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 R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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,

, 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 -