Inspiration Consolidated Copper Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 30, 1945

63 N.L.R.B. 679 (N.L.R.B. 1945)

In the Matter Of INSPIRATION CONSOLIDATED COPPER Co. and INTERNA-
TIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, LOCAL No. 428, A. F. OF L.
Case No. 21-R-2690.-Decided August 30,19-115
Mr. Edward W. Rice, of Globe, Ariz., and Mr. P. D. I. Honegman,
of Inspiration, Ariz., for the Company.
Messrs. W. A. Gray and R. L. Clark, both of Phoenix, Ariz., for the
C. I. O.
Messrs. Orville Larson and Claude Lovelett, both of Globe, Ariz., for
the A. F. L.
111r. David V. Easton, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a petition duly filed by International Union of Operating En-
gineers, Local No. 428, A. F. of L., herein called the A. F. L., alleging
that a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the repre-
sentation of employees of Inspiration Consolidated Co--per Co., Miami,
Arizona, herein- called the Company, the National Labor Relations
Board provided for an appropriate hearing upon due notice before
George H. O'Brien, Trial Examiner. Said hearing was held at Globe,
Arizona, on June 5, 1945. The Company, the A. F. L., and Interna-
tional Union of Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers, CIO, for itself and
on behalf of its Local Union #586, herein collectively called the
CC. I. 0., appeared and participated. All parties were afforded full
opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and
to introduce evidence bearing on the issues. The C. I. O. moved to
-dimiss the petition herein. The Trial Examiner reserved ruling on this
motion for the Board. For reasons stated in Sections III and V, in-
fra, the motion is denied. The Trial Examiner'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.
63 N L R B., No. 103.
679
680 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Inspiration Consolidated Copper Co., a Maine corporation, operates
a copper mine, leaching plants and mills at Inspiration, Arizona. The
Company produces through its milling processes electrolytic copper,
cement copper, and concentrates. The electrolytic copper, which rep-
resents approximately 70 percent of the total production, is shipped to
the State of New Jersey ; the cement copper and concentrates are,
shipped to a smelter located at Miami, Arizona, where they are treated,
and a portion of the resulting blister copper is returned to the Com-
pany, while the balance is shipped to the State of New Jersey. During
the year 1944, the mine produced approximately 4,055,993 tons of -ore,
and the copper produced by the Company in that period was valued at
about $10,000,000. During the same time, the Company purchased raw
materials and supplies valued in excess of $2,000,000, of which more
than 50 percent was shipped to the Company from points outside the
State of Arizona.
The Company does not deny, and we find, that it is engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
H. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
International Union of Operating Engineers, Local No. 427, affiliated
with the American Federation of Labor, is a labor organization admit-
ting to membership employees of the Company.
International Union of Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers, and its
Local Union #586, both affiliated with the Congress of Industrial
Organizations, are labor organizations admitting to membership em-
ployees of the Company. '
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
By letter dated February 20, 1945, the A. F. L. requested recognition
from the Company as the representative of certain of its employees.
The Company refused to accord such recognition.
On March 21,1944, as the result of a consent election conducted under
the auspices of the Board in which the C. I. O. and the A. F. L. were
the competing unions, the C. I. O. was designated by the Regional
Director as the collective bargaining representative of many of the
employees involved herein? Thereafter, the Company and the C. I. O.
executed a collective bargaining agreement covering such employees,
' Case No. 21-R-2287.
INSPIRATION CONSOLIDATED COPPER CO. 681
which was made retroactive to November 24, 1943, and dated as of
then. The following governed its duration :
2. DURATION OF AGREEMENT
This agreement shall remain in full force and effect for a period
of one year from the date thereof, and automatically from year
to year thereafter, unless either party shall give the other written
notice, not less than thirty (30) days before the expiration of any
contract year, of its desire to terminate or change the terms of this
agreement. If such notice indicates a desire to change this agree-
ment, the proposed changes shall be set forth therein and they shall
become the subject of immediate negotiations between the parties,
and this agreement shall continue in effect as written, pending the
success or failure of such negotiations. If such notice indicates a
desire to terminate this agreement, such termination shall become
effective at the close of such contract year.
After due notice pursuant to the above provision, the parties con-
ducted negotiations during November 1944 with respect to proposed
changes in the agreement. Certain changes were agreed upon between
them, and other proposals, which were in dispute, were submitted by
the parties for adjudication to the Non-Ferrous Metals Commission of
the National War Labor Board in December 1944. On June 1, 1945,
the Commission issued its directive on the disputed matters and on the
following day, the C. I. O. appealed therefrom to the National War
Labor Board. Meanwhile, on February 20, 1945, the A. F. L. filed
its petition herein,
The C. I. 0., as noted previously, moved at the hearing for dismissal
of the petition, urging, inter alia, application of the Allis-Chalmers
doctrine.2 We are of the opinion that the doctrine is not applicable.
Although the agreement between the parties had been made retroac-
tive, and was, consequently, operative for less than a year from the date
of the C. I. O.'s designation, we must assume that, since it was agreed
upon, the parties considered the contract term a reasonable one.3 Fur-
thermore, although evidence was adduced indicating that a "general
order of promotion," as provided for by the agreement, was not placed
in effect, the contract did embody the full accord of the parties on
such matters of substance as union security, check-off, seniority, griev-
ances, wages, and hours, and it was obviously effective as a bar to the
claim of another labor organization until shortly before its expira-
tion date.' Under these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the
C. I. O. has had a reasonable period in which to act for the employees
2 See Matter of Allis - Chalmers Manufacturing Co , 50 N. L . R. B 306, 311.
3 See Matter of Southwestern Greyhound Lines , Inc., 60 N. L. R . B 1388.
' Cf. Matter of Michigan Light Alloys Corporation, 58 N. L. R. B. 113.
682 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of the Company, and has, in fact, done so. Thus, the C. I. O. cannot
now be considered as a newly designated representative, and, conse-
quently, the pendency of proceedings before the National War Labor
Board, under these circumstances, does not warrant a refusal of a de-
termination of representatives at this time.5 We conclude, therefore,
that no proper basis for application of the Allis-Chalmers doctrine has
been presented herein.6 Nor can it be argued that the contract dated
November 24, 1943, constitutes a bar to a present determination, for at
best it is now of indefinite duration.7
A statement of a Field Examiner for the Board, introduced into
evidence at the hearing, indicates that the A. F. L. and the C. I. O.
each represents a substantial number of employees in the unit herein-
after found appropriate."
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 APPROPIIIATE UNIT '
All parties are substantially in accord with respect to the appropri-
ate unit, agreeing upon the inclusion therein of pumpers, mill men
and mill men helpers of the concentrator.and slimes-leaching plant;
pump operators and oilers of the mechanical and railroad depart-
ments; oil transfer men, oilers and firemen of the power plant; double
drum hoist operators, single drum hoist operators, tipple men and
pumpmen of the Inspiration Mine division ; firemen and oilers of the
coarse crusher department; double drum hoist operators of the Live
Oak Mine division; crane operators of the tunnel yitrds; and punlp-
men, heating plant operators, roll operators, roll operator helpers,
acid plant operators and acid plant'operator helpers of the leaching
plant. They also agree upon the exclusion of firemen, engineers, brake-
men and conductors of the mechanical and railroad departments; boiler
foremen and foremen of the power plant; crusher bosses of the coarse
crusher department; extraction engineers, shift bosses, haulage bosses
of the Inspiration Mine division; shift bosses of the Live Oak Mine
division and the Sulphide Tunnel mine area; and crusher foremen,
tank house foremen, and tank house shift bosses of the leaching plant.
Disagreement exists concerning the following categories of employees.
Operators and Operator Helpers: The Company contends that
these classifications are meaningless, whereas both labor organizations
5 See Matter of Struthers 1Vells Corporation, 59 N L R B 454.
8 See Matter of Aluminum Company of America, 61 N L It B 251.
7 See Matter of Link-Belt Speeder Co., 37 N L R B 889
8 The Field Examiner reported that the A F L and the C. I 0 submitted 39 and 38
designations , respectively, N%hich "checked on" the Ccmpany's pay roll of February 17,
1945, and that there were approximarely 125 employees in the appropriate unit . We also
note that the contract between the Company and the C. I. 0 dated November 24, 1943,
contained a maintenance of membership provision.
INSPIRATION CONSOLIDATED COPPER CO. 683
desire their retention as part of the unit description. Inasmuch as
the classifications were used in a prior representation case,9, the parties
having stipulated to their inclusion, we shall- specifically include
within the unit description operators and operator helpers of the con-
centrator and slimes-leaching department; operators of the Inspira-
tion Mine division ; and operators of the leaching plant.
Hoist House Oilers and Oilers of the Inspiration Mine Division:
Both labor organizations desire the inclusion of these employees; how-
ever, the position of the Company is not clear from the record 1°
Since the inclusion of these classifications was stipulated in the prior
representation proceeding, we shall include them.
Conveyor Tenders and Tripper Men of the Coarse Crusher Depart-
ment: The A. F. L. seeks the inclusion of conveyor tenders (crusher
helpers), in the coarse crusher department, whereas the Company
contends that they are semi-skilled workers who should be excluded.
In addition, the C. I. O. seeks the inclusion of tripper men engaged
in this department, a classification not mentioned by either of the
other two parties. The record indicates that conveyor tenders operate
the tripper cars over the ore lines and that tripper men regulate the
operation of the trippers. Inasmuch as the employees in both classi-
fications operate machinery,11 we shall include them within the unit.
Spreader Operators, Screen Men, Tripper Men and Classifier Oper-
ators in the Leaching Plant: The A. F. L. seeks the inclusion of em-
ployees engaged in these classifications, the C. I. O. makes no con-
tention with respect to them, and the Company opposes the inclusion
of screen men and tripper men on the ground that they are semi-
skilled workers. The record indicates that screen men, tripper men
and classifier operators operate machinery. Under these circum-
stances, we shall include them. On the other hand, the record indi-
cates that spreader operators have already been included as part of
another collective bargaining unit. Consequently, we shall exclude
them.
Tank House Employees: 12 The C. I. O. seeks the inclusion of truck
men, tank operators, tank helpers, anode washers, mud room bosses,
stripper section operators, strippers, sheet punchers, and loop cutters.
The A. F. L. agrees to the inclusion of truck men, anode washers, mud
room bosses, sheet punchers, and loop cutters, but makes no contention
See footnote 1, supra.
30 The Company mentioned these classifications in discussing its objections to the units
proposed by the labor organizations herein. However, it did not specifically object to
their inclusion , but merely confined itself to observing that the oiler and hoist house oiler
performed similar duties
"The A P L claims jurisdiction over employees who operate machinery.
"These are new classifications of employees , which were not discussed in the prior pro-
ceeding involving the parties herein The record indicates that on May 22, 1945, the C I 0
joined with the Company in filing with the War Labor Board a form 10 application affecting
these employees
(684 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
with respect to the remaining classifications . The Company contends
that none of the employees in any of these classifications should be
included within the unit because their work is comparatively unskilled.
The record indicates that truck men, mud room bosses, sheet punchers,
and loop cutters operate machinery and that employees in the remain-
ing classifications do not. We shall , therefore , include truck men, mud
room bosses , sheet punchers , and loop cutters within the unit, but shall
exclude therefrom employees in the remaining classifications.
Accordingly , we find that all pumpmen , mill men , mill men helpers,
operators and operator helpers of the concentrator and slimes -leaching
department , pump operators and oilers of the mechanical and railroad
departments ; oil transfer men, oilers , and firemen of the power plant;
double drum hoist operators , single drum hoist operators , tipplemen,
pumpmen, operators , hoist house oilers, and oilers of the Inspiration
Mine division ; firemen-, oilers , conveyor tenders ( crusher helpers), and
tripper men of the coarse crusher department ; double drum hoist
operators of the Live Oak Mine division ; crane operators of the tunnel
yards; pumpmen, heating plant operators , roll operators , roll operator
helpers, acid plant operators , acid plant operator helpers , operators,
screen men , classifier operators , and tripper men of the leaching plant;
and truck men, mud room bosses, sheet punchers , and loop cutters of the
tank house , but excluding firemen, engineers , brakemen , and conductors
of the mechanical and railroad department ; boiler foremen and f ore-
men of the power plant; crusher bosses of the coarse crusher depart-
ment; extraction engineers , shift bosses , and haulage bosses of the In-
spiration Mine division ; shift bosses of the Live Oak Mine division
and the Sulphide Tunnel Mine area; crusher foremen, tank house
working foremen , tank house shift bosses , and the spreader operators
of the leaching plant; tank operators , tank helpers , anode washers,
stripper section operators , strippers of the tank house, and all super-
visory 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.
V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
In support of its motion to dismiss , the C. I. O. pointed to the fact
that the Company proposed to change its operations and reduce its
personnel. It was anticipated at the hearing, however, that the reduc-
tion in personnel would only amount to approximately 43 percent and
not be more than one-half the number of employees in the appropriate
unit . Moreover , it appears that this reduction has already taken place.
In addition , the change in operations will not require the utilization
of different classifications of employees . Accordingly , we shall direct
INSPIRATION CONSOLIDATED COPPER CO. 685
.that the question conceri