Granite City Steel Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 7, 1946

67 N.L.R.B. 1185 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

In the Matter of GRANITE CITY STEEL COMPANY and UNITED STEEL-
woRKERS of AMERICA, CIO
Case No. L -C-1996.-Decided May 7, 1946
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On February 8, 1946, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate
Report in the above-entitled proceeding finding that the Respondent
had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices
and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report,
attached hereto. Thereafter, the respondent filed exceptions to the
Intermediate Report and a supporting brief. On April 25, 1946, the
Board at Washington, D. C., heard oral argument in which the
respondent and the Union participated.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds
that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby
affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the re-
spondent's exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the case, and
hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the
Trial Examiner.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, the' National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that the respondent, Granite City Steel Company,
Granite City, Illinois, and its officers, agents, successors and assigns
shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with United Steelworkers of
America, CIO, as the exclusive representative of all watchmen em-
ployed at its Granite City, Illinois, plant, but excluding the captain
and assistant chief, and any other supervisory employees with author-
ity to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes
in the status of employees, or effectively recommend such action :
(b) In any manner interfering with the efforts of United Steel-
67 N. L. R. B., No. 154.
1185
692148-46-vol. 67-76
1186 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
workers of America, CIO, to bargain collectively with it on behalf of
the employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with the United Steelworkers
of America, CIO, as the exclusive bargaining representative of all its
employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit, in respect to rates of pay,
wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment;
(b) Post at its plant in Granite City, Illinois, copies of the notice
attached to the Intermediate Report, marked "Appendix A." 1 Copies
of said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Four-
teenth Region, after being signed by the respondent's representative,
shall be posted by the respondent immediately upon receipt thereof,
and maintained by it for sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter in
conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the respondent
to insure that such notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any
other material;
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Fourteenth Region, in
writing, within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps
the respondent has taken to comply herewith.
CHAIRMAN HERZOG took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Order.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Mr. Ryburn L. Hackler, for the Board.
Mr. William R. Bascom, of St. Louis, Mo., and Mr. M. D. Conroy , of Granite
City, Ill., for the Respondent.
Mr. Ralph Z Miller, of Granite City, Ill., for the Union.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge duly filed by the United Steelworkers of America, C. I. 0., herein
called the Union, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board,
by its Regional Director for the Fourteenth Region ( St. Louis, Missouri ), issued
its complaint dated January 9, 1946, against Granite City Steel Company , herein
called the respondent , alleging that the respondent had engaged in and was
engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of
Section 8 (1) and (5) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint accom-
panied by notice of hearing thereon were duly served upon the respondent and
the Union
With respect to the unfair labor practices , the complaint alleged in substance
that the respondent on or about November 5, 1945, and at all times thereafter
refused to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive representative of
' Said notice , however, shall be, and it hereby is, amended by striking from the first
paragraph thereof the words "RECOMMENDATION OF A TRIAL EXAMINER" and
substituting in lieu thereof the words "A DECISION AND ORDER."
GRANITE CITY STEEL COMPANY 1187
the employees in the unit described in the complaint, although a majority of the
employees in said unit had designated and selected the Union as their represen-
tative for the purpose of collective bargaining. On January 23, 1946, during the
hearing in this matter, the respondent filed its answer in which it admitted that
the Union had been designated and selected by a majority of the employees in the
unit of all watchmen exclusive of supervisory employees. The respondent denied,
however, refusing to bargain collectively with the Union, denied that "a unit con-
sisting of all the watchmen . . . will effectuate the policies of the Act," and
denied that it had engaged in any unfair labor practices within the meaning of
the Act. The respondent further alleged that under a contract now existing
between the respondent and the Union, "the Union has contracted to refrain from
acting as the duly constituted bargaining agent and representative of the
watchmen...."
Pursuant to notice, a hearing, was held on January 23, 1946, at St. Louis,
Missouri, before Millard L Midonick, the undersigned Trial Examiner duly
designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The Board and the respondent were
represented at the hearing by counsel, and the Union was represented at the
hearing by its international representative. Full opportunity to be heard, to
examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the
issues was afforded all parties. Motion of counsel for the Board to conform the
pleadings to the proof in minor details, such as Dames and dates, was granted
without objection. At the close of the hearing, the respondent and the Board
argued orally before the undersigned. Although the respondent was granted
permission to file a brief on January 30, 1946, and was notified that time for
filing such brief was extended to February 4, 1946, no brief has been received.
In view of findings and recommendations hereinafter made, the respondent's
motion to dismiss the complaint, made at the close of he hearing, is denied.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from his observation of the witnesses,
the undersigned makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Granite City Steel Company is a Delaware corporation engaged in the man-
ufacture of flat rolled steel at its Granite City, Illinois, plant. During 1945, the
respondent used in its manufacturing processes raw materials valued in excess
of $1,000,000, of which approximately 10 percent was shipped to it from points
outside the State of Illinois. During that year, the respondent manufactured
finished products valued in excess of $21,000,000, of which approximately 90
percent was shipped from it to points outside the State of Illinois.
At the hearing the respondent conceded that it is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
United Steelworkers of America, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial
Organizations, is a labor organization admitting to membership employees of
the respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The refusal to bargain
1. The appropriate unit and representation by the Union of a majority therein
On September 14, 1945, the Board issued a Decision and Direction of Election
in Case No. 14-R-1233' finding that all the respondent's watchmen, but excluding
1 63 N. L . R. B. 898.
1188 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the captain and assistant chief, and any 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 purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9 (b) of the Act.
On October 11, 1945, pursuant to said Direction of Election, an election by se-
cret ballot was conducted under the supervision of the Regional Director for the
Fourteenth Rcgion.2 On October 25, 1945, the Board certified the Union as the
exclusive representative, for the purposes of collective bargaining, of the
employees in the unit hereinabove described.
The respondent contends, as it did in the representation proceeding, that
watchmen do not constitute an appropriate unit and that there can be no
appropriate unit for the inclusion of these employees. The respondent reasons
that as some units in its plant are represented by the Union, and others are
represented by American Federation of Labor affiliates, and that as watchmen
are closely allied to management, unionization would impair the satisfactory
discharge of their duties by causing division of their loyalty where other em-
ployees represented by the Union are involved, and by causing friction where
other employees represented by the American Federation of Labor affiliates
are involved.
Consideration of all the evidence clearly indicates the unit of watchmen
established by the Board in the representation case is appropriate. In acocrd-
ance with the expectation expressed by the Board in the representation decision,
not only will the Union set up a separate local to represent watchmen, but it
intends that the separation here of the bargaining unit of the watchmen from
the other units of the respondent's employees in their negotiations with the
respondent and their day-to-day activities will be one of fact, not merely
form, and the separation shall be reflected in all bargaining between the re-
spondent and the Union, including negotiations for a separate contract for the
watchmen.
The Board has considered the contentions raised by the respondent in nu-
merous previous cases involving similar employees of other employers, and it
has found them to be without merit 3
The respondent concedes that its watchmen are no longer militarized. The
cases cited by the respondent involving militarized watchmen and guards de-
cided by the Circuit Courts of Appeal' are therefore not applicable here,` as
the Supreme Court's ruling in those cases provides :
2 The tally of ballots showed that of approximately 18 eligible voters, 18 cast valid votes,
of which 13 were for the Union and 5 against.
3 See Matter of Minnesota and Ontario Paper Company, 65 N. L. R. B. 971 ; Matter of
The B. F. Goodrich Company, 62 N. L. R. B. 206; Matter of Sealed Power Corporation,
61 N. L. R B 1639; Matter of International Harvester Company, Milwaukee Works, 61
N L. R. B 912, Matter of Bethlehem-Fairfield Shipyard, Inc, 61 N. L. it. B 901, Matter
of Bethlehem Steel Company, 61 N. L. it. B. 892; Matter of Rohm it Haas Company, 60
N. L R. B. 554; Matter of Drava Corporation, 52 N. L. it. B. 322. The Board has recently
decided, in a case involving representation of foremen, that the Act does not confer upon
it the administrative discretion "to decide that some `employees' may not constitute an
appropriate unit in any circumstance." Matter of L. A. Young Spring it Wire Corpora-
tion, 65 N L. It. B 298.
4 N L R B. v. Jones it Laughlin Steel Corporation, 146 F. (2d) 718 (C. C. A. 6);
N. L. R. B. v. E. C. Atkins it Co , 147 F. (2d) 730 (C. C. A. 7).
2 Matter of Minnesota and Ontario Paper Company, 65 N. L. R B. 971.
ON. L. R. B. v. Federal Motor Truck Company, 325 U. S. 838; N. L. R. B. v. Jones it
Laughlin Steel Corporation, 325 U. S. 838; N. L. R. B. v. E. C. Atkins and Company,
325 U. S. 838.
GRANITE CITY STEEL COMPANY 1189
The petition for writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated
and the case remanded to the Circuit Court of Appeals for further consider-
ation of the alleged changed circumstances with respect to the demilitariza-
tion of the employees involved, and the effect thereof on the Board's
orders.
The respondent further contends that the Union may not.represent its watch-
men because "the Union has contracted to refrain from acting as the duly
constituted bargaining agent and representative of the watchmen. . . ." Turn-
ing to the contractual provision relied upon by the respondent, we find it em-
bodied in the agreement made with the Union on January 26, 1944, to con-
tinue in effect until October 15, 1946:
Section 2-RECOGNITION
The Company recognizes the Union as the exclusive collective bargaining
agency for those employees who are covered by contract with Local Lodges
No. 11, 16, 67, and 68.
The term "employee" as used in the Agreement includes all employees
working on jobs covered by contract with Local Lodges No. 11, 16, 30, 67,
and 68 of the United Steelworkers of America ; but shall not include execu-
tives, superintendents, assistant superintendents, foremen and assistant
foremen, who will do no production and maintenance work except in an
emergency, general inspectors, timekeepers, clerical employees in the main
and plant offices, watchmen, chief clerks in the Mill Offices, technical and
professional engineers, draftsmen, chemists, metallurgists, nurses and other
salaried employees. Such employees will not be included in this Agreement.
This Agreement will include the following occupations-all clerical em-
ployees on mill floors and in mill offices, observers, and Junior and Senior
Analysts, Test Runners in Department of Metallurgy and Inspection.
The quoted provisions of the contract purport merely to define the classes of
employees excluded from the operation of the agreement ; certainly there is no
promise contained therein on the part of the Union to refrain from organizing
or representing in future negotiations employees not covered by the agreement.
There is testimony that it has been the practice for production employees to with-
draw from the Union's predecessor upon transfer to duties as a watchman. Never-
theless, the respondent's only witness made it equally clear that, although a union
representative stated previous to the current agreement that the Union did not
then want watchmen in their organization, no one indicated that the Union
'would not represent watchmen or would undertake not to organize them.
The respondent cannot properly rely on Matter of Briggs Indiana Corporation.?
In that case the Board dismissed a petition of the labor organization seeking to
represent plant protection employees because the international affiliate of the
petitioning union was there bound by contract not to accept for membership the
plant protection employees. The terms of that contract are here quoted to
emphasize the dissimilarity from those of the agreement now under consideration:
. . . That it [the contracting unions] will not accept for membership direct
representatives of the management, such as superintendents, foremen, assist-
ant foremen, or supervisors in charge of any classes of labor, time study men,
plant protection employees, or confidential salaried employees (Article 1,
paragraph (d)).
7 63 N. L R. B. 1270.
1190 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The undersigned finds that the contract involved in the case at hand is descrip-
tive merely of the coverage of the contract and contains no promise whatever
committing the Union to refrain from organizing the watchmen or from bargain-
ing in their behalf. Since no contract requires the Union to refrain from rep-
resenting the watchmen, the doctrine of the Briggs case has no application here,
The Board has uniformly held that the mere exclusion of certain groups of em-
ployees from the coverage of a contract does not constitute a bar to the right to
represent these groups.8
The undersigned finds, in accordance with the Board's previous determination
in the representation case, that all the respondent's watchmen, but excluding
the captain and assistant chief, and any other supervisory employees with au-
thority 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 purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9 (b) of the Act.
The undersigned further finds that on and at all times after October 11, 1945,
the Union was the duly designated bargaining representative of a majority of
the employees in the aforesaid bargaining unit and that, pursuant to the provi-
sions of Section 9 (a) of the Act, the Union was on October 11, 1945, and at all
times thereafter has been the exclusive representative of all employees in the
aforesaid unit for purposes of collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay,
wages, hours of employment and other conditions of employment.
2. The refusal to bargain
On October 30, 1945, the Union wrote to the respondent requesting an appoint-
ment "to begin negotiations on a collective bargaining agreement covering the
watchmen." The respondent replied on November 5, 1945, insisting "that the
management of the Company and the preservation of its properties are matters
which must remain outside the scope of collective bargaining. It is our con-
viction, therefore, that our Company's guards do not constitute an appropriate
bargaining unit and that under the existing circumstances your Union does not
constitute a proper bargaining agent for our guards." On November 6, 1945,
the Union wrote to the respondent asking :
Will you please answer by return mail whether or not you are willing
to recognize, in accordance with the National Labor Relations Board certi-
fication, the United Steelworkers of America, CIO, as the bargaining agent
for the guards at your plant?
On November 9, 1945, the respondent answered in part :
To answer the question asked in your letter of November 6, this is to advise
that Granite City Steel Company is not willing, at the present time, to recog-
nize, in accordance with the National Labor Relations Board certification,
United Steelworkers of America, CIO, as the bargaining agent for the Com-
pany's guards.
At the hearing and in its answer, the respondent re-affirmed the position taken
in this previous correspondence. It is clear that the respondent's conduct con-
stituted a refusal to bargain and the undersigned so finds.
The undersigned finds that the respondent on November 5, 1945, and at all
times thereafter, has refused to bargain collectively with the Union as the ex-
clusive representative of its employees in an appropriate unit and has thereby
8Matter of American Central Manufacturing Corporation, 65 N. L R B 342 ; Matter of
Allegheny Ludlum Steel Corporation , 64 N. L . R. B. 1284 ; Matter of Consolidation Coal
Company , 63 N. L. R, B 169.
GRANITE CITY STEEL COMPANY 1191
interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The undersigned finds that the activities of the respondent set forth in Section
III, above, occurring in connection with the operations of the respondent described
in Section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic,
and commerce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burden-
ing and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Since it has been found that the respondent has engaged in unfair labor prac-
tices, it will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. It having been
found that the respondent has refused to bargain collectively with the Union as
the exclusive representative of its employees in an appropriate unit, it will be
recommended that the respondent upon request bargain collectively with the
Union.
Because of the basis of the respondent's refusal to bargain, as indicated in
the facts found, and because of the absence of any evidence that danger of other
unfair labor practices is to be anticipated from the respondent's conduct in the
past, the undersigned will not recommend that the respondent cease and desist
from the commission of any other unfair labor practices. Nevertheless, in order
to effectuate the policies of the Act, the undersigned will recommend that the re-
spondent cease and desist from the unfair labor practices found and from in
any manner interfering with the efforts of the Union to bargain collectively with
it.°
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record in the
case, the undersigned makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LA-,V
1. United Steelworkers of America, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial
Organizations, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of
the Act.
2. All the respondent's watchmen, but excluding the captain and assistant chief,
and any 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 purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
3. United Steelworkers of America, C I 0, was on October 11, 1945, and at all
times thereafter has been the exclusive representative of all employees in the
aforesaid unit for purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of See-
tion 9 (a) of the Act.
4. By refusing on Novemebr 5, 1945, and at all times thereafter to bargain
collectively with United Steelworkers of America, C. I 0, as the exclusive repre-
sentative of all its employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit, respondent has
engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Sec-
tion 8 (5) of the Act.
5. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the respondent has engaged in
° See N. L R B. v. Express Publishing Company, 312 U. S 426; May Department Stores
Co. v. N. L. R B. 323 U. S. 376
1192 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (1) of
the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law and upon
the entire record in the case, the undersigned recommends that the respondent,
Granite City Steel Company, Granite City, Illinois, its officers, agents, succes-
sors, and assigns , shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with United Steelworkers of America,
C. I. 0., as the exclusive representative of all watchmen employed at its Granite
City, Illinois, plant, but excluding the captain and assistant chief, and any
other supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, dis-
cipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively
recommend such action ;
(b) In any manner interfering with the efforts of United Steelworkers of
America, C. I. 0., to bargain collectively with it.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the undersigned finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Upon request bargain collectively with United Steelworkers of America,
C. I. 0., as the exclusive representative of all its employees in the aforesaid
appropriate unit ;
(b) Post at its plant at Granite City, Illinois, copies of the notice attached
to the Intermediate Report herein, marked "Appendix A". Copies of said notice,
to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Fourteenth Region, shall, after
being duly signed by the respondent's representative, be posted by the respondent
immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained by it for sixty (60) consecutive
days thereafter in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to
employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the
respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by
any other material ;
(c) File with the Regional Director for the Fourteenth Region on or before
ten (10) days from the date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report, a report
in writing setting forth in detail the manner and form in which the respondent
has complied with the foregoing recommendations.
It is further recommended that unless on or before ten (10) days from the
receipt of this Intermediate Report the respondent notifies said Regional Direc-
tor in writing that he has complied with the foregoing recommendations, the
National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the respondent to
take the action aforesaid.
As provided In Section 33 of Article II of the Rules and Regulations of the
National Labor Relations Board, Series 3, as amended, effective November 27,
1945, any party or counsel for the Board may within fifteen (15) days10 from
the date of the entry of the order transferring the case to the Board, pursuant
to Section 32 of Article II of said Rules and Regulations file with the Board,
Rochambeau Building, Washington 25, D. C., an original and four copies of a
statement in writing setting forth such exceptions to the Intermediate Report
or to any other part of the record or proceeding (including rulings upon all
10 The transcript of the hearing is hereby corrected by deleting the word "thirty" appear-
ing on page 57, line 1, thereof, and substituting the word "fifteen."
GRANITE CITY STEEL COMPANY 1193
motions or objections) as he relies upon, together with the original and four
copies of a brief in support thereof. Immediately upon the filing of such state-
ment of exceptions and/or brief, the party or counsel for the Board filing the
same shall serve a copy thereof upon each of the other parties and shall file a
copy with the Regional Director. As further provided in said Section 33, should
any party desire permission to argue orally before the Board, request therefor
must be made in writing within ten (10) days from the date of the order
transferring the case to the Board.
MILLARD L. MImoNICK,
Trial Examiner.
Dated February 8, 1946.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Rela-
tions Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL BARGAIN collectively upon request with UNITED STEEL-
WORKERS of AMERICA, C. I. 0., as the exclusive representative of all
employees in the bargaining unit described herein with respect to rates of
pay, hours of employment, or other conditions of employment, and if an
understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a signed agree-
ment. The bargaining unit is : 0
All watchmen employed at the Granite City, Illinois, plant, but excluding
the captain and assistant chief, and any other supervisory employees with
authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes
in the status of employees, or effectively recommend such action.
WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with the efforts of UNITED
STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, C. I. 0, to bargain collectively with us.
GRANITE CITY STEEL COMPANY,
Employer.
Dated ---------------------------- By --------------------------------••--
Representative (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must
not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.