American Steel & Wire Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 8, 1938

5 N.L.R.B. 871 (N.L.R.B. 1938)

In the Matter of AMERICAN STEEL & WIRE COMPANY and STEEL AND
WIRE WORKERS PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION
Case No. B-556.-Decided March 8, 1938
Steel Products , Wire and Wire Products Manufacturing Industry-Investi-
gation of Representatives : controversy concerning representation of employees:
rival organizations ; controversy as to appropriate bargaining unit-Unit Ap-
propriate for Collective Bargaining : production and maintenance employees
in all plants operated by employer ; history of collective bargaining with em-
ployer and in industry ; similarity in wage scales , hours, and working condi-
tions-Order: dismissing Petition for Investigation and Certification of repre-
sentative of employees . in one plant only.
Mr. Stephen M. Reynolds, for the Board.
Mr. Earl K. Cook, of Waukegan, Ill., for the Protective Association.
Mr. 7'. G. Lewis, of Chicago, Ill., for the S. W. O. C.
Mr. Lester F. Collins, of Waukegan, Ill., for the Amalgamated.
Mr. J. H. Krug, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On June 4, 1937, Steel & Wire Workers Protective Association,
herein called the Protective Association, filed with the Regional Direc-
tor for the Thirteenth Region (Chicago, Illinois) a petition alleging
that a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the repre-
sentation of employees of American Steel and Wire Company, Wau-
kegan, Illinois, herein called the Company, and requesting an inves-
tigation and certification of represenatives pursuant to Section 9
(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called
the Act. On August 12, 1937, the National Labor Relations Board,
herein called the Board, acting pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the Act
and Article III, Section 3, of National Labor Relations Board Rules
and Regulations-Series 1, as amended, ordered an investigation and
authorized the Regional Director to • conduct it and to provide for an
appropriate hearing on due' notice.
On Septeinber 24, 1937, the Regional Director issued a notice of
hearing, copies of which were duly served upon the Company, upon
871
80535-38-56
872" NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Protective Association, and upon the Steel Workers Organizing
Committee, herein called the S. W. O. C., a labor organization claim-
ing to represent employees directly affected by the investigation.
On October 2, 1937, Lodge 1115, Amalgamated Association of Iron,
Steel and Tin Workers of North America, herein called the Amalga-
mated, filed with the Regional Director a motion to intervene, and
the Regional Director granted the motion., On January 8, 1938,
the S. W. O. C. filed a petition to intervene, and the Regional Director
granted the petition. The hearing was postponed to January 10,
1938, and notice was given to all parties 2
Pursuant to the notice, a hearing was held on January 10, 1938, at
Waukegan, Illinois, before P. H. McNally, the Trial Examiner duly
designated by the Board. The Board, the Protective Association,
the Amalgamated, and the S. W. O. C. were represented by counsel
and participated in the hearing.3 Full opportunity to be heard, to
examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bear-
ing on the issues was afforded all parties. During the course of the
hearing the Trial Examiner made several rulings on motions and
on objections to the admission of evidence. The Board has reviewed
the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial errors
were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed.
At the hearing the S. W. O. C. filed a motion to dismiss the peti-
tion, which was renewed on February 15, 1938, by a motion filed by
the S. W. O. C. and the Amalgamated. This motion also asks that
the record be reopened to allow introduction of evidence concerning
the making of a new contract by the Company and the S. W. O. C.,
and concerning the proper bargaining unit. In view of our order in
this case, action upon the motion becomes unnecessary.
i On the preceding day, October 1, 1937 , the Amalgamated filed with the Regional
Director a Motion for Continuance , stating that the Amalgamated had filed with the Board
charges that the Company had engaged in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within
the meaning of Section 8 (1), (2) and (3) of the Act , and playing that the Board post-
pone the hearing on the petition filed by the Protective Association , in order to give the
Amalgamated an opportunity to present evidence in support of the charges . The records
of the Board show that on October 1, 1937, the Amalgamated filed such a charge with the
Regional Director for the Thiiteenth Region , alleging ,,among'other things, that the Com-
pany had sponsored the formation of the Protective Association , dominated and interfered
with its administration, contributed financial and other support thereto , and conspired
with officials of the Protective Association to intimidate and coerce members of the
Amalgamated into joining it. According to the Board records no formal action was taken
by the Board on this charge , and on December 11, 1937, at the request of the Amalgamated,
the Regional Director approved withdrawal of the charge
2The healing was originally set for October 4, 1937. It was postponed four times,
once by the Regional Director on his own motion , and on the other occasions by the
granting of motions for adjournment filed with the Regional Director by counsel for the
Amalgamated ; the motions were in each instance accompanied by a stipulation whereby
counsel for the Protective Association consented to the adjournment . Notice of each
adjournment was given to the Protective Association , the Amalgamated , and the Company.
s Counsel for the Company was present at the hearing , but stated that the Company
did not make an appearance because it did not feel concerned in the controversy.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 873
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY 4
The Company is a New Jersey corporation with its principal office
at Cleveland, Ohio. It is a subsidiary of United States Steel Cor-
poration, which owns directly or indirectly all of its voting stock.
The Company owns and operates 12 plants for manufacturing steel
products, wire and wire products, located in eight States. It owns
warehouses in four States ; rents warehouse space or service in 13
other States; and owns a forwarding and receiving dock at Cleveland,
Ohio. Sales offices are maintained at 26 cities in 17 States and the
District of Columbia; in addition, the Company has distributors an
the Pacific Coast and in New York City, the latter for export.
The Waukegan plant of the Company, which is the only plant re-
ferred to in the petition, manufactures rods, wire and wire products.
During the year ending July 31, 1937, raw materials, other than fuel
oil, used by the plant totaled 371,181 tons, of which 290,880 tons or
78.4 per cent, were derived from Illinois and 80,301 tons, or 21.6 per
cent, from other States; of the oil, 1,118,348 gallons, or 77 per cent,
came from Oklahoma and 328,566 gallons, or 23 per cent, from Illi-
nois. In the same period, finished products amounted to 245,966
tons, of which' 149,608 tons, or 61 per cent, were shipped to Illinois
and 96,358 tons, or 39 per cent, to other States. The product of the
Waukegan plant goes to 45 States and the District of Columbia.
During the year ending July 31, 1937, the plant employed an aver-
age of 1,832 workers, exclusive of supervisory and office employees.
H. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Steel and Wire Workers Protective Association, a corporation or-
ganized under the laws of Illinois, is a labor organization which
apparently admits to membership all production and maintenance
employees of the Company, excluding Company officials and persons
with, the power to hire and discharge.
Steel Workers, Organizing Committee is a labor organization au-
thorized to act as the representative, for collective bargaining pur-
poses, of the members of Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel
and Tin Workers of North America.
Lodge 1115, Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel and Tin
Workers of North America is a labor organization, admitting to
4 Substantially all of the facts in this section are derived from a stipulation entered
into between counsel for the Company and counsel for the Board.
874 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
membership all production and maintenance employees at the Wau-
kegan plant of the Company, excluding office force and supervisory
and clerical employees.
III. THE APPROPRIATE 'UNIT
The Protective Association, on May 18, 1937, shortly after its or-
ganization, addressed. a letter to the Company, claiming to have
enrolled as members the majority of all employees at the Waukegan
plant, and requesting that the Company recognize the Protective As-
sociation as exclusive bargaining representative for all employees
at that plant. A week later the superintendent of the Waukegan
plant replied by letter, which stated that the Company recognized
the Protective Association as bargaining agency for its own members,
but refused to grant exclusive bargaining rights on the ground that
the Board should determine what labor organization was entitled to
such rights.
The Protective Association urges that the employees at the Wau-
kegan plant form an appropriate bargaining unit, while the
S. W. O. C. and the Amalgamated claim a unit comprised of em-
ployees of the Company at all its 12 plants.
One of the significant considerations influencing the Board in its
choice of an appropriate unit is the history of labor relations
between the employer and his employees. Prior to 1933, the Com-
pany did not engage in collective bargaining. In that year an Em-
ployees' Representation Plan was formed ; the record does not reveal
whether this Plan was confined to the Waukegan plant. In April
3937, shortly after the decisions by the Supreme Court of the United
States sustaining the constitutionality of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, the Company posted notices that the Employees' Represen-
tation plan was illegal, and it was forthwith abandoned. Upon the
information contained in the record, we cannot regard the Employees'
Representation Plan as an example of collective bargaining. Col-
lective bargaining made its first appearance on March 17, 1937, when
the Company entered into a contract with the S. W. O. C., acting on
behalf of members of the Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel
and Tin Workers of North America employed by the Company. By
the terms of this contract, which was to remain in force until Febru-
ary 28, 1938, the Company recognized the S. W. O. C. as the collective
bargaining agency for those of its members who were employees of
the Company, and agreed to maintain specified wages, hours and
working conditions. The contract also provided that the parties
were to commence negotiations on February 7, 1938, for a new
contract.
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 875
It appears from the record, therefore, that the Company, when it
first bargained collectively, recognized the representatives of its work-
ers upon the basis of an employer unit, as opposed to a plant unit.
The contract which it then signed was in effect at the time of the
hearing. The management at Waukegan has met with representa-
tives of members of the Amalgamated to adjust grievances according
to the procedure outlined in the contract. The Protective Association
also, although it has attempted to bargain only upon a plant basis,
has recognized the value of a single organization to represent em-
ployees of the Company at all its plants. Its charter empowers it to
,admit to membership employees of the Company, of its subsidiaries,
and of other steel corporations. The bylaws contain a similar state-
ment of purpose, although, it is true, other passages in the bylaws
seemingly restrict the aims of the organization to the Waukegan
plant. The ambiguity thus engendered is largely dissipated by a
glance at the scale on which the Protective Association has operated.
Although, apparently, the Protective Association has sought to bar-
gain with the Company only at the Waukegan plant, the record
indicates that it has attempted to enlist members in all of the Com-
pany's plants, and that organizations have actually been formed un-
der the charter and bylaws of the Protective Association in eight of
the 12 plants.
In determining an appropriate unit we look not only to the history
of collective bargaining with the particular employer, but also to the
methods which have been used elsewhere in the same industry. We
take judicial notice, therefore, that at the time the Company signed
with the S. W. 0. C. a number of other subsidiaries of United States
Steel Corporation made substantially identical contracts with the
same labor organization. These agreements were also on an employer
basis.5
There is nothing in the record to suggest that a bargaining unit
embracing the 12 plants is inappropriate. Despite the wide geo-
graphical distribution of its plants, the Company has bargained with
the S. W. 0. C. upon the basis of an employer unit. Nor does the
record reveal differences in the nature of the work performed at the
various plants, which, if they existed, might indicate that the inter-
ests of the workers were not closely related. Another fact which
points to the desirability of the employer unit is the similarity in
hours, wages and working conditions in all the plants. In its con-
tract with the S. W. 0. C. the Company agreed to specified wages,
hours, and working conditions for employees at all its 12 plants.
The S. W. 0. C. and the Amalgamated assert that the plant unit
requested by the Protective Association is inappropriate, and ask
5 U. S. Dept . of Labor, Monthly Labor Review , May 1937 , p. 1237.
876 NA i1IONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that the petition be dismissed. On the record in this case, we are of
the opinion that a unit composed solely of employees at the Waukegan
plant is not appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining.,'
IV. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The petition in this case, as pointed out in Section III above, relates
solely to employees of the Company at its Waukegan plant. We
have found in Section III that a unit consisting solely of employees
at the Waukegan plant is not appropriate for the purposes of collec-
tive bargaining. We find, therefore, that no question has arisen
concerning representation of employees of the Company at its
Waukegan, Illinois, plant.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire
record in this case, the Board makes the following :
CONCLUSION OF LAW
No question concerning the representation of employees of Ameri-
can Steel and Wire Company, at its Waukegan, Illinois, plant exists
within the meaning of Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations
Act.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusion of
law the National Labor Relations Board hereby dismisses the Petition
for Investigation and Certification filed by Steel and Wire Workers
Protective Association.
6 See Matter of Ohio Foundry Compangl and International Molders' Union of North
America, Local No 218, et at , 3 N L R B 701; Matter of Swift and Company and
Packing house lVoikers Union, Local No 563, 4 N L R. B 779, Matter of American
Woolen Company, Nat'l and Providence Mills and Independent Textile Union of Olneyi illc,
5 N. L R. B. 144.