Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 14, 1944

57 N.L.R.B. 357 (N.L.R.B. 1944)

In the Matter Of JONES • &, LAUGHLIN STEEL CORPORATION, PITTSBURGH
WORKS, \ and UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA (CIO)
Case No. 6-R-905.-Decided July 14, 19414
Messrs. James C. Beech and W. H. Harvey, of Pittsburgh, Pa., for
the Company.
Mr. Philip M. Curran, of Pittsburgh, Pa., for the Union.
Mr. Joseph C. Wells, of counsel to the Board.
'DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION'
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a petition duly filed by United Steelworkers of America
(CIO), herein called the Union, alleging that a question affecting
commerce had arisen concerning the representation of employees of
Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation , Pittsburgh Works, Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania , herein called the-Company , the-National Labor Rela-
tions Board provided for an appropriate hearing upon due notice
before W. G. Stuart Sherman, Trial Examiner . Said hearing was
held at Pittsburgh;' Pennsylvania, on May 15, 1944. All parties were
afforded full opportunity to be heard, to ' examine and cross-examine
witnesses , to introduce evidence bearing on the issues , and to file briefs
with the Board. The Trial Examiner's' rulings mad "e'at'the hearing
are free from prejudicial error and are hereby, affirmed.
Upon the entire record in the case , the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation is_a Pennsylvania corporation
engaged- in the manufacture and sale of steel and steel products. It
operates plants located in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania., Aliquippa, Penn='
sylvania, and Cleveland, Ohio. During the past year the Company
used at its Pittsburgh plants 8;000,000,'tons of raw materials, of 'which
approximately 50 percent was shipped from points, outside the State
of Pennsylvania. Duringthe same period, the Company's Pittsburgh
57 N. L. R. B., No 66.
357
I
358 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
plants -manufactured; and sold approximately 2,000,000 tons of steel,
of which approximately 75 percent was shipped to points outside the
State. I •
The Company admits, for the purpose of this proceeding, that it
is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor
Relations Act.
II. TILE ORGANIZATION INVOLV ED
United Steelworkers of America, affiliated with Congress of In-
dustrial Organizations, is a labor organization admitting to member-
ship employees of the Company..
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Company has refused to grant recognition to the Union as the
-exclusive bargaining-representative of certain chemists until the
Union has been certified by the Board in an appropriate unit.
A statement of the Field Examiner and a certain letter, introduced
into evidence at the hearing, indicate that the Union represents a
substantial number of the employees here involved.'
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 DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
The Union, by, its .petition in-this -proceeding, seeks,-to be certified
as the exclusive bargaining representative of all salaried chemists
doing work comparable to that performed by the hourly paid chem-
ists employed by the Company in its chemical laboratory department
at the Pittsburgh plants. The Union contends that these salaried
chemists should- be included in the existing unit of production and
maintenance employees in which the hourly paid' chemists are rep-
resented. There is no dispute as to the Union's status as the exclu-
sive representative of the employees in the existing unit and the
Union does not seek an election therein. The Company opposes the
enlargement of the existing unit and contends that the petition should
be dismissed or, alternatively, that the Board should find appropriate
a unit comprised of all salaried employees of the chemical laboratory
department, of the, Pittsburgh plants, excluding supervisory em-
The Field Examiner reported that a Certification of Membership, subscribed and sworn
to by the president of the local union, states that 10 of the 13 employees for whom the
Union petitions are members of the Union.
The letter Is addressed to "The Officers of The Local 1272 of The USA-CIO" and
bears apparently genuine signatures of employees who are among the group for whom the
Union here petitions The letter requests the Union- to act as the exclusive agent of the
signatories to bargain with the Company
JONES & LAUGHLIN'STEEL CORPORATION, PITTSBURGH WORKS 359
ployees. The Company-supports its first `contention with an allega-
tion that the salaried ,chemists petitioned for by the Union are
supervisory employees within the Board's usual definition. Its
alternative contention is based on arguments that salaried chemists
do not perform work comparable to that performed by hourly paid
chemists; and that, in the history of collective bargaining between
it and the'Union and between the Union and other basic steel com-
panies, the traditional units for collective bargaining for production
and maintenance employees have excluded salaried employees.
Since 1937 the Union has bargained with the Company on behalf
of all employees of the Company, excluding foremen or assistant -
foremen in charge of any classes of labor,labor, watchmen, and salaried
employees. In 1942 the parties added nurses to the exclusions.2 The
National War Labor Board by Directive Order of December 27, 1943,,
extended the terms-and-conditions of the 1942 agreement.3
For convenience we will classify the chemists employed by the Com-
pany in its chemical laboratory department at the Pittsburgh plants
into four groups designated as hourly paid chemists, salaried chem-
ists, special salaried chemists, and supervisory chemists.
Hourly Paid Chemists. Approximately 30 hourly paid chemists,'
who are included in the existing unit of production and maintenance
employees, analyze steel during the manufacturing process for con-
taminating agents. Their work is considered routine, and all chem-
ists employed in the department are capable of performing their
duties. Of the ordinary analyses made by the chemical laboratory
department during the manufacturing process, these chemists perform
all but those for sulphur and carbon. Entrance qualifications for these
positions do not necessarily include technical training. There is no
dispute between the parties as to the status of these chemists, who are
now presented by the Union.
Salaried Chemists. Twelve chemists speed 'about 78 percent of their
time in the performance of duties identical to those performed by the
hourly paid chemists. The remainder of their time is spent in making
analyses for sulphur and carbon, and performing other miscellaneous
tests. These chemists work in the same laboratories and'nd coordinate
their work with the hourly paid chemists. The chemists in this group
are recruited from among the hourly paid chemists and receive ap-
proximately 25 percent more pay than the hourly paid chemists. A
company witness' testified to'the effect that turn foremen are recruited
2 At the hearing, a company witness testified to the effect that the parties agreed to
exclude nurses , although they were hourly paid, on the ground that they were not properly
covered by the production and maintenance workers' contract.
8 ,The Company contends that this Directive Order acts as a bar to a present determination
of a question of representation. We find no merit in this contention, since no investiga-
tion or determination of representatives affecting employees covered by the 1942 agreement
is involved in this proceeding.
360 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
from this group. Some of these chemists substitute for, the turn fore-
men who are off duty every seventh day. There is no set plan by which
substitute foremen are assigned. It appears that some of the group
have never received the assignment while others have oh sever-al -6c60-,
sions. These are the chemists whom the Union would include, by
this proceeding, in the existing production and maintenance unit.'
Special Salaried Chern,ists. Five salaried chemists perform duties
such as analyses of special alloys, ferro alloys; and electrical furnace
steels. it appears that a relatively small percentage of their time is'
spent in the performance of the routine duties performed by the other
chemists. • They receive from,10 to 40 dollars more pay per month than
the other salaried chemists: They do not substitute as foremen, and are
recruited from either the other salaried chemists or general applicants
who possess the requisite skill or technical knowledge. Two of these
chemists have the technical, education required of professional them-,
ists, and the other -three are. chemists whose training was-acquired- by,
practical experience ^in the industry. The Union does not seek to
represent'these chemists.
Supervisory Chemists. Approximately 11 chemists clearly are
supervisory employees.
In addition to the chemists. described above, the chemical labora-
tory department employs, two persons, paid on a salary basis, whose
duties are entirely clerical. `
Inasmuch'as it appears that only some of the salaried chemists
direct the work of other chemists, and then only in a substitute capacity
on irregular occasions,-we find that the 12 salaried chemists, for whom
the Union here petitions, are not supervisory employees within our
-usual definition.' Furthermore, since these 12 salaried chemists spend
at least. 78 percent of their time in' the performance of duties which
are an integral part of the production process; are subject to the,same,
supervisory control as the hourly paid chemists who are undisputedly
production workers, and work alongside and in cooperation with, the
hourly paid chemists,' we are of the opinion'that they may properly,
form a part of the existing unit,in which the hourly paid chemists' are
represented; if they so desire.
In regard to the Company's, contention that salaried employees
.should not be included in the same unit with. hourly paid employees
because of the history of collective bargaining between the Union and
basic steel companies, we have stated frequently, that for the purpose
of, determining appropriate bargaining units we will not distinguish
4 At the hearing these chemists were identified as John J.- Barrett , Harry Eckhardt,
A J. Haller, E. Lauer , Arthur McKay, Harry F. Murgaugh ', P. C. Ross, w. J' Saueis, Harry
-F Schultz , W. J Spokane. F Steirhein; and Edward Yeager.
5 See Matter of Dixie Greyhound Lines, Inc., 52 N. L. It . B. 424.
These' considerations clearly do not apply to the five 'special salaried chemists ' and the
tw? salaried clerical employees of the chemical laboratory department '
JONES & LAUGHLIN STEEL CORPORATION , PITTSBURGH WORKS 361
between employees paid on a salary basis and those paid on an hourly
basis solely on the ground of the difference in mode of payment; 7 and,
although the history of'collective bargaining in the industry is a fac-
tor which we have here considered , we can perceive nothing in the
facts presented in this case to warrant a deviation from our usual
policy.
In accordance with the foregoing considerations , we shall direct an
'election among the salaried -chemists for whom the Union petitions,
in this proceeding to determine whether or not they wish to be repre-
sented by the Union . In the event that a majority of their number
select the Union as their collective bargaining representative , they will
have indicated their desire to-be part of the appropriate unit presently
represented "by the Union, and will be part of such unit.
Accordingly we shall direct that the question concerning repre-
sentation which has arisen be resolved by an election by secret ballot
among the salaried chemists , excluding the supervisory chemists and
special salaried chemists , who were employed by the Company at its
Pittsburgh plants during the pay-roll period immediately preceding-
the date ofthe Direction of Election herein , subject to the limitations.
and additions set forth in the Direction.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National Labor
Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations.
Oct; and -pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of National Labor Rela-
tions Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3, it is hereby
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representa-
tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Jones & Laughlin,
Steel Corporation, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 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
supervision of the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region, act-
ing in this matter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board,,
and subject to Article III, Sections 10 and 11, of said Rules and Regu-
lations, among the salaried chemists, excluding the special salaried
chemists and supervisory chemists,, in the Company's employ at the
Pittsburgh plants who were employed during the pay-roll period
immediately preceding the date of this Direction, including employees
who did not work during 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
' See Matter of American Radiator Company, 7 N L R. B. 542; Matter of Inland Steel'
Company, 9 N. L. R B . 783; Matter of General Motore Corporation , 27 N. L . R. B. 1196;
Matter of Bendix Av,ation , Ltd, 52 N. L. R B. 1182; Matter of Edge water -Steel Company,
56 N. L . It. B. 1778.
362 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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 or not they desire to
be represented by :United Steelworkers of.America,,affiliated with the
Congress of Industrial Organizations, for the purposes of collective
bargaining.
MR. JOHN M. HUSTON<,took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Election. -
l
d