Industrial Siderurgica, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 29, 1964

147 N.L.R.B. 975 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

INDUSTRIAL SIDERURGICA, INC. 975
although it was filed within the 60-day period, it was filed after the
execution of the amended contract, which has a lawful union-security
clause. We shall accordingly dismiss the petition in Case No. 4-
RC-5609.
Accordingly, as we have found that no question concerning repre-
sentation exists, we shall dismiss the petitions herein.'
[The Board dismissed the petitions.]
MEMBERS LEEDOM and FANNING took no part in the consideration
of the above Decision and Order.
able There, unlike here , no contract had been entered into by the parties during the
election year. In this context, the Board directed an election on the basis of she petition,
stating: "To dismiss the petition at this time would subject the Board to an immediate
repetition of the proceeding as a new petition could be timely filed as soon as a decision
in this case issues " Here, however, the contract between the Employer and Intervenor
was amended on August 1, and the amended contract would have been a bar to any sub-
sequently filed petitions Therefore , unlike Silas Mason, in the present case, a dismissal of
the July 25 petition would not subject the Board to an "immediate repetition of the
proceedings."
In view of our finding that, in any event, the July 25 petition was untimely and should
have been dismissed , we find it unnecessary to decide whether the Regional Director had
authority to reinstate the July 25 petition
O As we are dismissing the petitions herein, we need not reach the other issues raised
by the parties in this proceeding.
Industrial Siderurgica , Inc. and United Steelworkers of America,
AFL-CIO ( Union de Trabajadores de Metal ). Case No. 24-RC-
1432. June 29, 1964
DECISION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
AMEND CERTIFICATION
On August 8, 1960, following an election conducted pursuant to a
Decision and Direction of Election issued July 6, 1960 ,1 United Steel-
workers of America , AFL-CIO ( Union de Trabajadores de Metal),
herein called the Petitioner, was certified as the, collective -bargaining
representative , with certain exclusions not material , for "all produc-
tion and maintenance employees at the Employer 's steel mill and scrap
yard in Palmas Ward, Catano , Puerto Rico."
On May 31, 1963 , Petitioner filed a motion to amend the certified
unit to include , as an accretion to the bargaining unit, production and
maintenance employees employed by the Puerto Steel Company, herein
called PR, in its steel fabricating plant adjoining the bar production
plant of the Employer at Catano , Puerto Rico. Contrary to the
Petitioner , the Employer contends that the PR operation is not an
accretion to the existing unit and that the proper procedure for com-
bining the two groups of employees would be by petition and election.
1 Not published in printed volumes of NLRB decisions.
147 NLRB No. 119.
976 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On August 27, 1963, the Board remanded the matter to the Regional
Director for the Twenty-fourth Region, directing a hearing on the
issues raised by the Petitioner's motion and the Employer's opposition
thereto. A hearing was held October 2, 1963, before Hearing Officer
Arnold M. Selke. His 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 Fanning, Brown, and Jenkins].
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board finds :
On December 17, 1960, the Employer executed its first collective-
bargaining agreement with Petitioner. During the life of this con-
tract, the Employer's controlling stockholders, the Garcia brothers,
organized PR, retaining a controlling interest in both companies.
Employer's directors and officers were named as directors and officers
of PR. They continue to serve both companies. Similarly the Em-
ployer's industrial relations officer, personnel director, general man-
ager, sales manager, and purchasing officer were named, and continue
to serve in these same capacities for the newly formed company.
PR began fabricating bars in September 1960. Its single plant is
situated in a building leased from the Employer immediately adjacent
to the latter's bar production facility. The two steel-frame structures
are joined at the roof. Their open sides afford free access between
their respective working areas. Both are reached through a single
plant gate and have an adjacent parking lot for the common use of
employees in both operations. In addition to the parking lot, em-
ployees of the two companies also use the same cafeteria and share
other plant accommodations including locker and dressing rooms and
a common timeclock.
In the management and administration of their respective affairs
the two enterprises are substantially integrated. Accounts and pay-
rolls are separately maintained but by the same clerical employees.
The same is true of the personnel office and records, engineering, main-
tenance, janitorial services, and medical aid.'
The principal issue involved here is whether the employees of PR
may properly be added to the existing bargaining unit as an accretion,
as sought by the Petitioner. There are a number of facts in connec-
tion with operations of the two companies that tend to support the
Petitioner's view that PR's production employees, numbering 10,
should be added to the existing unit now numbering approximately
153. The Employer's plant is the larger of the two. It is here that
scrap steel is melted and poured into ingots which are later rolled into
reinforcing bars cut to standard lengths and sold to various users, in-
cluding PR, in that form. The latter sells to its own customers the
2 PR formally reimburses Industrial for these services.
BETHLEHEM STEEL CO. (SHIPBUILDING DIVISION) 977
purchased bars which PR employees form into exact shapes accord-
ing to precise customer specifications. Thus Employer's employees
are engaged in the production of unshaped bars which are further
fabricated by employees of PR using skills not generally applicable
in the production of bars 3
On the other hand, and more compelling, are the facts that there is
no interchange of employees between the two plants; that the em-
ployees in each are subject to separate immediate supervision and that
while their hours, pay, fringe benefits, and other working conditions
are comparable, PR's operations are not a functional part of the pro-
duction and maintenance unit in Employer's plant.4 Each operates
independently of the other; their close physical proximity must be
regarded largely as a matter of convenience, not of necessity. We
do not feel that the joint use of common service facilities by the two
employee groups is determinative of the question of accretion. Fi
nally, the record shows that when the Employer and Petitioner entered
into their latest contract, PR was then in existence and had, ap-
parently, a full complement of employees, yet that contract's coverage
was limited to the Employer's employees and did not embrace those
of PR. In these circumstances we conclude that PR's employees
should not be added to the existing unit of Industrial Siderurgica em-
ployees by way of accretion.
[The Board denied the motion.]
3 Pacific States Steel Corporation, 134 NLRB 1325, 1327.
4 Cities Service Refining Corporation, 121 NLRB 1091, 1093 ; Pacific States Steel Cor-
poration, supra; Chrysler Corporation , 129 NLRB 407, 411.
Bethlehem Steel Company ( Shipbuilding Division ) and Beth-
lehem -Sparrows Point Shipyard, Inc. and Industrial Union of
Marine and Shipbuilding Workers of America , AFL-CIO.
Cases Nos. 2-CA-6866 and 2-CA-6867. June 29, 1964
SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER
In prior decisions in this matter,' the Board found that the Re-
spondent violated Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act by certain of its con-
duct occurring during 1959 bargaining negotiations with the Union.
It found further that the Respondent had not violated Section 8 (a)
(5) of the Act by certain other conduct as alleged in the complaint.
Included in the conduct not found violative of the Act was Respond-
ent's unilateral institution of the "White Book" changes on August
1 133 NLRB 1347; 136 NLRB 1500.
147 NLRB No. 151.
756-236-65-vol. 147-63