The Zia Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 2, 1964

147 N.L.R.B. 225 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

THE ZIA COMPANY 225
All employees engaged in the structural, reinforcing, and orna-
mental ironworking trade employed by the member contractors of the
Lincoln Association of Lincoln, Nebraska, but excluding all other
employees, guards, and all supervisors within the meaning of the Act.
[The Board dismissed the petition in Case No. 17-RC-4315.]
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
The Zia Company , Petitioner and United Brotherhood of Car-
penters and Joiners of America, Local Union #1353, AFL-
CIO and United Slate, Tile and Composition Roofers, Damp
& Waterproof Workers Association , Local Union #226, AFL-
CIO.' Cases Nos. 33-UA-97 and 28-RM-108. June 2, 1964
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Hearing Officer Fred W.
Davis. The Hearing Officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Prior to the filing of said petition, the Carpenters had filed • a
motion seeking a clarification of an uncertified bargaining unit.2
In view of the relationship between the issues raised between the
motion and the petition, these matters were consolidated for the pur-
poses of hearing.'
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with these cases to a three-
member panel [Members Leedom, Fanning, and Brown].
Upon the'entire record in this case, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
i The caption is hereby amended to include the United Slate , Tile and Composition
Roofers, Damp & Waterproof Workers Association , Local Union # 226, AFL-CI O . because
they presented the representation claim that led to the petition in Case No . 28-RAM-108.
The Brotherhood of Painters , Decorators and Paperhangers of America, Local Union
#869, AFL-CIO, was permitted to intervene in Case No . 33-UA -97 on the basis of the
bargaining history set forth below , but it disclaimed any interest in Case No. 28-RAI-108.
For convenience , the parties are referred to herein as the Employer , the Carpenters, the
Roofers , and the Painters, respectively.
2 In Case No . 33-UA-97 the Carpenters received a certification following a union-shop
election in a unit of journeymen carpenters and apprentices . Solely for convenience the
case number in that proceeding is used for designating the motion in this case.
3 We find no merit in the Painters ' contention that its motion to vacate the order con-
solidating the cases involved herein was improperly denied by the Hearing Officer, or that
the Regional Director erroneously denied its request for special permission to appeal from
the Hearing Officer's ruling.
147 NLRB No. 28.
756-236-65-vol. 147--16
226 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of, Section
9(c) (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, and the Carpenters'
motion for clarification cannot be granted, for the following reasons :
The Carpenters claims that, based on the bargaining history, it
represents the employees of a "composite crew" engaged in mainte-
nance construction, and seeks clarification of its existing unit to in-
clude employees of this crew. The other parties resist this claim,
denying the Carpenters' interpretation of the bargaining history and
asserting that craft units have been and are in existence. During the
Employer's negotiations with the Carpenters, the Employer and the
Painters entered into a contract covering painters and others who are
part of the crew.4 In addition, the Roofers made a claim upon the
Employer to represent the maintenance roofers who are in the com-
posite crew. The Employer declined to recognize the Roofers until
the Board had acted in the entire matter, and filed its petition for
an election among "maintenance roofers." The Carpenters opposes
the Roofers' claim, but it desires to appear on the ballot if an election
is ordered in the proposed maintenance roofers unit.
The Zia Company performs maintenance work at Los Alamos, New
Mexico, under a prime contract with the Atomic Energy Commission.
The Employer has separate agreements with the Carpenters and the
Painters covering the respective crafts in areas of the Employer's
operations other than the disputed maintenance construction crew.
The bargaining history reveals that from 1942 to approximately
1949 all maintenance construction work was apparently done by car
penters represented by the Carpenters Union; however, from 1950 to
1954 the unions involved in this case asserted their traditional juris-
dictional claims to such an extent that the Employer sought to nego-
tiate an arrangement to avoid jurisdictional disputes. To this end,
in 1954 the Employer and representatives of the Carpenters, the
Painters, and the Roofers agreed in writing 5 that a composite crew
would be established to perform maintenance construction work, which
consisted of carpentry, roofing, painting, linoleum laying, and floor
finishing. In order to increase the efficiency of the Employer's opera-
tions in maintenance construction, it was provided that the work as-
signments would be made without regard to jurisdictional lines. In
return for this agreement it was provided that the employees on the
composite crew would be paid the highest wage rate received under
4 The Painters asserts this contract is a bar to the Carpenters ' claim. In view of our
disposition of this case , we do not pass upon this contention.
5 From 1954 to 1963 , the business agent of the Painters was also the representative of
the Roofers . Although no separate signature was affixed on behalf of the Roofers, no
party contends that the Roofers did not participate.
THE ZIA COMPANY 227
the craft unit contracts of any of the unions involved, which was that
paid the Carpenters. It was further agreed that, insofar as possible,
the crew would be divided into equal numbers of persons qualified
as maintenance carpenters, maintenance roofers, and maintenance
painters.
The experience under the composite crew from 1954 to 1963 indicates
that, in accordance with the agreement, there has been an abandonment
of jurisdictional lines. Even the one-third division of employees
among members of each union has not been maintained. The Em-
ployer treats them as a single group, and they are under common su-
pervision. Each employee on the composite crew is able to perform
the work of the other employees, and there is complete interchange-
ability of jobs. In addition, the employees on the crew have developed
common employment interests. They are paid on the same wage scale,
and they have the same working conditions.
However, because of changes in its operations, the Employer is seek-
ing to break up the composite crew, and the disputes in these cases re-
sulted from this effort on the part of the Employer. It has been de-
cided to sell all residences in Los Alamos to private persons. Because
of this decision the Employer will cease, by the end of this year, to
perform any work in the residential sector, although its work in the
technical sector will continue. In preparation for the sale of the
residential sector, the Employer has been reroofing all homes and, upon
completion, will cease to do such work. The increased work in repair-
ing and replacing roofs has resulted in a heavy influx of seasonal em-
ployees qualified as roofers. Nevertheless, some employees on the
roofing crew are carpenters.
The last agreement covering the composit5.y crew was executed on
October 14, 1960, to run until July 1, 1963. As a result of a com-
promise reached in 1963, the Employer has continued to give effect to
this agreement, utilizing the crew the same as was done in the years be-
tween 1954 and 1963, pending the outcome of the representation
dispute.
The Carpenters' reliance on the above-described operations and bar-
gaining history from 1942 to 1949 is misplaced, in view of the lapse of
time and the subsequent events.' Similarly, its apparent contention
that it has been the sole representative of the composite crew since
1954 is without merit. For as set forth previously, the record is clear
that the composite crew was established in 1954 because of the claims
of the three unions, and all three participated in the initial establish-
ment of that crew. Further, although the Carpenters' agent actually
negotiated the contract renewals or modifications covering the crew,
each new agreement has been signed by all three unions. Under these
8 See, e.g., National Carbon Company, a Division of Union Carbide and Carbon Corpora
tson (Edgewater Works), 107 NLRB 1486, 1490.
228 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
circumstances, we must reject as a ground for clarifying the Car-
penters' unit its assertion that the composite crew has historically been
included within the unit represented by the Carpenters.
Furthermore, it is apparent from the facts recited above that craft
lines have not been maintained within the composite crew, and all the
members of that crew regularly perform the same functions and ex-
ercise the same skills. Accordingly, we cannot conclude that the em-
ployees in this crew exercise the craft skills of, and for that reason
belong in a single unit with, journeymen carpenters represented by
the Carpenters Union.1 Nor, in view of the similar functions and
skills of all the crew employees, can we find that the maintenance
roofers which the Roofers has sought to represent constitute an ap-
propriate, identifiable unit.'
In view of the above, and as no union has asserted a claim to repre-
sent the employees in any appropriate unit, we shall dismiss the Car-
penters' motion for clarification and the Employer's petition for an
election.
[The Board dismissed the motion for clarification and the petition
for an election.]
7 See, e .g., ACF Industries, Incorporated, 1.36 NLRB 594, 597-598; BZaw-Knox Com-
pany, 135 NLRB 862, 864.
8 See, e . g., International Minerals 1 Chemical Corporation (Potash Division), 113 NLRB
53, 56. Cf. Shell Oil Company, 116 NLRB 203.
The seasonal influx of temporary employees to perform maintenance roofing work does
not require a different conclusion.
Marks Oxygen Company of Alabama and United Steelworkers
of America, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 10-11C-5778. June
2, 1964
DECISION ON REVIEW
On February 17, 1964, the Regional Director for the Tenth Region
issued an amended Decision and Direction of Election in the above-
entitled proceeding.' Thereafter, the Employer, in accordance with
Section 102.67 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as
amended, filed a timely request for review of the Regional Director's
amended Decision and Direction of Election on the ground, inter alia,
that the Regional Director had erroneously included truckdrivers in
the production and maintenance unit found appropriate herein. The
Petitioner filed a timely statement in opposition to the Employer's re-
'In his original Decision and Direction of Election , issued January 24, 1964 , the Re-
gional Director had excluded truckdrivers from the appropriate unit. Thereafter, upon
motion of the Petitioner which sought their inclusion , the Regional Director reconsidered
his original decision and concluded that the truckdrivers should be included.
147 NLRB No. 31.