Aluminum Co. of America

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 29, 1943

52 N.L.R.B. 1040 (N.L.R.B. 1943)

In the Matter of ALUMINUM COMPANY OF AMERICA and INTERNATIONAL
UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLE-
MENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFFILIATED WITH THE C. I. O.
Case No. R-5822.-Decided September 29, 1943
Mr. M. W. Borders, of Kansas City, Mo., for the Company.
Messrs. Harry C. Clark, Hiram P. Gensler, and Gene Minshall, of
Kansas City, Mo., for the CIO.
Mr. Charles A. Coakwell, of Cleveland, Ohio, for the A. F. L.
Messrs. I. W. Swartz and Patrick Ryan, both of Kansas City, Mo.,
for the Building Trades Council.
Messrs. Eric B. Bjurman and J. G. Campbell, both of Kansas City.
Mo., for the IAM. _
Mr. Glenn L. Moller, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon petitiolf duly filed by International Union, United Auto-
mobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America,
affiliated with the C. I. 0., herein called the CIO, alleging that a
question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation
of employees of Aluminum Company of America, Kansas City, Mis-
souri, herein called the Company, the National Labor Relations Board
provided for an appropriate hearing upon due notice before Robert S.
Fousek, Trial Examiner. Said hearing was held at Kansas City,
Missouri , on August 10, 1943. The Company, the CIO, Lodge No. 92,
International Association of Machinists, herein called the IAM,
American Federation of Labor, herein called the AFL, and its affiliated
Kansas City Building Trades Council, hereinafter referred to as the
Building Trades Council, appeared and participated. All parties were
afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine
witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues. Counsel
for the Company moved to continue the hearing on the ground that
there were presently employed only about one-third of the total antici-
52 N. L. R. B., No. 181.
1040
ALUMINUM COMPANY OF AMERICA 1041
pated personnel of the plant . For the reasons hereinafter stated, the
motion is denied. The Trial Examiner 's rulings made at the hearing
are free from , prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. All parties
were afforded 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
Aluminum Company of America , a Pennsylvania corporation, oper-
ates a plant in Kansas City, Missouri , where the Company is engaged
in the manufacture of airplane and tank cylinder heads. The plant
is owned by the Defense Plant Corporation and is leased to the Com-
pany. The Company uses raw materials at the plant consisting
chiefly of aluminum , sand and associated foundry materials. The
Company's monthly purchases of raw materials exceed $5,000.00 per
month and its products are delivered to the United States Government.
The Company admits that it is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
H. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
International Union, United Automobile , Aircraft and Agricul-
tural Implement Workers of America, affiliated with 'the Congress of
Industrial Organizations , is a labor organization admitting to mem-
bership employees of the Company.
Kansas City Building Trades Council and its affiliated Unions, af-
filiated with the American Federation of Labor, are labor organiza-
tions admitting to membership employees of the Company.
Lodge No. 92 , International Association of Machinists is an unaf-
filiated labor organization admitting to membership employees of
the Company.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
On or about June 18, 1943, the CIO wrote to the Company request-
ing recognition as the exclusive bargaining representative of employees
of the Company and the Company has refused to accord such recogni-
tion.
A statement of the Regional Director, introduced into evidence at
the hearing , indicates that the CIO, the AFL , and the IAM represent
substantial numbers of employees in the alleged appropriate units.'
I The Regional Director reported that the CIO submitted 464 authorization cards bearing
the apparently genuine original signatures of persons whose names are listed on the Com-
1042 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Company, within the meaning of
Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT; THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
The CIO contends that all production and maintenance and shop
clerical employees of the Company at its Kansas City plant, exclud-
ing supervisory, office and technical employees, constitute an appro-
priate bargaining unit. The Company is in general agreement with
the CIO as to the propriety of an over-all industrial unit, differing
only as to certain categories of employees hereafter discussed. The
IAM contends that all machinists at the plant, excluding supervisory
employees, constitute a separate appropriate unit. The AFL contends
that there should be three separate bargaining units, one of produc-
tion employees, one composed of maintenance employees, and the third
composed of the machinists.
The plant is considered by the Company to be one of the most mod-
ern of its kind in existence. It functions as a single, well-integrated
unit, each department contributing to a single finished product, alu-
minum cylinder heads. The AFL bases its contention for a separate
maintenance unit upon the fact that the employees in the various craft
groups which comprise the maintenance department were nearly all
formerly employed by the contracting company which built the plant
and were employed pursuant to a closed-shop contract with the AFL.
However, the AFL has been organizing the production employees as
well as maintenance employees and wishes to appear on the ballot
in any election which we might direct among the production employees.
Clearly, the AFL has itself recognized the propriety of a single pro-
duction and maintenance unit in the conduct of its organizational
activity at the plant. We shall reject the AFL's request for separate
production and maintenance units. '
The parties agree that guards, foremen, assistant foremen, and
personnel and planning department employees should be excluded
from the appropriate unit, but disagree as to the inclusion or exclusion
of inspectors, leadmen, timekeepers, storekeepers, and expediters.
Inspectors: The CIO seeks to include inspectors while the Company
and the AFL would exclude them.2 The Company employs a sub-
pany's pay roll of June 27 , 1 943, which contains the names of 969 employees in the alleged
appropi late unit.
The AFL submitted 157 cards bearing the apparently genuine original signatures of persons
w''ose names are listed on the Company's pay roll of the same date.
The TAM submitted a certified statement listing the names of 10 persons whose names
appear on the Company's pay roll of the same date, which pay loll contains the names of
14 persons listed as machinists.
2 The inspectors who are in dispute examine the castings. There are also core inspectors
who the parties agiee should be included in the unit.
ALUMINUM COMPANY OF AMERICA 1043
stantial number of inspectors whose function is to examine the castings
.for defects . They are located at three points along the production
line and it is their duty to detect defects in the castings and to see
that the defects are either corrected or that the castings are sent back
and recast . The inspection department reports directly to the plant
manager and has no administrative connection with the .production
departments. The inspectors are carefully trained and in order to
make them available in the shortest possible time, are trained to inspect
only a specific portion of the castings. Persistently defective work is
reported by them, through their supervisors, to the head of the inspec-
tion department, who in turn reports the matter to the head of the
department responsible for the defective work. Such action could
result in the discharge of the production employee responsible for the
defects. The Company contends that the inspectors must be entirely
free from pressure from production employees and that membership
in the union might subject them to such pressure: However, the effect
of the inspectors' activities upon the status of the production employees
is too indirect to lend any substantial weight to the Company's con-
tention. We shall include inspectors in the unit.3
Leadmen: The Company would exclude leadmen while all of the
labor organizations would include them. Leadmen are in charge of
crews of employees numbering from 6 to 20. They are hourly paid,
receiving at least 5 cents per hour more than any of their subordinates.
They spend from 50 to 75 percent of their time at production work.
Although they have no authority to discharge, it is their duty to re-
port on the work-of their subordinates and to make recommendations
relative to discharge or promotion. They have authority to suspend
an employee pending final disposition of the matter by a superior.
In addition they represent management in the handling of some of
the grievances filed by the Union. We shall exclude leadmen from
the appropriate unit or units.
Storekeepers: The Company would exclude storekeepers while the
interested unions would include them. They do light manual work
and keep records and inventories of supplies and tools. The Com-
pany's sole reason for seeking to exclude them is concern lest they
might, if included in the same bargaining unit with production and
maintenance employees, conceal or fail to report losses or damage to
tools checked out to production employees. The record provides no
basis for such fears on the part of the Company. We shall include
the storekeepers in the unit.
Expediters: The Company would exclude expediters from the
unit while the unions would include them. There are at present only
8 Matter of Little Rock Furniture Manufacturing Co , 39 N L. R B 892 ; Hatter of
Gardne?-Denve, Company, 44 N L R B. 1192.
549875-44-vol. 52-67
1044 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
three employees in this category, but the Company anticipates that
it will employ about three more by the time its pay roll has been fully.
expanded. Expediters check all work stoppages, waste, and delay.
It is their responsibility to see that adequate supplies of parts and
materials are available wherever needed. This necessitates a constant
check upon, all phases of the production process. Their wages are
from 15 to 18 percent higher than the wages of any production em-
ployee. They are responsible directly to the manager and are con-
sidered by the Company to be direct representatives of management.
We shall exclude expediters from the appropriate unit.4
Timekeepers: The Company and the AFL would exclude time-
keepers while the CIO would include them. The Company employs
44 timekeepers and timekeeper tally clerks. The latter check and
record piece-work rates of the production employees and turn over
these records to the timekeepers, who record the piecework informa-
tion and the actual hours of work of the employees. These records
determine production schedules and affect the piece-work rates re-
ceived by the employees. The timekeepers are responsible to the
accounting and administrative department. We find that the interests
of timekeepers are more closely aligned with the interests of the
clerical employees than with those of the production employees. We
shall exclude timekeepers and timekeeper tally clerks from the unit
or units.5
Machinists: The IAM requests a craft unit consisting of all
machinists, in, the Company's employ, excluding supervisory em-
ployees. The Company employs approximately 14 machinists, who
work in a well-equipped machine shop in the plant. Their work con-
sists of maintenance of the machinery throughout the plant. They
were nearly all taken over by the Company from the contractor who
installed the machinery. These employees constitute a sufficiently
identifiable skilled group that they can function as a separate unit,
or they could be merged into the larger production and maintenance
unit. Therefore, before determining the question we shall first as-
certain the desires of the employees involved. We therefore make no
finding at this time with reference to the propriety of the unit sought
by the IAM.
The Company, as previously indicated, urges that no election should
be directed at this time for the reason that there were at the time of
the hearing only about 1,284 persons then employed, whereas the
Company plans to expand its pay roll so that by January or February
1944, it hopes to have a total personnel complement of approximately
3,195 employees.
4 Matter of Julian P. Fries & Sons, 47 N. L. R. B. 43 ; Matter of New Britain Machine
Company, 48 N. L . R B. 263; Matter of Fairchild Aircraft Company, 50 N. L. R. B. 113.
5 Matter of Aluminum Company of America, 51 N. L . R. B. 1295.
ALUMINUM COMPANY OF AMERICA 1045
Situations such as this have presented a vexing problem since the -
rapid expansion of war production industries began, about 2 years
ago. Our usual policy in representation proceedings has been to con-
sider a certification as conclusive evidence of majority representation
for a period of a year following our issuance of the certification and,
accordingly, we have ordinarily refused to entertain a new petition
for investigation and certification of representatives within such
period. The rapid expansion of war industries, however, many of
which began production with a mere handful of employees, created
conditions in which adherence to our 1-year rule might often have
defeated a basic objective of the Act, representation of employees by
a bargaining agent chosen by the majority of their number. Con
fronted with this situation, it has been our aim to protect the rights
of employees to bargain through representatives of their own choos-
ing and at the same time to prevent labor relations from becoming so
unstable that an employer would fear to bargain with a union lest,
by the time agreement is reached, expansion of the pay roll would have
cast serious doubt upon the union's representative status. In fur-
therance of that aim, we have varied our usual practices in deter-
mining whether or not to grant elections, and have sometimes provided
that our certification would not bar a new determination of repre-
sentatives within a period less than 1 year. In some instances, where
we were of the opinion that the complement of employees as of the
date of the hearing did not constitute a fair cross section of those who
would presently be in the Company's employ, we have dismissed the
representation petition in order that the situation might become fur-
ther stabilized before the holding of any elections In other cases,
where we have felt that dismissal of the petition would unduly delay
collective bargaining for a substantial and representative group of
employees, we have proceeded to an immediate determination of repre-
sentatives. In such cases, where it was apparent that approximately
one-half of the quota of employees which the Company expects even-
tually to hire could be polled in an election presently directed, we have
provided for such election and, in the interest of stability, have cer-
tified the winning union without any qualification of our usual 1-year
rule.? Where, however, substantially one-half of the ultimate comple-
ment of employees could not be polled in an election for many months,
although the Company expected that its current pay roll would be
more than doubled within a year, we have directed an immediate elec-
tion but, in order to afford future employees a voice in the election
of their representatives, have specifically indicated that we would
6 Matter of Lukas-Harold Corp., 44 N. L. R. B. 730.
7 Matter of Pullman-Standard Car Manufacturing Company, 49 N. L . R. B. 542 ; Matter
of Hughes Tool Company, 45 N. L. R. B. 821 ; Matter of Remington Rand, Inc., 50 N. L. R. B.
819; Matter of Irwin-Pederson Arms Co., 45 N. L. R. B. 92.
i
1046 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOA-RD
entertain a new petition at any time after our certification upon proof,
inter alia, of a substantial increase in personnel." In both types of
cases we have sought to give effect to our opinion, which we here
reaffirm, that a determination of representatives may properly be made
for a period of 1 year where it is not anticipated that the complement
of employees will be more than doubled within that period. The
problem now before us is the application of this policy to the facts in
the instant case.
At the time of the hearing the Company had in its employ about 30
percent of its full quota of personnel, which it hopes will be em-
ployed by about February 1944., The employees now on the Com-
pany's pay roll constitute a fair cross section of those who will be
ultimately employed and we see no reason why they should be de-
prived at the present time of the benefits of collective bargaining.
`Ve shall, accordingly, direct an election herein.
The only remaining question is whether we should qualify any cer-
tification which may issue in these proceedings by providing that a
new petition may be filed within a year. There is considerable evi-
dence indicating that approximately one-half of the anticipated
complement of employees will have been hired before November 1,
1943, but there is also some indication in the record that the 50 percent
figure may not be approached for a considerably longer period. The
rate at which the Company is able to expand its pay roll had already
been retarded at the time of the hearing. The current manpower short-
age affecting war industries, and action which may presently be taken
by other Government agencies to remedy that situation, may either
accelerate or further retard the rate of expansion of the Company's
personnel. The Company's estimate as to its ultimate personnel quota
may well be varied. Considering all the circumstances realistically,
we are reasonably satisfied that our direction of election herein will
result in the polling of substantially one-half of all the personnel who
will be in the Company's employ within the next year. However, we
deem it unnecessary to predict the future situation where, as here, the
issue is close and the proof speculative at best. In order to effectuate
the policy underlying our decision in the cases above referred to, we
shall, as in the Westinghouse case,° provide herein for the contingency
that within a period of less than 1 year following our certification, if
any, the Company's pay roll may be more than doubled. Our ex-
perience has demonstrated that the conditions precedent to entertaining
a new petition, set forth in the Westinghouse case and others, should
be stated with greater particularity. Accordingly, we shall entertain
"Matter of Westinghouse Electric & Manufacturing Co, 38 N. L. R B 404 ; Matter of
Kroehler Manufacturing Company, 45 N. L R B 1151; Matter of Precision Manufacturing
Corporation, 49 N. L. R. B 438.
Ibid.
ALUMINUM COMPANY OF AMERICA 1047
a new representation petition affecting the employees involved herein
within a period less than 1 year, but not before the expiration of 6
months, from the date of any certification which we may issue in the
instant proceedings, upon proof (1) that the number of employees
in the appropriate unit is more than double the number of employees
eligible to vote in the election hereinafter directed; and (2) that the
petitioning labor organization represents a substantial number of
employees in the expanded unit.
Having found that the machinists could properly function as a
separate unit or as part of the plant-wide unit, we shall make no final
determination of the appropriate unit at this time, but shall direct
that the question concerning representation which has arisen be re-
solved, in part, by an election among the employees in the following
voting groups who were employed during the pay-roll period immedi-
ately preceding the date of our Direction of Elections, subject to the
limitations and additions set forth therein :
(1) among all production and maintenance employees of the Com-
pany at it Kansas City, Missouri, plant, including shop clerical em-
ployees, storekeepers, and inspectors, but excluding office and clerical
employees, technical employees, guards, expediters, machinists, time-
keepers, leadmen, foremen, assistant foremen, and any other super-
visory employees with authority to hire, promote, discipline, discharge,
or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively
recommend such action, to determine whether they desire to be repre-
sented by the CIO or by the AFL, or neither, and
(2) among all machinists in the Company's employ, excluding super-
visory employees with authority to hire, promote, discipline, discharge,
or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively
recommend such action, to determine whether they desire to be "repre-
sented by the CIO or by the IAM, or by neither.
Upon the results of these elections will depend in part our determina-
tion of the appropriate unit or units.
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
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 Relations
Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2, as amended , it is hereby
DIRECTED that , as part of the investigation to ascertain representa-
tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Aluminum Com-
pany of America , Kansas City, Missouri , elections by secret ballot shall
be conducted as early as possible , but not later than thirty (30) days
from the date of this Direction , under the direction and supervision of
the Regional Director for the Seventeenth Region, acting in this matter
1048 DE CISION'S OF NATIONAL LABOR RIELATIONS BOARD
as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject to Article
III, Sections 10 and 11, of said Rules and Regulations, among the
follotiving employees who were employed by the Company during
the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of this Direction
of Elections, 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 those em-
ployees who have since quit or been discharged for cause : -
(1) all production and maintenance employees of the Company at
its Kansas City, Missouri, plant, including shop clerical employees,
storekeepers and inspectors, but excluding office and clerical employees,
technical employees, guards, expediters, machinists, timekeep-
ers, leadmen, foremen, assistant foremen and any other supervisory
employees with authority to hire, promote, discipline, discharge, or
otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively
recommend such action, to determine whether they desire to be repre-
sented by International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agri-
cultural Implement Workers 'ef America, affiliated with the Congress
of Industrial Organizations, or by the American Federation of Labor
and its affiliated labor organizations, for the purposes of collective
bargaining, or by neither; and
(2) all machinists in the Company's employ, excluding supervisory
employees with authority to hire, promote, discipline, discharge, or
otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively
recommend such action, to determine whether they desire to be repre-
sented by International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agri-
Implement Workers of America, affiliated with the Congresscultural
of Industrial Organizations, or by International Association of Ma-
chinists, for the purposes of collective bargaining, or by neither.