Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 2, 1943

53 N.L.R.B. 1046 (N.L.R.B. 1943)

In the Matter of JONES & LAUGHLIN STEEL CORPORATION and UNITED
STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA (CIO)
Case No. 8-C-1548.-Decided December 2, 1943
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On October 5, 1943, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate Re-
port 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 af-
firmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report at-
tached hereto. Thereafter, the respondent filed exceptions and
objections to the Intermediate Report. The Board has reviewed the
rulings made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed.
The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the respondent's
exceptions and objections, and the entire record in the case, and hereby
adopts the findings, conclusions and recommendations made by the
Trial Examiner, with the additions noted below.
In its exceptions to the Intermediate Report, the respondent re-
iterates its contention that a unit of guards is not appropriate within
the meaning of the Act, petitions that the Board's certification of the
Union as the collective bargaining representative of the employees
in such a unit be revoked, and moves that the complaint accordingly
be dismissed. The petition and the motion are hereby denied. The
respondent has advanced no argument in support of its contentions
which we have not considered and rejected in previous decisions hold-
ing that plant-protection employees may constitute appropriate units
for collective bargaining under the Act.'
The respondent further excepts to the recommendation of the Trial
Examiner that it be required to post appropriate notices "in conspicu-
ous places at its Otis Works plants," contending that the posting of
such notices should be confined to the guards' quarters. We are in
'See Matter of Budd Wheel Company, 52 N. L. R. B . 666, and cases cited therein ;
Matter of Jones cf Laughlin Steel Corporation , 52 N. L. R. B. 975.
53 N. L. R. B., No. 195. _
1046 '
JONES & LAUGHLIN STEEL CORPORATION 1047
accord with the Trial Examiner's recommendation, and we find that
the purposes of the Act will be better effectuated by a general posting
of notices, rather than by a posting limited to the guards' quarters.
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, Jones & Laughlin Steel
Corporation, Cleveland, Ohio, 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 patrolmen,
watchmen, and firemen, including dump laborers, employed by the
respondent at its Otis Works, but excluding lieutenants, captains, and
supervisors ;
(b) Engaging in any like or related acts or conduct interfering
with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the
right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations,
to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing,
and to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section
7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act;
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with United Steelworkers
of America (CIO) as the exclusive representative of all patrolmen,
watchmen, and firemen, including dump laborers, employed by the
respondent at its Otis Works, but excluding lieutenants, captains,
and supervisors;
(b) Immediately post in conspicuous places throughout its Otis
Works plants in Cleveland, Ohio, including the premises occupied
by its patrolmen, watchmen, firemen, and dump laborers, and main-
tain for a period of at least sixty (60) consecutive days from the date
of posting, notices to its employees stating: (1) that the respondent
will not engage in the conduct from which it is ordered to cease and
desist in paragraphs 1 (a) and (b) of this Order; and (2) that the
respondent will take the affirmative action set forth in paragraph 2
(a) of this Order;
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Eighth Region in writing,
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the
respondent has taken to comply herewith.
1048 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
INTERMEDIATE REPORT,
Mr. Jo/.it Robert Hill, for the ' Board. 1 '
Mr. James C. Beech, of Pittsburgh , Pa for , the respondent. ,
Mr. William F. Donovan and Mr. Leo E. Casey, of Cleveland , Ohio, for the
Union.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a first amended charge duly filed on September 11,' 1943, ' by' United
Steelworkers of America ( CIO), herein called ' the Union , 'tlie National Labor
Relations Board,' herein called - the Board , by its-. Regional Director for the
Eighth Region ( Cleveland , Ohio ), issued its complaint , dated September„16,
1943, against Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation , 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 Relations Act, 49 - Stat.'449,
herein called the Act. Copies of the complaint accompanied by notice of hearing
were duly served upon the respondent and,the , Union. ,
With respect to the unfair labor practices the complaint alleged in substance :
(1) that on May 3, 1943 , the Board in its Decision and Direction of Election
in case No. R-5143' found that all patrolmen , watchmen , and firemen , including
dump laborers, employed by the respondent at its Otis Works, Cleveland, Ohio,
but excluding lieutenants; captains , and supervisors , constituted, a. unit appro-
priate for collective bargaining ; ( 2) that a majority of the . employees in the
aforesaid appropriate unit designated and selected the Union as their repre-
sentative for the purposes of collective bargaining at an 'election conducted by
the Board on May 26, 1943 ; ( 3) that on June 5, 1943, the Board certified' the
Union as the exclusive representative of 'all employees in said' unit ' for the
purposes of collective bargainingi ( 4) that the Union at all times since said
certification , has been, and continues to be, the exclusive representative of all
employees in said appropriate unit; ( 5) that on or about May 28 ,- 1943, and at
all times thereafter , the Union requested the respondent to bargain collectively ;
(6) that the respondent since on or about June 23, 1943, and at all times there-
after,' has failed and refused to bargain with 'the Union ; and (7 ) ' that by such
refusal, the respondent interfered with, restrained , and coerced its-employees
in the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act . . ,
On or about September 24,,1943, the respondent filed an , answer, admitting
certain allegations of the complaint as to its business, and as to certain proceed-
ings of the Board leading to the certification of the Union . 'In its answer,
however , the respondent denied 'the commission of the ' alleged ' unfair labor
practices , denied the appropriateness of the unit as found by the Board in Case
No. R-5143, and denied that , it has failed and refused to' bargain , with ,the
Union, stating that its refusal to bargain was "qualified and conditional."
Pursuant to notice , a hearing was held on September 28,.1943, at- Cleveland,
Ohio, before the undersigned Trial Examiner , duly designated liy the Chief
Trial Examiner . The Board and the respondent were represented *by counsel,
and the Union by its representatives . All parties -participated in the hearing.
Full opportunity to be heard , to examine and cross-examine witnesses , and.to
introduce evidence bearing upon the issues was afforded all parties . Although
afforded an opportunity to do so, none of the parties argued orally before the
undersigned or filed briefs with him.
'Matter of Jones d Laughlin Steel Corporation and United Steelivo)hers of America
(CIO).
JONES & LAUGHLIN STEEL CORPORATION' 1049
Upon the entire record' in the case, the undersigned makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I., THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Jones &'Laughlin: Steel Corporation is a Pennsylvania corporation engaged
in the maiiufacture'of iron and steel products. It operates steel mills in Pitts-
burgh, Aliquippa, and McKeesport, Pennsylvania, and Cleveland, Ohio.' The
instant case is concerned only with the steel mills located at Cleveland, Ohio,
known as the Otis Works. The Otis Works consists of two plants, known
as the Riverside plant, employing approximately 3,200 employees, and the
Lakeside plant, employing approximately 1,500 employees.
With: respect to. the operations of the Otis Works, the respondent during the
year 1942, used coal,. limestone, iron ore and other raw materials with a value
in excess of $1,000,000, approximately 50 percent of which came from points
outside the State of Ohio. During the year 1942, the respondent manufactured
at the Otis Works approximately 1,000,000 tons of ingot steel, in excess of 50
percent of which was shipped to points outside the State of Ohio.
At the hearing, the respondent admitted that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
11. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
United, Steelworkers of America (CIO) is a labor organization which admits
to membership. employees of the respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The refusal to bargain
1. The appropriate unit anil representation by the Union of a majority therein
On May 3, 1943, the Board issued a Decision and Direction of Election (Case
No. R-5143) finding, among other things, that all patrolmen, watchmen, and
firemen, including dump laborers, employed by the respondent at its Otis Works,
but excluding lieutenants, captains, and supervisors, constitute a unit appro-
priate for the purposes of collective bargaining, within the meaning of Section
9 (b) of the Act.
On May 26, 1943, an' election was held pursuant to said Direction of Election.
On June 5, 1943, the, Board certified the Union as the representative of the
employees irr the unit heretofore mentioned, for the purposes of -collective
bargaining.
At the hearing the respondent did not question the fact that the Board had
certified the Union as the 'representative of its employees,' but contested the
appropriateness of the unit and the subsequent certification of the Union.
The respondent did not adduce any evidence on the question, of the appropriate-
ness of the unit, or to rebut the presumption arising from the Board's certifi-
cation that the Union is still the representative of the majority of the employees
of the respondent in the appropriate unit.'
The undersigned finds, in 'accordance with the Board's previous determina-
tion, that all patrolmen, watchmen, and firemen, including dump laborers, em-
ployed by the- respondent at its Otis Works, but excluding lieutenants, captains
2 None of the parties produced witnesses at the hearing and the evidence consists wholly
of exhibits , stipulations and admissions of counsel.
1050 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and supervisors, 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 June 5, 1943, the Union was the duly
designated bargaining representative of a majority of the employees in the
aforesaid appropriate unit, and that, pursuant to the provision of Section 9
(a) of the Act, the Union was on June 5, 1943, and at all times thereafter has
been and is now the exclusive representative of all employees in the aforesaid
unit for the purposes of collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay,
wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment.
2. The refusal to bargain
In a letter dated May 28, 1943, the Union requested respondent to bargain
collectively with it as the exclusive representative of the employees in the unit.
On June 23, 1943, the respondent sent the Union the following letter:'
We have your letter of May 28, 1943, requesting that we meet with you,
as soon as possible, to commence collective bargaining on behalf of the
plant guards at the Otis Works.
As you are well aware, the Corporation objected and still objects to the
appropriateness of plant guards as a bargaining unit. Proof of this is to
be found in the Statement, dated May 25, 1943, handed each plant guard
at the Otis Works. As set forth in that Statement, it is our intention to
use every legal means available to us to have plant guards classified with
Supervisors in respect to collective bargaining . In accordance with this
policy we are obliged to decline your request that we bargain with you
on behalf of plant guards.
An agent for the Board, by letter dated August 14, 1943, referred to the re-
spondent's refusal to bargain with the Union as set forth in respondent's letter
of June 23, 1943, and inquired if this was the "definite position taken by the
Company." On September 4, 1943, the respondent sent the Board agent the
following letter :
Referring to our telephone conversation of yesterday, representatives of
Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation will be pleased to confer with you in
your office concerning the charges filed , in the above named case.
Recently, we have had a National Labor Relations Board hearing in
a case involving Plant Guards at the Pittsburgh Works of the Corporation
and are awaiting a decision in that case.
Therefore, we are deferring an answer with respect to bargaining with
representatives of units composed of Plant Guards until such time as a
final position of the Corporation has been established.
During the hearing, the respondent's counsel' made the following statements
concerning the respondent's position on its willingness to bargain with the
Union :
Mr. HILL. Is the present position of Respondent Corporation one of agree-
ing to bargain with the Union of this date or wanting to think it over until
some further and unspecified date?
Mr. BEECH. Yes. I might state that Respondent hasn't taken a definite
position as of this date.
Trial Examiner EAiIE. In other words, it is the Respondent' s position
as of this date that it is still not ready to say that it is willing to bargain
with,the Union?
i 8 As noted above , the Board 's certification is dated June 5, 1943.
JONES & LAUGHLIN STEEL CORPORATION 1051
Mr. BEECH . It is not prepared to say it will or will not, at this time, Mr.
Examiner.
Mr. HILL . In other words, Respondent Corporation desires and will take
time to think this matter over.
Mr. BEECH. That is true.
Trial Examiner EADIE. At any rate, as of today the Respondent is not
prepared to say that it will bargain with the Union.
Mr. BEECH. That's true.
The undersigned finds that the respondent on June 23, 1943, and at all times
thereafter, has refused to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive
representative of its employees in the appropriate unit, and has thereby inter-
fered with, restrained , and coerced Its employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.4
IT. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
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 burdening 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
practices, it will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Since
it has 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 col-
lectively with the Union.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record in
the case, the undersigned makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. United Steelworkers of America (CIO) is a labor organization, within the
meaning of Section, 2 (5) of the Act.
2. All patrolmen, watchmen, and firemen, including dump laborers, employed
by the respondent at its Otis Works, Cleveland, Ohio, but excluding lieutenants,
captains and supervisors, 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 (CIO) was on June 5, 1943, and at all
times thereafter, has been the exclusive representative of all employees in the
aforesaid unit for the purposes of collective bargaining, within the meaning
of Section 9 (a) of the Act.
4. By refusing on June 23, 1943, and at all times thereafter, to bargain col-
lectively with the United Steelworkers of America (CIO), as the exclusive
representative of all its employees in the aforesaid appropriate, unit, the re-
* The respondent contends that its refusal to bargain is "qualified and conditional and
not final and conclusive ." This contention is based on respondent 's claim of the inappro-
priateness of the unit as found by the Board and , further, on the fact that the respondent
was awaiting a decision in a case before the Board involving "Plant Guards at the Pitts-
burgh Works." (Referred to in respondent's letter dated September 4, 1943, to the Board's
agent, as noted above ). The undersigned does not find any merit in the respondent's con-
tention in this connection.
1052 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
spondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices , within the
meaning of Section 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 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,
Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation , and its officers , agents 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 its employees employed as patrol-
men, watchmen , and firemen , including dump laborers , employed by the re-
spondent at is Otis Works , but excluding lieutenants , captains and supervisors ;
(b) Engaging in any like or related act or conduct interfering with, re-
straining , or coercing , its employees in the exercise , of the rights to self-
organization , to form, join, or assist labor organizations , to bargain collectively
through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted
activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or
protection , as guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. -
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 Am`e'rica
(CIO) as the exclusive representative of all of its employees in the aforesaid
appropriate unit ;
(b) Post immediately in conspicious places at its Otis Works plants in
Cleveland , Ohio, and maintain for a period of at least sixty ( 60) consecutive
days from the date of posting, notices to its employees stating: ( 1) that the
respondent will not engage in the conduct from which it is recommended that
it cease and desist in paragraph '1 (a) and ( b) of these recommendations, and
(2) that the respondent will take the affirmative action set forth in paragraph
2 (a) of these recommendations;
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Eighth Region in writing, within
ten (10) days from, the date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report, what
steps the respondent has taker.. to comply herewith.
It is further recommended that unless on, or before ten (10 ) days from the
receipt of this Intermediate Report, the respondent notifies said Regional
Director in writing that , it will comply 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 2-as amended, effective October
28, 1943-any party may within fifteen ( 15) days 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 , 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 proceedings (including rulings upon all motions
JONES & LAUGHLIN STEEL CORPORATION 1053
or objections) as he relies upon, together with the original and four copies of
a brief in support thereof. 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 to the Board within ten (10) days from the date of the
order transferring the case to the Board.
Dated October 5, 1943.
JOHN I H.' EADIE,
Trial Examiner.
559015-44-vol. 53-68