National Labor Relations Bd. v. Dallas Concrete Co., 14813.
| Decision Date | 22 April 1954 |
| Docket Number | No. 14813.,14813. |
| Citation | 212 F.2d 98 |
| Parties | NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD v. DALLAS CONCRETE CO. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
A. Norman Somers, Asst. Gen. Counsel, David P. Findling, Associate Gen. Counsel, Elizabeth W. Weston, Principal Atty., George J. Bott, Gen. Counsel, Elizabeth B. Head, Attys., National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D. C., for petitioner.
George E. Seay, Lucian Touchstone, Malone, Lipscomb & Seay, Dallas, Tex., for respondent.
Before HUTCHESON, Chief Judge, and HOLMES and BORAH, Circuit Judges.
This is a petition to enforce an order of the National Labor Relations Board, requiring the respondent to cease and desist from refusing to bargain collectively with the union, and from interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their organizational rights. Respondent, a Texas corporation with its principal office in Dallas, is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of ready-mixed concrete. On June 21, 1951, eleven of respondent's nineteen truck drivers signed applications for membership in the union. After the receipt of these applications, the union's representative wrote respondent a letter, informing it that a majority of the ready-mix drivers had designated the union as their bargaining agent, requesting a meeting, and offering to prove the union's claim of representation. The respondent never replied to this letter, and on July 26, 1951, the union initiated these proceedings.
The principal defense relied on by respondent is that the unit designated by the union as "Ready-Mix Drivers" is ambiguous, and that the union did not represent a majority of said unit. Respondent asserts, therefore, that it was not and could not have been guilty of unfair labor practices. The board found that the unit designated by the union as ready-mix drivers consisted of the employees listed on respondent's payroll as "truck drivers," and rejected the respondent's contention that all or some of its other employees who drove ready-mix trucks occasionally, particularly four men classified on the payroll as "mixer-mobile operators," were so closely identified with the truck drivers that they too were members of the unit termed ready-mix drivers. There is a clear distinction between the truck drivers and the mixer-mobile operators, as the latter are primarily operating engineers engaged in construction work and not truck drivers engaged in making deliveries. The mixer-mobile operators receive more specialized training and a higher rate of pay, and are required to be members of the Operating Engineers Union as a condition of employment.
The evidence shows that the union intended to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
NLRB v. Air Control Products of St. Petersburg, Inc.
...Dallas City Packing Co., 5 Cir., 1958, 251 F.2d 663; Cone Bros. Contracting Co. v. NLRB, 5 Cir., 1956, 235 F.2d 37; NLRB v. Dallas Concrete Co., 5 Cir., 1954, 212 F.2d 98; Phillips Petroleum Co. v. NLRB, 5 Cir., 1953, 206 F.2d 26; NLRB v. Sidran, 5 Cir., 1950, 181 F.2d 671; NLRB v. Quincy S......
-
NLRB v. Bama Company
...Cir. 1960); NLRB v. Coats & Clark, Inc., 241 F.2d 556 (5th Cir. 1957); NLRB v. Armstrong Tire & Rubber Co., supra; NLRB v. Dallas Concrete Co., 212 F.2d 98 (5th Cir. 1954). The Board also found Respondent violated Secs. 8(a) (3) and (1) of the Act in discharging Santos Valdez. Valdez was ac......
-
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF ELEC., RADIO, ETC. v. NLRB
...without consent of the general counsel. See Sailors' Union, 92 NLRB 547 (1950); Dallas Concrete, 102 NLRB 1292 (1953), enforced 5 Cir., 1954, 212 F.2d 98. In concluding that the Board cannot entertain an amendment to the complaint which the general counsel opposes, we express no opinion on ......
-
NLRB v. Transport, Inc., of South Dakota
...however, we cannot comprehend how a request to represent "all drivers" could have confused or misled respondents. See NLRB v. Dallas Concrete Co., 212 F.2d 98 (CA5 1954). If they were uncertain as to the scope of the unit requested or the Union's majority status they certainly had the oppor......