Allegheny Ludlum Steel Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 10, 1945

64 N.L.R.B. 1284 (N.L.R.B. 1945)

In the Matter Of ALLEGHENY LUDLUM STEEL CORPORATION and UNITED
STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO
Case No. 6-R-1180.-Decided December 10, 1945
Messrs. Ralph C. Edgar and C. Harold Skodol, of Brackenridge, Pa.,
for the Company.
Mr. John J. Brownlee, of Pittsburgh, Pa., and Mr. Paul J. Fasser, of
Vandergrift, Pa., for the CIO.
Mr. Donald H. Frank, of counsel to the Board.
° DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a petition duly filed by United Steelworkers of America,
CIO, herein called the CIO, alleging that a question affecting com-
merce had arisen concerning the representation of employees of Alle-
gheny Ludlum Steel Corporation, West Leechburg, Pennsylvania,
herein called the Company, the National Labor Relations Board pro-
vided for an appropriate hearing upon due notice before Joseph
Lepie, Trial Examiner. The hearing was held at Pittsburgh, Penn-
sylvania, on July 17, 1945. The Company and the CIO appeared
and participated. All parties were afforded full opportunity to be
heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evi-
dence bearing on the issues. At the hearing and in its brief, the
Company moved the dismissal of the petition. For the reasons stated
in Section IV, infra, the motion is hereby denied. The Trial Ex-
aminer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error
and are hereby affirmed. All parties were afforded an opportunity to
file briefs with the Board.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
11
Allegheny Ludlum Steel Corporation is a Pennsylvania corpora-
tion with its principal place of business in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
64 N. L. R. B., No. 212.
1284
ALLEGHENY LUDLUM STEEL CORPORATION 1285
It is engaged in the manufacture and distribution of various types
of steel products at its five plants in the States of New York and
Pennsylvania, one of which is the West Leechburg, Pennsylvania,
plant, the sole operation of the Company involved in this proceed-
ing. During the year 1944, the Company purchased raw materials
consisting principally of pig iron, scrap iron, iron ore, ferro-silicon,
and manganese ore, valued at approximately $25,000,000, of which
in excess of 40 percent was shipped to the Pennsylvania plants from
points outside the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. During that year,
the Pennsylvania plants produced finished products valued in excess
of $60,000,000, of which more than 70 percent was shipped to points
outside the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
The Company admits that it is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, and we so find.
IT. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
United Steelworkers of America, affiliated with the Congress of
Industrial Organizations, is a labor organization admitting to mem-
bership employees of the Company.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Company has refused to grant recognition to the CIO as the
exclusive bargaining representative of the Company's plant-protection
employees until the CIO has been certified by the Board in an ap-
propriate unit.
A statement of a Board agent, introduced into evidence at the
hearing, indicates that the CIO represents a substantial number of
employees in the unit sought.'
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Company within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The CIO seeks a unit of all the Company's plant-protection em-
ployees at its West Leechburg plant, including the lieutenants, but
excluding the captain of the guards. The plant-protection force
consists of a captain, otherwise known as the chief of the guards,
three lieutenants, otherwise known as patrolmen, and approximately
19 guards who are divided into four categories, i.. e., clock house
men, clock route men, stationary box men, and an extra relief guard.
i The Field Examiner reported that the CIO submitted 17 authorization cards ; that there
were 22 employees in the unit sought ; and that the cards were dated in April 1945.
1286 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
These guards are frequently changed from one category to another and,
in general, their duty consists of protecting the plant property, prop-
erty of the United States located on the plant property, and the Com-
pany's employees.
The clock housemen are stationed at the Company's entrance, where
they take messages from men reporting to and from work, check
the badges of employees, sign in and out all trucks, interrogate all
visitors, guard against fire, and watch for violations of the company
rules. The clock route men walk designated tours, carrying the
watchmen's clock, guarding against fire, and watching for violations
of the company rules. The stationary box men are stationed at fixed
points along the unfenced portions of the plant, where they watch
for fire and prevent the entrance of trespassers. The extra relief
guard substitutes for absent guards at the stationary boxes.
All of the plant-protection personnel were deputized prior to
their militarization in 1943. Eleven of 23 members of the plant-
protection force, however, were hired thereafter, and were not depu-
tized following demilitarization. All but 3 or 4 of the plant-
protection force are armed. It appears that the Company makes
no distinction between deputized and nondeputized guards in the
assignment to duty, and it is clear that the arming of a guard does
not depend upon his deputization.
The Company contends that the petition should be dismissed on
the grounds, inter alia, that guards do not constitute an appropriate
unit because (1) they are not employees within the meaning of the
Act, (2) they are direct representatives of the company manage-
ment, and (3) unionization of deputized guards would create an
untoward division of allegiance.2 We have considered each of these
assertions in many recent cases involving employees with similar
duties, and have found them to be without merit 3 The Company
argues, further, that the CIO may not represent these employees
because it presently represents the Company's production and main-
tenance employees. A designated bargaining representative, we have
consistently held ,4 may represent both plant-protection employees
and other employees of a company so long as it meets our require-
ment by representing the plant-protection employees as a separate
unit for the purposes of collective bargaining and in its day-to-day
2 In its brief , the Company cites the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for
the Sixth Circuit in N. L. R. B. v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation, 146 F (2d) 718.
We do not acquiesce in the doctrine enunciated in that decision, which has not yet been
passed upon by the Court of last resort (Certiorari was granted and the case remanded
for further consideration on June 4, 1945, 65 S. Ct 1413 )
3 Matter of Sealed Power Corporations , 61 N. L . R. B. 1639; Matter of Standard Steel
Spring Company, 62 N. L. R. B. 660 ; Matter of Aluminum Company of America, 63
N. L It. B 828; Matter of Muskegon Piston Ring Company, 63 N. L. R. B. 885.
4 See Matter of Standard Steel Spring Company (supra) , Matter of Pullman-Standard
Car Manufacturing Company, 63 N. L. It. B. 822; Matter of Bethlehem Supply Company,
63 N. L. it. B. 937.
ALLEGHENY LUDLUM STEEL CORPORATION 1287
activities.5 Finally the Company contends that its contract with the
CIO specifically precludes the CIO from seeking to represent these
employees. The contract states :
It is understood and agreed that this Agreement pertains to
employees of the Company's steel manufacturing plants .. .
The term "employee," as used in this Agreement, applies to
all employees of the Company employed in and about the Com-
pany's steel manufacturing plants, excluding salaried employees,
foremen, assistant foremen, supervisors in charge of any classes
of labor, watchmen, guards, and confidential clerical employees
regardless of method of compensation . ...for whom the [CIO]
is, or may be, during the life of this Agreement, certified by
the National Labor Relations Board as the exclusive collective
bargaining representative . . .
Thus, the contract sets out the scope of the unit covered and
excludes by its terms the employees involved herein. Neither in its
terms nor in the surrounding circumstances, however, are there fac-
tors to show that the CIO committed itself not to seek to admit or
represent other employees than those covered by the contract in
other units, or not to sign an exclusive collective bargaining contract
covering them 6
We have considered each of the Company's contentions upon which
it bases its motion to dismiss, and we find them to be without merit.
We have therefore denied the motion to dismiss the petition.
The parties agree that the captain of the guards is a supervisory
employee within our usual definition and should be excluded from the
unit. The Company would also exclude the lieutenants as supervisory
employees. Each of the lieutenants is at various times in charge of
a shift of guards. He does not perform the same duties as the guards
except to relieve a guard when he wishes, but he patrols the plant,
roaming at will and observing the performances of the guards. He
does not assign guards'to their posts, but may rearrange their positions.
He has authority to send home a guard for intoxication or malperform-
ance of his duties. The lieutenants are salaried, whereas the guards
are hourly paid. The lieutenants receive approximately a 13-percent
higher wage than the guards. We are of the opinion that the lieu-
tenants are supervisory employees within our usual definition, and we
shall exclude them from the unit hereinafter found appropriate.
We find that all the Company's plant-protection employees at its
West Leechburg plant, excluding the captain, lieutenants, and any
awe note, moreover, that at the, hearing a CIO representative testified that it is the
CIO's intention to establish a separate local for the purpose of representing the employees
involved herein.
6 See Matter of Consolidation Coal Company , 63 N. L. R. B. 169 ; cf. Matter of Briggs
Indiana Corporation, 63 N. L. R. B. 1270.
1288 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
other supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge,
discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or
effectively recommend such action, constitute a unit appropriate for
the purpose of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section
9 (b) of the Act.
V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
We shall direct that the question concerning representation which
has arisen be resolved by an election by secret ballot among the em-
ployees in the appropriate unit who were employed during the pay-roll
period immediately preceding the date of the Direction of Election
herein, subject to the limitations and additions set forth in the Direc-
tion.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National Labor
Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations
Act, and pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of National Labor Rela-
tions Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3, as amended, it is hereby
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representa-
tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Allegheny Ludlum
Steel Corporation, West Leechburg, Pennsylvania, an election by
secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than
sixty (60) days from the date of this Direction, under the direction
and supervision of the Regional Director for the Sixth Region, acting
in this matter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and
subject to Article III, Sections 10 and 11, of said Rules and Regula-
tions, among the employees in the unit found appropriate in Section
IV, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately
preceding the date of this Direction, including employees who did not
work during said pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation
or temporarily laid off, and including employees in the armed forces
of the United States who present themselves in person at the polls,
but excluding any who have since quit or been discharged for cause
and have not been rehired or reinstated prior to the date of the elec-
tion, to determine whether or not they desire to be represented' by
United Steelworkers of America, CIO, for the purposes of collective
bargaining.