Indiana Bridge Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 26, 1944

57 N.L.R.B. 681 (N.L.R.B. 1944)

In the Matter Of INDIANA BRIDGE COMPANY, INC. and UNITED STEEL-
WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFFILIATED )VITH THE CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL
ORGANIZATIONS
Case No. 9-R-1448.Decided July 06 , 1944
Bracken, Gray and DeFur, by Mr. Myron H. Gray, of Muncie, Ind.,
for the Company.
Mr. H. TV . Alderman , of Muncie , Ind., for the USA.
Mr. George McMahon, of Muncie, Ind., for the Hod Carriers.
Mr. Samuel P. Tobin, of Detroit, Mich., for the Iron Workers.
Mr. Robert Silagi, of counsel to the Board. '
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a petition duly filed by United Steelworkers of America, af-
filiated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, herein called
the USA, alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen con-
cerning the representation of employees of Indiana 'Bridge Company,
Inc., Muncie, Indiana, herein called the Company, the National Labor
Relations Board provided for an appropriate hearing upon due notice
before Benjamin E. Cook, Trial Examiner. Said hearing was held at
Muncie, Indiana, on June 22, 1944. The Company, the USA, Local
1112, International Hod Carriers', Building and Common Laborers'
Union of America, herein called the Hod Carriers, and International
Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers,
herein called the Iron Workers, appeared and participated. All par-
ties were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to.examine and cross-
examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues.
At the, hearing the Company, moved to dismiss the petition. For
the reasons stated hereinafter, the motion is denied. The Trial Ex-
aminer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error
and are hereby affirmed. All parties were afforded an opportunity
to file briefs with the Board.
57 N. L. R B., No. 110. ti
681
,1682 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Indiana Bridge Company, Inc,, is an Indiana corporation main-
taining its place of business in Muncie, Indiana. The Company is
engaged in the fabrication and erection of structural steel. During,
the past year the Company pu'chased raw 'materials amounting to
more than $50,000, which consist of steel beams, channels, angles, and
plates. Ninety percent of these raw materials was shipped to the
Company's plant from points located outside the State of Indiana.
.During the same period the Company's gross sales amounted to ap-
proximately $200,000, of which 50 percent represents shipments made
to points, outside the State of Indiana. _ About half of the steel which
the Company fabricates is erected by its own employees, both within
and outside the State of Indiana.
For the purpose of this hearing, the Company admits that it is en-
gaged in commerce within the.meaning of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
United Steelworkers of America, affiliated with the Congress of
Industrial Organizations, is a labor organization admitting to mem-
bership employees of the Company.
Local 1112, International Hod Carriers', Building and Common
Laborers' Union of America, and International Association of Bridge,
Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers are 'labor 'organizations
-affiliated with the American Federation of Labor and admit to mem-
bership employees of the Company.
III. THE QUESTION ' CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
On December 10, 1943, a consent election was held among the Com-
pany's production and maintenance employees with the Iron Workers
and the USA appearing on-the ballot. Neither union received a ma-
jority in the election and a run-off election was held 6 days later.
Inasmuch as the run-off election resulted in a tie vote, no majority
bargaining representative was designated. In February 1944, the
Hod Carriers requested recognition from the Company as the col-
lective bargaining agent of its employees. When the Company re-
fused this request, the Hod Carriers filed a petition with the Board.
Subsequently the Hod Carriers withdrew its petition and on May 16,
1944, the USA filed the petition which is the basis of the present pro-
:ceeding. - ,
INDIANA BRIDGE COMPANY, INC. 683
The Company moved to dismiss the petition as being premature, in
that less than 1 year has elapsed since the last election was held among
the employees of the Company. Another election at this time , so'the
Company argues , with its attendant membership campaigns carried-on.
by rival unions , will cause much dissension among the employees, thus
seriously interfering with production . In the interests of stability
of collective bargaining relations , the Board has, in the absence of
unusual conditions , refused to conduct -an election to determine a col-
lective bargaining representative within the period of 1 year from a
prior certification .- This policy , however, has never had any applica-
tion to cases where an election held less than 1 year prior to the filing
of a petition for certification of representatives has not resulted in the
selection of a majority representative.'
A statement of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing indicatesT
that each union represents a substantial number of employees in the
unit hereinafter found appropriate.3
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 Company's activities are twofold; it not only fabricates struc-
tural steel but also erects the steel upon building sites. For the former
operation, the Company employs 50 production and maintenance
employees at its plant in Muncie, whereas 28 erectors perform the
latter operation at various places in and adjoining the State of Indiana.
The erectors are.organized by a local of the Iron Workers which has
had a contract with the Company for the past 7 years.
Except for certain, individuals who are claimed to be supervisors,
the parties are substantially agreed upon the following unit : "all
production and, maintenance employees at the Muncie plant, but
excluding erectors, office, clerical, and-temporary employees, truck
'See Matter of,Monarch Alumanum Mfg . Company, 41 N. L. R B. 1 and cases cited
therein.
a See Matter of Automatic Products Company , 40 N. L R B 941.
The Trial Examiner compared the Company's pay roll of June 22, 1944, with author-
ization cards submitted by the 3 unions . Of the 50 production and maintenance employees
whose names appeared on said pay roll, the USA had cards for 14, the Iron workers had
cards for 21, and the Hod Carriers had cards for 22 employees. Six employees had
signed cards for all 3 unions ; 15 had memberships in 2 of the unions ; 5 , liad signed cards
only for the USA; 4 had signed cards only for the Iron Workers ; and '4 had signed cards
only for the Hod Carriers.
The Company also contends, in moving to dismiss the petition, that the petitioner does
not represent a substantial part or a majority of the employees in the unit . This objection
has no merit for we have often held that it is sufficient for the petitioning union to make a
substantial showing, adequate to raise the probability that it may be selected by a ma-
jority. See Matter of Semon Bache and Company , 39 N. L R . B. 1216; Matter of H. G.
Hill Stores, Inc, 39 N. L. It, B. 874; also Matter of Budd Wheel Company, 52 N. L.
It. B. 666.
684 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
drivers, the superintendent and lassistant -superintendent."'' While
the Company does not- deny the appropriateness of a separate unit
for its production and maintenance employees, it alleges that such a
unit can be, appropriate only if represented by the same union or a
union affiliated with the one which holds collective bargaining rights
for the erectors. This contention is based upon the theory that the
production and maintenance employees who fabricate the steel have a
common interest with the employees who, erect the steel, and rival
unions representing each group will only cause confusion and de-
creased production. We find little merit, however, in the Company's
contention' We note, moreover, that only half a year ago the Com-
pany acquiesced in-a consent election agreement for its production
and maintenance employees whereby they were given an opportunity
to designate as their representative either the union which had a con-
tract for the erectors, or a rival union. -
Fred Haney, Joseph Jenkinson,, Conley Jester, and Joseph Brown.
There remains for consideration the unions' contention that these four
employees be excluded from the unit on the ground that they are
supervisors; the Company opposes their exclusion. Haney is in charge
of loading cars and has one helper permanently assigned to him and
occasionally has several men who temporarily assist him. He works
along with the men. Although he regards himself as a group leader,'
he makes no recommendations to the superintendent regarding the
employees' work. ' Jenkinson is the chief maintenance man or chief
repair man.- He has one helper permanently assigned to assist him.
Jenkinson received $1.08 per hour; his helper received'90 cents per
hour. Jester is a lay-out man,who works with the men whom he in-
structs. He has from one to five men helping him. He makes no re-
ports to the superintendent with-respect-to the quality of the men's
work. Brown is an; inspector who had formerly worked as a fore-
man when the Company operated two shifts. Since the discontinu-
ance of the second shift' about a year ago, he has worked as an inspec-
tor of materials. While he has authority to reject improper work,
he makes no reports on the employees, but simply marks the defective
work for correction. The Company points out that its plant is rela-
tively small and so constructed that the superintendent can oversee
the entire floor space from his office, and that the number of pro.
duction and maintenance employees is small enough for the superin-
tendent to know personally each employee and the quality of his work.
The superintendent does not require nor expect any of the employees
mentioned above to make any reports to him relative to the quantity
or quality of work produced by the production and maintenance em-
* See Matter , of Ball Brothers Company, 52 N. L. R. B . 775, and cases cited therein.
INDIANA BRIDGE COMPANY, INC. '685
ployees. Upon consideration of these facts, we are of the opinion that
none of the enumerated employees falls within our customary defini-
tion of a'supervisory employee.
We find that all production and maintenance employees in the -
Company's Muncie, Indiana, plant, but excluding erectors,\office,,cleri-
cal, and temporary employees, truck drivers, the superintendent and
assistant superintendent, and all other supervisory employees with
authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect
changes iii the status of employees, or effectively recommend such
action, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining within the nleaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
We shall direct that the question concerning representation which
has arisen be resolved by an election by secret ballot among the em-
ployees in the appropriate unit who were employed during the pay-
roll period immediately preceding the date of the Direction of Elec-
tion herein, subject to the limitations and additions set forth in the
Direction.
. DIRECTION OF ELECTION
By iirtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National
Labor Relations Board by Section '9, (c) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, and pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3, as amended, it is
hereby
DIRECrioN that, as part of the investigation to ascertain repre-
sentatives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Indiana
Bridge Company,-Inc., Muncie, Indiana, an election 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 super-
vision of the Regional Director, for the Ninth Region, acting in this
matter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject
to Article III, Sections 10 and-11, of said Rules and Regulations,
among the employees in the unit found appropriate in Section IV,
above, who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately
preceding the date of this Direction, including employees who did
not work during the 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 employees who have since quit or
been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or reinstated
prior to the date of the election, to determine whether they desire
to be represented by United Steelworkers of America, affiliated with
686 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR - RELATIONS BOARD
the Congress of, Industrial , Organizations , by Local 1112, International
Hod Carriers', Building and Common Laborers' Union, affiliated with
the American Federation of Labor, or, by International Association
of Bridge , Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, affiliated with '
the American Federation of Labor, for the purposes of collective
bargaining , or by' no union.
Mi. JOHN M . HOUSTON took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Election.
I
j