Joseph T. Ryerson & Son, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 8, 1946

65 N.L.R.B. 921 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

In the Matter of JosEPH T . RYERSON & SON, INC. and UNITED STEEL-
WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO
Case No. 2-R-,.58g2.Decided February 8,1946
Cravath, Swaine d Moore, by Mr. John H. Morse, of New York City,
for the Company.
Mr. Samuel L. Rothbard, of Newark, N. J., for the CIO.
Mr. John L. Saqui, of Jersey City, N. J., for the AFL.
Mr. Seymour Cohen, 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 CIO, alleging that a question affecting commerce had
arisen concerning the representation of employees of Joseph T. Ryer-
son & Son, Inc., Jersey City,' New Jersey, herein called the Company,
the National Labor Relations Board provided for an appropriate
hearing upon due notice before Jerome I. Macht, Trial Examiner.
The hearing was held at New York City on November 16,1945. At the
commencement of the hearing, the Trial Examiner granted a motion
of the American Federation of Labor, herein called the AFL, to inter-
vene. The Company, the CIO, and the AFL appeared and partici-
pated. All parties were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to
examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bear-
ing on the issues. The Trial Examiner's rulings made at the hearing
are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. All parties
were afforded opportunity to file briefs with the Board.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Joseph T. Ryerson & Son, Inc., is a Delaware corporation, having
places of business in Illinois, Wisconsin, Missouri, Michigan, Pennsyl-
vania, Ohio, New York, Massachusetts, and New Jersey, where it is
65 N. L. R. B., No. 164.
921
922 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
engaged in the purchase, sale, and distribution of finished steel prod-
ucts. During the past year, at its Jersey City, New Jersey, plant, with
which we are solely concerned in this proceeding, the Company pur-
chased steel products valued in excess of $1,000,000, of which more than
90 percent was shipped from points outside the State of New Jersey.
During the same period, the Company sold and distributed steel prod-
ucts valued at more than $1,000,000, of which in excess of 65 percent
was shipped to points outside the State of New Jersey.
Although, as the Company contends, it may be engaged solely in
rendering a service by being a secondary source of supply for finished
steel products, it is clear, and we find, that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
United Steelworkers of America is a labor organization affiliated
with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, admitting to mem-
bership employees of the Company.
The American Federation of Labor is a labor organization admit-
ting to membership employees of the Company.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Company refuses to recognize the CIO as the exclusive bar-
gaining representative of its employees until the CIO is certified by
the Board in an appropriate unit.
A statement of a Board agent, introduced into evidence at the hear-
ing, indicates that the CIO represents a substantial number of em-
ployees in the unit hereinafter 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 APPROPRIATE UNIT
We find, in substantial agreement with the stipulation of the parties,
that all production and maintenance employees of the Company's
Jersey City, New Jersey, plant, including leaders,2 but excluding
watchmen, guards, office employees, clerical employees, foremen, as-'
sistant foremen,3 and all other supervisory employees with authority
I The Field Examiner reported that the CIO submitted 82 designations ; that the AFL
submitted 18 designations , and that there are 88 employees in the alleged appropriate
unit.
2 It does not appear that leaders are supervisory employees within the meaning of our
customary definition . The parties stipulated that C. Griclw and A. Rother , although classi-
fied as assistant foremen, actually perform the duties of leaders , and are , therefore, to be
included in the appropriate unit We so find.
3 Excepting C. Gricko and A. Rother See footnote 2, supra
JOSEPH T. RYERSON & SON, INC. 923
to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in
the status of employees, or effectively recommend such action, con-
stitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
v. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
Dispute arises concerning the voting eligibility of probationary em-
ployees, whose trial period is 6 months. Contrary to the wishes of the
CIO and the AFL, the Company would have these employees declared
ineligible to cast ballots.
Generally, all employees, including probationers, work the same
number of hours, in the same physical surroundings, and under the
same working conditions. All are paid on an hourly basis, the aver-
age wage differential between experienced helpers, the lowest paid
non-probationers, and the probationary employees, also known as in-
experienced helpers, being only about 6 cents an hour. Probationers
are hired with the expectation that their employment will become per-
manent if their work proves satisfactory, and it appears that normally
a high percentage of such employees are retained after their trial
period .4 We shall permit all probationary employees within the ap-
propriate unit to participate in the election.5
We shall direct that the question concerning representation which
has arisen be resolved by an election by secret ballot among employees
in the appropriate unit, including probationary employees, who were
employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date
of the Direction of Election herein, subject to the limitations and addi-
tions set forth in the Direction.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
O
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National Labor
Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations
Act, and pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of National Labor Rela-
tions Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3, as amended, it is hereby
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representa-
tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Joseph T. Ryerson
& Son, Inc., Jersey City, New Jersey, 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
* Although the Company 's records for the period January 1 , 1945, to November 15, 1945,
show that a substantial proportion of probationers did not continue their employment,
It was admitted that this was an abnormal situation.
5 See Matter of Central Barge Co , 61 N. L. R B. 784; Matter of Ideal Roller f Manu-
facturing Company, Inc, 60 N. L. It . B. 1105; Matter of Western Burlap Bag Company,
44 N. L. R. B. 356, and cases cited therein.
924 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Regional Director for the Second 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, and our deter-
mination in Section IT, above, among 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, in-
cluding employees who did not work during said pay-roll period
because they were ill or on vacation or temporarily laid off, and includ-
ing employees in the armed forces of the United States who present
themselves in person at the pools, 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, CIO,
or by the American Federation of Labor, for the purposes of collective
bargaining, or by neither.
11