Anaconda Copper Mining Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 20, 1953

104 N.L.R.B. 1064 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

1 064 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
choice in the selection of a collective-bargaining representa-
tive. We find that the Employer's objections are without merit,
and they are hereby overruled.
As the tally shows that a majority of the. valid votes have
been cast for the Petitioner, we shall certify the Petitioner as
the collective-bargaining representative of the employees in
the appropriate unit.
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that United Steelworkers of
America, CIO, has been designated and selected by a majority
of the employees of Allen-Morrison Sign Company, Incorpo-
rated, in the unit found to be appropriate as their representative
for the purposes of collective bargaining and that, pursuant to
Section 9 (a) of the Act, as amended, the said organization is
the exclusive representative of all the employees in such unit
for the purpose of collective bargaining with respect to rates
of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of
employment.
Chairman Herzog and Member Houston took no part in the
consideration of the above Supplemental Decision and Certifica -
tion of Representatives.
ANACONDA COPPER MINING COMPANY and LOCAL UNION
NO. 16, INTERNATIONAL HOD CARRIERS, BUILDING
& COMMON LABORERS OF AMERICA, AFL. Case No.
33-CA-191. May 20, 1953
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a charge filed August 8, 1952, by Local Union No. 16,
International Hod Carriers , Building & Common Laborers of
America, AFL, herein called the Union, the General Counsel
of the National Labor Relations Board, by the Regional Director
for the Sixteenth Region, issued a complaint dated March 13,
1953 , against Anaconda Copper Mining Company , herein called
the Respondent , alleging that it had engaged in and was engaging
in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning
of Section 8 (a) (1) and (2) and Section 2 (6) and ( 7) of the Act.
Copies of the complaint and charge were duly served upon the
Respondent , the Union , and upon West Valencia Independent
Union, herein called the Independent Union.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint
alleged that the Respondent, on or about May 27, 1952, and
thereafter , assisted , dominated , contributed to the support
of, and interfered with the administration of, the Independent
Union, and on or about June 23, 1952, entered into a collec-
tive -bargaining agreement with the Independent Union, thereby
violating Section 8 (a) (2) of the Act, and interfering with,
ANACONDA COPPER MINING COMPANY 1065
restraining, and coercing its employees in violation of Section
8 (a) (1) of the Act. On April 7, 1953, the Respondent filed its
answer in which it admitted the jurisdictional allegations of the
complaint, but denied that it had committed the alleged unfair
labor practices.
Thereafter, desiring to obviate the necessity of a hearing, all
parties entered into a stipulation which set forth an agreed
statement of facts. The stipulation provided that: (1) The
parties waive a hearing; (2) the Board may find the facts
contained in the stipulation to be true and correct; (3) the
Board may make findings of fact, conclusions of law, and
may issue its Decision and Order based thereon as if the same
facts had been adduced in open hearing before a Trial Examiner;
(4) the stipulation, the notice of hearing with copies of the
complaint and charge, and the answer constitute the entire
record; and (5) the parties request permission to file briefs
by April 27, 1953.
On April 20, the Board issued an Order, accepting the stipu-
lation and granting all parties until April 27 to file briefs.
Thereafter, the Respondent filed a brief with the Board.
Upon the basis of the aforesaid stipulation, the Respondent's
brief, and the record in the case, the Board' makes the
following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Respondent is a Montana corporation, having its head office
at 25 Broadway, New York City, and is now and has been at all
times mentioned continuously engaged at or near Grants, New
Mexico, in the mining and treatment of uranium-bearing ores.
The general nature of Respondent's business is mining and
metallurgical operations and the fabrication and marketing of
nonferrous metal products. Respondent has operations located
in various parts of the United States, Mexico, and South
America, and receives through interstate commerce raw
materials and equipment consisting principally of mining
and milling equipment and supplies valued in excess of
$ 1,000,000 annually, and ships ore and metal products through
interstate commerce valued in excess of $1,000,000 annually.
The Respondent admits, and we find, that it is engaged in
commerce within the meaning of the Act.
II. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Local Union No. 16, International Hod Carriers, Building &
Common Laborers of America, AFL, and the West Valencia
Independent Union are labor organizations which admit to
membership employees of the Respondent.
i Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers
in connection with this case to a three- member panel [Members Houston , Styles , and Peter-
son].
1066 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
III. THE SEQUENCE OF EVENTS
Late in January 1952, representatives of the Union and other
AFL unions informed John B. Knaebel, Respondent' s manager,
that they were going to organize the Respondent's employees.
Knaebel advised them that the Company would not interfere.
The Union began an organizing campaign on or about May 15,
1952, and held an organizing meeting on or about May 23 at
Grants, New Mexico, at which 19 employees signed union-
authorization cards. Another such meeting was scheduled for
May 28. However, on the morning of May 28, an employee of
Respondent called the Union's office in Albuquerque and advised
that there was no use coming to Grants to hold the union meeting
as the employees were no longer interested. Upon investigation,
the Union learned that the Independent Union had been organized,
and thereafter made no further organizational efforts.
Sometime in May, after learning that the Union was actively
trying to organize the employees, Respondent became aware
that employees were asking some of its foremen for advice and
were in some cases apparently apprehensive that if they or-
ganized a union there would be reprisals. About this time,
Respondent called a meeting of its foremen and shift bosses,
at which Knaebel told them that in case the employees asked
them any questions about union matters, they were to inform
the men that the Company's attitude was entirely impartial,
and that no one would be discriminated against in any way
because of union activities or otherwise. He told them that they
could inform the employees that the Company would discuss
mutual problems with any representatives whom they chose or
with the men as an unorganized group should they choose not to
organize.
On the morning of May 27, the employees discussed among
themselves the question of joining the Union. At the suggestion
of one of the employees, a meeting of Respondent's employees
was held at noon that day. There the employees selected a
committee of three to represent them to discuss the matter of
higher wages and better working conditions with Knaebel that
evening after work and to see what they could accomplish
themselves before joining the Union. This committee, which
was selected to represent the various groups of employees at
the plant, met with the mine superintendent and Knaebel after
work on May 27 and discussed an increase in their wages. The
committee told Respondent's representatives that the Union had
held a meeting in Grants for the purpose of organizing them and
had promised the employees substantial wage increases and the
men were wondering what to do. At that time, Knaebel told the
committee that the Company would freely discuss the wage
problem with employees either through an international union
if they chose to be represented by such an organization, or
through an informal committee representing the employees
without the formality of organization, or through an independent
union, if they chose that medium of recognition. This latter
remark was in reply to a direct question from the committee
as to whether the Company would deal with an independent
union.
ANACONDA COPPER MINING COMPANY 1067
The next day, May 28, 1952, 57 employees, which represented
virtually 100 percent of the Company's employees at that time,
signed a document which read: "We, the undersigned, do agree
to organize in an Independent Union with Anaconda Copper
Mining Company."
On or about. May 29, 1952, after working hours, the committee
and three other employees presented this signed document to
Knaebel. He told them that inasmuch as virtually 100 percent of
the employees had signed the document and because no other
group had asked for an election or claimed to represent the
employees, the Company recognized their union. He suggested
they get themselves in shape to deal in an orthodox manner so
that any contract which might result from negotiations would
be a proper legal document. The committee then told Knaebel
they wished to discuss wages right away; whereupon Knaebel
told them he hoped they could all agree on a scale approximately
the same as that of other large copper mining companies in the
southwest, but that he thought it would be preferable first to
perfect their organization, so that they would have a proper
body with whom the Company could enter into a binding legal
contract before discussing details.
A day or two later, the committee went to Manager Knaebel's
office to discuss the best procedure in obtaining an agreement.
At this meeting, E. C. Iden, the Company's attorney, was
present. He and Knaebel told the committee they should have a
more formal type of organization than the simple paper which
practically all of the employees had signed indicating their
intention to organize independently; that they imagined a simple
charter and bylaws such as those used by social clubs and
service clubs would be adequate. The committee then asked
Iden if he would represent them in drawing up the necessary
papers to perfect their organization and he declined because
of his connection with the Respondent. Knaebel and Iden sug-
gested that they retain a competent lawyer to help them set
up their organizational framework. Iden did, however, offer
to answer any questions which they might put to him so long
as the questions were confined to strictly nonpolicy and
noncontroversial matters, such as what sort of franchise or
charter might be required in order to place their group in a
position to negotiate a contract.
As to what transpired after this colloquy, the stipulation
recites: "However, after much discussion, Attorney Iden did
rewrite the form of Articles of May 28, 1952,2 at the commit-
tee's request, which the employees re-adopted at their Inde-
pendent Union meeting of May 31, 1952. In the redrafting of the
charter and by-laws,' Mr. Iden simply implemented and put
into orthodox language the voluntarily expressed desires of the
Independent Union dated May 28, 1952. It was prepared, to
2 This would appear to refer to the document, reading: "We, the undersigned, do agree
to organize in an independent Union with Anaconda Copper Mining Company."
3 There is no mention in the stipulation of facts of any "charter and by-laws" to be re-
drafted except the above-quoted document.
1068 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
provide a more workable basis than their document of May 28,
1952. . . . '
The rewritten document, which was entitled "Articles and
By Laws," set forth the purpose and jurisdiction of the Inde-
pendent Union, designated the officers and members of the
negotiating committee for the ensuing year, and contained
provisions relating to membership, election of officers,
meetings, ratification of contracts, and amendments.
On or about June 12, 1952, negotiations were entered into
between Respondent and representatives of the Independent
Union covering a new wage scale. The Company proposed a
wage scale which the Independent Union's representatives turned
down. The Independent Union then submitted a counterproposal
and, at a meeting on June 20, a compromise agreement was
reached. The Company then prepared the contract on the terms
agreed upon, which contract was accepted unanimously by a
majority meeting of the Independent Union on June 23.
The accepted contract was then presented to the Company,
whereupon the Company requested that the secretary of the
Independent Union furnish it with a certified copy of the minutes
of the meeting in which the Independent Union adopted or ac -
cepted the contract. The Independent Union secretary said he
had not written up any minutes and was not just sure how to
go about it and asked Manager Knaebel to help him out. Knaebel
requested Attorney Iden to draw some minutes which would
record the facts as to what had transpired at the meeting as
stated to them by the secretary of the Independent Union. Iden
prepared such minutes, which were signed by the Independent
Union's president and secretary. The minutes were then
accepted by Knaebel for the Company as evidence that the
Independent Union had legally ratified and executed the contract
of June 20.
Conclusions
As the Union had made no claim of majority representation
on May 29, 1952, when the Respondent recognized the Independent
Union, we find that the Respondent was not then confronted with
conflicting representation claims by two rival unions. There-
fore, its recognition did not constitute unlawful assistance to
the Independent Union.4
Nor are there sufficient facts stipulated to support a finding
that the Respondent assisted the Independent Union or domi-
nated and interfered with its formation and administration in
violation of Section 8 (a) (2) of the Act. The evidence indicates
that the employees voluntarily chose to form the Independent
Union. After recognizing the group, the Company encouraged
it to formalize its organization in order that it would be in a
position to negotiate a contract. Not being represented by
counsel, the Independent Union requested the Respondent's
4Siler Mill Company, 92 NLRB 1680, 1683, distinguishing Midwest Piping and Supply
Co., Inc., 63 NLRB 1060.
INTERNATIONAL MINERALS & CHEMICAL CORPORATION 1069
attorney to draft its organizational papers, which the attorney
did. Thereafter, at the Independent Union's request for help in
drafting its minutes showing ratification of the agreement with
the Company, the Respondent had its attorney draft them,
recording the facts as stated bythe secretaryof the Independent
Union. Under the circumstances of this case, we find that the
drafting of the two documents by the Respondent's counsel,
without more, does not preponderate as evidence of a violation
of the Act.
Accordingly, as the Independent Union was not illegally
assisted or dominated, the Respondent acted lawfully in nego-
tiating and entering into a contract with the Independent Union.
We shall therefore dismiss the complaint in its entirety.
ORDER
Upon the stipulated record in this case, and pursuant to
Section 10 (c) of the Act, the National Labor Relations Board
hereby orders that the complaint against the Respondent,
Anaconda Copper Mining Company, be, and it hereby is,
dismissed.
INTERNATIONAL MINERALS & CHEMICAL CORPORATION,
FLORIDA PHOSPHATE DIVISION and INTERNATIONAL
CHEMICAL WORKERS' UNION, LOCAL #35, AFL, Petitioner
INTERNATIONAL MINERALS & CHEMICAL CORPORATION,
MULBERRY, FLORIDA PLANT OF THE PLANT FOOD
DIVISION1 and INTERNATIONAL CHEMICAL WORKERS'
UNION, LOCAL #35, AFL, Petitioner. Cases Nos. 10-RC-
2295 and 10-RC-2296. May 20, 1953
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of
the National Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was
held before Frank E. Hamilton, Jr., hearing officer. The
hearing officer' s rulings made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the
Board has delegated its powers in connection with these cases
to a three-member panel [Members Houston , Styles, and
Peterson].
Upon the entire record in these cases, the Board finds:
1. The Employers are engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent
certain employees of the Employers.
3. Questions affecting commerce exist concerning the repre-
sentation of employees of the Employers within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
1 The Employer's name appears as amended at the hearing.
104 NLRB No. 143.