Pioneer Concrete v. NLRB ( 1999 )

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________________
No. 99-60010
Summary Calendar
_____________________
PIONEER CONCRETE OF ARKANSAS, INC.,
Petitioner-Cross-Respondent,
versus
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,
Respondent-Cross-Petitioner.
_________________________________________________________________
Petition for Review of an Order of the
National Labor Relations Board
(26-CA-18610)
_________________________________________________________________
September 2, 1999
Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Pioneer Concrete of Arkansas, Inc., challenges a NLRB order to
bargain with the Chauffeurs, Teamsters and Helpers, Local Union No.
878 (Teamsters), and the International Union of Operating
Engineers, AFL-CIO, Local Union 382 (Operating Engineers). NLRB
seeks enforcement of that order.
In 1998, Pioneer purchased three companies owned by one
person. The 31 employees of one were then represented by the
Teamsters; the 23 employees of another, by the Operating Engineers;
the 22 employees of the third were not represented. The purchased
companies’ 76 employees were retained by Pioneer.
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
After Pioneer refused the unions’ demands for recognition as
the bargaining representatives for the 54 former employees of the
two unionized purchased companies, the unions charged that Pioneer
had engaged in unfair labor practices. An ALJ held that Pioneer
committed such practices by refusing to recognize and bargain with
the unions. The Board adopted the ALJ’s recommended order.
Claiming that it is operating as a single fully integrated
business unit, Pioneer contends that the Board erred by concluding
(1) that there was substantial continuity between the work forces
of the purchased companies and Pioneer’s work force; (2) that there
was substantial continuity in managerial control and operations;
and (3) that the former bargaining units are still appropriate.
Pioneer maintains that the Board’s decision violates fundamental
principles of the National Labor Relations Act by mandating dual
representation and by fomenting industrial disputes and upheaval.
Pursuant to our review of the record and briefs, we conclude
that the Board’s legal conclusions are reasonable, consistent with
the NLRA, and based on factual findings that are supported by
substantial evidence. See, e.g., Selkirk Metalbestos, North
America, Eljer Mfg., Inc. v. NLRB, 116 F.3d 782, 786-87 (5th Cir.
1997). Accordingly, the petition for review is DENIED and the
cross-petition for enforcement is GRANTED.
REVIEW DENIED; ENFORCEMENT GRANTED
- 2 -