Granite City Steel Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 21, 1962

137 N.L.R.B. 209 (N.L.R.B. 1962)

GRANITE CITY STEEL COMPANY 209
Having further found - that Respondents , and each of them , unlawfully coerced
the employees of the Respondents into paying initiation fees, dues, and assessments to
Local 355 through a check-off provision contained in said illegal contract in order
to retain his employment ; I will further recommend that said illegally exacted moneys
be returned to each of said employees forthwith, each of said Respondents being
jointly and severally liable for such moneys?°
Because of the variety and extent of, the unfair labor practices engaged in by. the
Respondents, I sense an attitude of opposition to the purposes of the Act in general,
and hence , deem it necessary to order that Respondents , and each of them, cease
.and desist from in any manner infringing upon the rights guaranteed the employees
in Section 7 of the Act.
Upon the basis of the above findings of the fact , and upon the entire record in
the case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
4. United Industrial Workers of North America of the Seafarers International
Union of North America , Atlantic, Gulf, Lake and Inland Waters District , AFL-CIO,
and Amalgamated Union Local 355 are labor organizations within the meaning of
Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By rendering illegal financial and other assistance to Local 355 and by recogniz-
ing, entering into , maintaining , and giving affect to an agreement with Local 355
which imposed unlawful discriminatory conditions of employment at a time when
said Local 355 was known not to be the representative of the majority of Respondent
Company's employees ' own choosing , Respondent Company has engaged in and
is engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section
8(a) (1), (2 ), and (3 ) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
3. By securing recognition and a collective -bargaining , agreement containing illegal
conditions of employment from Respondent Company at a time when Respondent
Local 355 was known not to be the collective -bargaining representative of their own
choosing of a majority of Respondent Company's employees, and by thereafter en-
forcing the terms of such illegal agreement , Respondent Union has coerced and
intimidated the employees and has caused Respondent Company to discriminate
against employees in violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act in violation of Section
8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act and Section 2(6) and (7) thereof.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.)
20 See Teamsters and Allied Workers, Hawaii Local 996, at at. ( Twentieth Century-Fos
Film Corporation ), 134 NLRB 1556.
Granite City Steel Company and International Union of Operat-
ing Engineers , Local Union No. 148, AFL-CIO, Petitioner.
Case No. 14-RC-4089. May 21, 1962
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Thomas W. Seeler, 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 this case to a three-member
panel [Members Leedom, Fanning, and Brown].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
i lie Act.
137 NLRB No. 24.
049856--63-vol. 137-15
210 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.'
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning representation
of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9(c) (1)
and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, for the following reasons: 2
Prior to August 1960, all the wind, steam, and electricity needed by
the blast furnace department of the Employer was supplied by a
powerhouse, consisting of five related buildings, operated by Union
Electric Company on lease from Granite City Generating Company.
This powerhouse will be referred to as powerhouse No. 2. The em-
ployees in this facility had been represented by the Petitioner for more
than 16 years as part of a systemwide unit of all Union Electric Com-
pany generating plants with one minor exception. The contract be-
tween the Petitioner and Union Electric for the systemwide unit is
from July 1, 1960, to July 1, 1962.
In August 1960, the Employer constructed a powerhouse, consisting
of three buildings, adjacent to powerhouse No. 2, to furnish additional
wind and steam for the blast furnaces. This powerhouse is herein
designated powerhouse No. 1. The Employer recognized the Inter-
venor as the representative of the approximately 11 employees at the
newly constructed powerhouse and concluded an agreement with it
on February 8, 1961. The agreement covered wages and also applied
the other terms of the existing blast furnace contract to these employ-
ees. The blast furnace contract is effective from August 1, 1959, to
July 31, 1961. The Petitioner at that time made no claim to repre-
sentation in powerhouse No. 1.
Powerhouse No. 1 was constructed with connections to powerhouse
No. 2 by common header lines for the conveyance of wind, steam, com-
pressed air, and blast furnace gas. The primary purpose of both
powerhouses is to provide the wind necessary for the operation of the
blast furnaces. The generation of electric power is a secondary func-
tion of powerhouse No. 2. Electric power is generated in order to use
the blast furnace gas fuel which is not needed to produce wind. Elec-
tricity not required for the Employer's operations is sold to the Illinois
Power Company as an offset to the'electric power purchased from that
company for use elsewhere in the Employer's facilities.
In early February 1961, the Employer purchased powerhouse No. 2
from Granite City Generating Company and took an assignment of
the lease from Union Electric Company. However, it did not take
I International Chemical Workers Union, Local 50, AFL-CIO, was permitted to inter-
vene at the hearing based on its contractual interest It has represented the employees
in the blast furnace department of the Employer for more than 10 years and has a current
agreement for the employees involved herein.
2 The Employer and the Intervenor contend that their supplemental agreement cover-
ing powerhouse No. 2 is a bar to this proceeding. Since we are dismissing the petition
on other grounds , we need not pass on this contention.
GRANITE CITY STEEL COMPANY 211
possession until May 28, 1961. The Petitioner made overtures to the
Employer regarding recognition as the representative of the employ-
ees of powerhouse No. 2 on February 6, 1961, and filed its petition on
June 30, 1961, seeking to represent the employees of powerhouse
No. 2.3 On March 13, 1961, the Employer and the Intervenor entered
into a supplemental agreement in which the Employer recognized
the Intervenor as the representative of the employees in powerhouse
No. 2. This agreement gave any Union Electric employees hired by
Granite City superseniority within powerhouse No. 2 and continued
the higher wages they might be receiving from Union Electric, until
such time as their wage differential was eliminated by increases to
other employees.
The operation and functions of powerhouse No. 2 have been vir-
tually unchanged in the period following its purchase by the Em-
ployer. The work force, however, has been substantially changed and
reduced. At the time of the hearing, there were about 40 employees
in operating classifications and 7 maintenance employees permanently
assigned to this powerhouse, whereas when Union Electric managed
the powerhouse, there were more than 60 employees working in and
around it. After interviewing many Union Electric employees, the
Employer offered permanent jobs to 13 men. All 13 were assigned to
operating jobs. Seven of these employees had a retired status at Union
Electric. The remaining six retained their seniority with Union
Electric for 1 year to enable them to bid on job openings at Union's
other plants in the systemwide unit. The balance of the employee
complement of powerhouse No. 2 are transferees from other parts of
the blast furnace department.
After its acquisition of powerhouse No. 2, the Employer included
it in the utilities department. There is common supervision for both
powerhouses. There is a single senority list, with the exception noted
above. There is a single representative from both powerhouses on the
Intervenor's wage bargaining committee. All employees of the blast
furnace department use the same gate, parking lot, timeclock, and
cafeteria. Everyone works the same hours and is paid on the same day.
The administration of the entire plant, including personnel and in-
dustrial relations, engineering, maintenance, accounting, and first aid,
is centralized.
The Employer and Intervenor contend that powerhouse No. 2 is an
accretion to the blast furnace department, while the Petitioner argues
otherwise. The Petitioner points out that powerhouse No. 2 is larger
than powerhouse No. 1, that unlike No. 1, it produces electricity, a part
of which is sold to the Illinois Power Company for resale to consumers,
and it has a long history of separate bargaining. The Petitioner re-
8 At the hearing the Petitioner stated that , as an alternative , it would accept a unit
consisting of the employees of both powerhouses.
212 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
lies on Byron-Jackson Division, Borg-Warner Corporation,' to sustain
its position.
The cited case is distinguishable from the present one. There, the
facility which the Employer took over was not an essential part of its
production process and the skills of the employees and the work done
in the two facilities were quite different. Here, the wind produced by
the powerhouses is essential for the operation of the blast furnaces
and the equipment, and the job duties at the two powerhouses are very
similar.
We find that on the basis of the unusual factual circumstances in
this case, powerhouse No. 2 was accreted to the blast furnace depart-
ment. The factors leading us to this result are the physical, func-
tional, and administrative integration of these powerhouses, their
geographical proximity, their vital role in the operation of the blast
furnace department, and the common duties and supervision of the
employees in the powerhouses.'
We do not deem it significant that only powerhouse No. 2 produces
and sells electricity to the Illinois Power Company. As noted above,
the generation of electric power is a secondary function of the power-
house and the power sold is used as an offset to the electricity pur-
chased from the Illinois Power Company for use elsewhere in the Em-
ployer's plant.
We find that the separate bargaining history of the Petitioner is
quite unpersuasive since it represented the employees of this power-
house as part of a systemwide unit of all powerhouses of Union Elec-
tric Company. Thus, there is no separate bargaining history for this
particular powerhouse as such. The sale of this powerhouse did not
destroy the unit, as it still continues to exist, and a number of the em-
ployees hired by the Employer from Union Electric retained rights
in the Union Electric unit. Further, this is not similar to those cases
in which a powerhouse, or a group of powerhouses, are sold and their
entire complement of employees transferred to a new owners Here, a
small part of the unit was sold and an insubstantial number of old em-
ployees were retained, more than half of whom were retirees.
In view of the foregoing, we find that powerhouse No. 2 constituted
an accretion to the unit at the blast furnace department. Accordingly,
we shall dismiss the petition.
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
4117 NLRB 1613.
r See Radio Corporation of America, 127 NLRB 1563; Borg-Warner Corporation, 113
NLRB 152, affd. sub nom International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft, and Agri-
cultural Implement Workers of America (Borg-Warner Corp ., Marvel-Schebler Products
Division ) v. N L.R.B , 231 F. 2d 237 (CA 7).
Cf. Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., 132 NLRB 1518.