effectuate. the purposes of the Act to assert juris-
diction herein.
'2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
3. A question, affecting commerce exists concerning the represen-
tation of certain employees of the Employer within the meaning of
Section 9(c) (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
Robert W. Hunt Company, Inc., is a Delaware corporation en-
gaged in the furnishing of inspection services for building construc-
tion and building materials. Its principal office is in Chicago and
it maintains branches in principal cities throughout the country.
Involved in this proceeding is its New York State area operation
which is broken geographically into its main office at New York City
and cement-inspecting branches located on Long Island, and in the
Hudson and Lehigh Valleys.
The New York State area operation is supervised by Standish and
is divided into three departments, one for the inspection of struc-
tural steel headed by Ingram, one for general building materials
headed by Costello, and the third for concrete and cement headed by
Berezowski. Berezowski's department is divided into four sections
including each of the three cement-inspecting branches at Long
Island, Hudson Valley, and Lehigh Valley, each operating under its
own work-leader, and a unit of concrete inspectors supervised directly
by Berezowski. The structural steel, general building, and concrete
inspectors all are located at the New York City office.
The primary question arising in this case involves the scope of
the appropriate unit .2 The Petitioner seeks a unit of all full-time
and regular part-time concrete inspectors and laboratory employees
who are located at the New York City office, excluding all structural
'Respondent 's request for oral argument is hereby denied as the record and briefs, in
our opinion , adequately set forth the issues and the positions of the parties
2 The Employer also contends that the inspectors are guards within the meaning of the
Act and that the Petitioner represents employees whose work is inspected by the inspec-
tors and is therefore precluded by the Act from representing the inspectors . Alterna-
tively, If the Board should find that the inspectors are not guards , the Employer contends
that the Board should exercise its discretion and not permit the Petitioner to represent
the inspectors because, the Employer urges, the inspectors ' Independence of judgment
would be jeopardized if they had to inspect the work of fellow union members. We find
both of these contentions to be without merit. ' As to the first, the legislative history of
the Act establishes that Congress had no intention of considering inspectors as guards.
See H. Minority Rept. 245 on H.R. 3020 , p. 71, Legislative History of the Labor Manage-
ment Relations Act, 1947, p. 362; S. Rept. 105 on S. 1126, p. 19, Legislative History of the
Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, p. 425; H. Conf. Rept. 510, on H.R. 3020, pp . 35, 36;
Legislative History of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, pp. 539, 540 . As to the
second, we find no reason to believe the performance of these inspectors ' duties would be
in any way jeopardized by their being represented by the same union which represents the
laborers , shippers, batchers , or any other employees at concrete plants or on jobsites.
988 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR • RELATIONS BOARD
steel and general material inspectors, professional engineers, office
clericals , guards, watchmen , and supervisors , as defined in the' Act.
Alternatively , should the Board find this unit to be inappropriate,
the Petitioner would include the structural steel and general material
inspectors . The Employer 's position is that the unit should include
all full -time and regular part-time inspectors in 'its New York State
area operation , including professional engineers , and excluding labo-
ratory employees.
The concrete inspectors whom the Petitioner seeks to represent
work at concrete plants where they see that the proper dry ingre-
dients including such things as sand, gravel , and cement are placed
into the concrete mixing trucks in the proper proportions for ship-
ment to the construction sites. They also work at the construction
sites where they subject the mixed concrete to 'numerous tests and
view the construction operation to see that contract and code speci-
fications are met both by the concrete and, when reinforced concrete
is involved , by the steel reinforcing bars. Inspectors are frequently
required to work up to 6 months in the laboratory and are given a
few weeks on-the-job training before they are permitted to inspect
on their own. Also, under the 1962 New York City code, their
qualifications for the job of inspector must be tested and approved
by a professional engineer.
The steel inspectors inspect structural steel both at the warehouses
before it is assembled and at the construction sites after assembly.
Frequently , hazardous climbing is involved in the inspection of high
water tanks and other such constructions . This work requires more
training than any of the other types of inspection work. Only ex-
perienced persons such as licensed welders are hired to perform this
work.
The general materials inspectors are the least specialized of the
inspectors . They inspect building materials falling outside the spe-
cialized experience of the structural steel and the concrete inspectors.
As noted above, all of the concrete , steel, and general materials
inspectors work out of the New York City office. Some of the con-
crete inspectors are trained to inspect structural steel and, when con-
crete work is slow , they inspect steel under Ingram 's supervision.
Those who are not so trained may gain the necessary training and
experience by working as trainees . Similarly some of the concrete
inspectors also inspect general materials under Costello 's supervision
and, under exceptional circumstances , some of the steel inspectors
inspect concrete under Berezowski 's supervision.
In contrast to the above -mentioned inspectors , the cement ' inspec-
tors are located in the Hudson and Lehigh Valleys and in Long
Island. They work at the cement plants , and some, at least, are,
under the terms of the Employer's contracts , assigned official stations
ROBERT W . HUNT COMPANY, INC. 989
at specific cement plants. Concrete inspectors require additional
on-the-job training before they can qualify to do this work. In one
instance, when the Employer contracted for a prestressed concrete
job in the'Hudson Valley, a concrete inspector had to be sent from
the New York City office to perform the work. Except for a few
isolated cases when a particular concrete inspector was sent to sub-
stitute for an absent cement inspector in the Long Island area, there
has been no interchange between inspectors from the New York City
office and any of the Hudson or Lehigh Valley, or Long Island
locations.
Because of the common location of all the concrete, structural
steel , and general materials inspectors at the New York City office
and the interchange of these inspectors, we find a unit limited to
concrete inspectors to be inappropriate, and we shall include the
structural steel and general materials inspectors in the unit. How-
ever, because of their separate geographical location, their different
job duties and skills, and the lack of any appreciable interchange
with inspectors in the New York City office, we shall exclude the
cement inspectors from the unit.
The Petitioner and the Employer also disagree on the inclusion or
exclusion from the unit of both the professional inspectors and the
laboratory employees located at the New York City office. At present
the Employer hires only one laboratory employee, Zbigniew Klim,
who spends a large percentage of his time working in the lab testing
or helping to test concrete and structural and reinforcing steel sam-
ples. The Employer's policy is to train inexperienced concrete
inspectors for 6 months in the laboratory before they are sent into the
field. Also, when concrete work is slow the concrete inspectors work
in the laboratory if such work is available. Accordingly, because of
the progression of laboratory employee to inspector, the frequency of
inspectors working in the laboratory, and the interrelationship of the
laboratory and inspection work, we find the inspectors and laboratory
employees share a substantial community of interest. Accordingly,
we shall include the laboratory employees in the unit. On the ques-
tion concerning the professional engineers, the record reveals that
these employees are hired pursuant to the 1962 New York, City code
which requires that a licensed professional engineer' at the mixing
plant and at the worksite supervise both the testing of the materials
and the inspection of the concrete construction. Professional engi-
neers must also qualify the inspectors as being capable to perform
their inspection duties. As their duties are supervisory, and as these
employees are professional employees, we shall exclude them from the
unit.
The remaining point at issue is the question of what criteria should
be applied to determine who are regular part-time inspectors. The
990 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Petitioner contends that only those part-timers who worked at least
1 day a week every week in the preceding year should be included in
the.unit; the Employer's position is that any part-timer who worked
at least 1 day during the preceding year should be so included.
We find neither of these suggested criteria to be adequate. The
Petitioner's suggestion would exclude part-time inspectors who, per-
haps because of a slack workweek in the past year, were not during
that 1 week assigned an inspection job even though they may have
worked during every other week throughout the year and even though
they may have relied exclusively upon this work for their livelihood.
Obviously such employees have a sufficient interest in their jobs to be
included in the unit. The Employer's proposal, on the other hand,
would include any inspector who had worked only a single day in the
past year. Equally obviously some of these employees would have no
substantial interest in the inspectors' working conditions and should
not be included in the unit. The selection of an equitable formula
for determining the eligibility of part-time inspectors depends upon
a careful balancing of the factors of length, regularity, and currency
of their employment. We find in this case that all part-time in-
spectors who are still considered as on call by the Employer and who
have worked a minimum of 15 days in either of the two 3-month
periods immediately preceding the issuance of this Decision are regu-
lar part-time employees, and we shall include them in the unit.'
On the basis of the foregoing, we find the following employees of
the Employer constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining within the meaning of the Act.
All full-time and regular part-time inspectors and laboratory
employees who are located at the Employer's New York City office,
excluding all professional engineers , office clericals, cement inspectors
employed at locations on Long Island and in the Hudson and Lehigh
Valleys, guards, watchmen, and supervisors, as defined in the Act.'
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
3 See C.T.L. Testing Laboratories, Ino., 150 NLRB 982, which also involves building
materials inspectors.
s This unit is larger than the one petitioned for, and in accordance with our usual
policy we shall grant Petitioner additional time In which to demonstrate the necessary
showing of interest Because of the uncertainty as to which of the part-time employees
will qualify as regular part-time employees under the formula set forth above , we hereby
direct the Regional Director to determine , for showing-of-interest purposes , the identity
of those employees who qualify as regular part-time employees Petitioner shall have 10
days from the date it has been informed of the Regional Director ' s determination to submit
evidence of an adequate showing of interest . If it fails to do so, the Regional Director
is hereby directed to dismiss the petition . The Regional Director 's determination as to
eligibility shall be final and conclusive only for showing -of-interest purposes, and the
parties shall retain their rights to challenge the eligibility of voters in accordance with
the Board 's Rules and Regulations , Series 8, as amended , and established Board policy.