Republic Steel Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 11, 1947

72 N.L.R.B. 525 (N.L.R.B. 1947)

In the Matter of REPUBLIC STEEL CORPORATION , EMPLOYER and
UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA (CIO), PETITIONER
Case No. 8-R-0333.-Decided February 11, 1947
Messrs. George R. Rauschenberg, E. J. Magee, and Edward Mandry,
all of Cleveland, Ohio, for the Employer.
Messrs. Owen Dixon and Joseph Kanecki, both of Cleveland, Ohio,
for the Petitioner.
Mr. A. Swmner Lawrence, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Cleve-
land, Ohio, on September 23, 1946, before John A. Hull, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings niade at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. The Employer's motion to
dismiss is denied for reasons hereinafter stated.
Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations
Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Republic Steel Corporation, a New Jersey corporation with its
principal offices in Cleveland, Ohio, is engaged in the manufacture,
sale , and distribution of iron and steel products at numerous Nation-
wide plants, including one known as the 98-inch Strip Mill, Cleveland
District, located at Cleveland, Ohio, the only plant involved in this
proceeding. The Employer currently uses at each of its plants in-
cluding the 98-inch Strip Mill, Cleveland, District, substantial ton-
nages of raw materials which are obtained from points outside the
States wlierein are located the plants at which such material is used.
Substantial tonnages of finished products are currently shipped from
each of the said plants to points in States.other than those in which
such plants are located.
The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
72 N L. P B, No. S8 525
526 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
11. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress of
Industrial Organizations, claiming to represent employees of the
Employer.
III. THE QUESTION CONCEPNING REPRESENTATION
The Employer refuses to recognize the Petitioner as the exclusive
bargaining representative of certain clerical employees of the Eni-
ployer until the Petitioner has been certified by the Board in an appro-
priate unit.
The Employer contends that the Board has no jurisdiction to enter-
tain the present proceeding upon the grounds : ( 1) that the employees
concerned are representatives of management; and (2) that the Peti-
tioner is the same labor organization which represents the Employer's
production and maintenance employees at the plant involved herein.
Since it appears that the employees sought to be represented by the
Petitioner are for the most part ordinary clerical employees without
supervisory or managerial functions , the Employer 's contention that
such employees are representatives of management and beyond -the
jurisdiction of the Board, is without mnerit . The further contention
of the Employer that the Board is without jurisdiction by reason of the
fact that the Petitioner presently represents the production and main-
tenance employees at the plant herein concerned , is equally without
merit.
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Employer , within the meaning
of Section9 ( c) and Section 2 ( 6) and ( 7) of the Act.
IV. THIN APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Petitioner seeks a unit of factory and office clerical employees
employed at the Employer's 98-inch Strip Mill, Cleveland District.
The Employer contends that the unit sought is inappropriate upon the
ground that all the employees in such unit-. are either supervisory or
confidential employees. The employees included in the unit sought by
the Petitioner will be considered from the point of view of their rela-
tions to the several departments in which they are presently employed.
Production Control Department
Of the employees in this department, the Petitioner agrees that the
superintendent of production and control and the latter's chief clerk
should be excluded from the unit as supervisory employees. The
Petitioner would, however, include in the unit all other employees in
REPUBLIC STEEL CORPORATION 527
this departmment. The Employer contends : (1) that the employees in
certain of the requested classifications should be excluded as super-
visory ; 1 and (2) that 11 of the remaining employees in this department
should be excluded as confidential employees.
With respect to the supervisory status of the employees in the classi-
fications referred to by the Employer, the record discloses that, while
such employees cannot actually hire or discharge, they nevertheless
are authorized to recommend changes in the status of employees under
their supervision and have on a number of occasions effectively exer-
cised such authority. Moreover, although it appears that in certain.
instances their recommendations are subject to further investigation
by higher management officials, we find that such employees are super-
visory employees within the meaning of our usual definition, since the
record does not establish that such investigations supersede or detract
from the efficacy of their recommendations as a determinative factor
in action taken by the Employer.2 We shall, accordingly, exclude
them from the unit hereinafter found appropriate.
As regards the remaining employees in this department, it appears
that, aside from the'stenographer to the superintendent of production
and control who exercises managerial functions with respect to labor
relations, the other employees perform ordinary clerical duties.
While the latter have access to certain business information considered
confidential by the Employer, the evidence discloses that such employ-
ees do not themselves exercise managerial functions with respect to
labor relations, or act in a confidential capacity to management officials
who are authorized to formulate or effectively determine managerial
policies. Accordingly, we find that the employees in question are not
confidential employees within the meaning of our usual definition.;
We shall, therefore, include such employees, other than the stenog-
rapher to the superintendent of production and control, in the unit
lhereiilafter found appropriate.
Metallurgical Department
The Petitioner and the Employer agree that from among the em-
ployees in this department, the assistant chief metallurgist, the metal-
lurgist general, the metallurgical foreman, the chief inspector, and
the foremen in the hot and cold strip divisions, should be excluded as
supervisory employees. The Petitioner would include in its unit the
reuanung employees in this department. The Employer contends
that such employees should be excluded as confidential employees.
"The classifications alleged be the Emplol•er to be supeivisory are as follows dispatch
leader, plainer, service and expeditor, chief schedule, assistant chief schedule, chit
hiller , assistant chief hiller, and chief clear iticeito
2 See 11attc) of Doughnut Con potation of America, 66 N L R P, 1231
,Matte of The Elect. it, Coot, oiler ,C 31anataetminq Conipunmj, 69 N L R B 1242
7 t 12-12-47-vox 72 35
528 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The employees in question consist of those in the classifications of
stenographer to the assistant chief metallurgist, mill metallurgical
clerk, and clerks to the foremen in the hot and cold strip divisions,
respectively. While it appears that certain members of this group
handle correspondence relating to customers' complaints, or otherwise
have access to business information considered confidential by the
Employer, there is nothing in the record to indicate that they act as
confidential secretaries to management officials who are authorized to
formulate or effectively determine management policy. Accordingly,
we shall include them within the unit.
Operating Departments
With respect to employees in these departments, the Petitioner
and the Employer agree that certain employees therein should be
excluded as supervisory employees.4 However, the Petitioner and the
Employer disagree with regard to the remaining employees consisting,
with exception of the clerk to the mill superintendent,' of the clerks
and assistant clerks to the heads of the various operating divisions.
While it appears that these employees have access to the files and
handle the correspondence of the various department heads, par-
ticularly with respect to the subject of grievances, the department
heads do not themselves determine the policies of the employer other
than to administer in their departments the policies as established
by the Employer's industrial relations department. Accordingly, in
the absence of evidence that the department heads have substanfial
managerial functions in regard to labor relations, we find that the
clerical employees who act as secretaries to the heads of such depart-
ments are not confidential employees within the meaning of our defini-
tion thereof." We shall, therefore, include such employees, with the
exception of the clerk to the mill superintendent, within the unit here-
inafter found appropriate.
Accounting Department
The Petitioner is in agreement with the Employer that the chief
production clerk in this department is a supervisory employee and
should be excluded from the unit. The Petitioner also is agreeable to
the exclusion of employees in the classification of weigher, since they
-tie included in the production and maintenance unit now represented
7`he classifications excluded by agreement are as follows : superintendent and assistant
superintendent of the mill , superintendent of the hot mill, superintendent of the hot mill
finishing , superintendent of the cold mill, master mechanic , chief electrician , foreman
of the roll shop , stocker foreman and foreman BA.
5 The mill superintendent has substantial managerial duties with respect to labor
I (,Ii I ions
footnote 8, supra
REPUBLIC STEEL CORPORATION 529
by the Petitioner. The latter would, however, include all the re-
maining employees in this department in the present unit of clerical
employees. The Employer contends that all such employees should
be excluded therefrom as confidential employees and that employees
in the classification of assistant chief clerk should also be excluded
as supervisory employees.
With respect to the confidential aspect of the Employer's contention,
the evidence reveals that the production clerks, while concerned with
business costs of the Employer, have nothing to do with labor relations
and apparently do not act in a confidential capacity to any official with
authority to formulate or effectively determine management policies.
Accordingly, we find that they are not confidential employees within
the meaning of our definition.
As regards the further contention of the Employer that assistant
chief production clerks should be excluded as supervisory employees,
it appears that such employees have authority, which they have exer-
cised effectively, to recommend changes in status of employees tinder
their supervision. Accordingly, we find that assistant chief pro-
duction clerks are supervisory employees and we shall exclude them
from the unit. We shall, however, include therein the other account-
ing employees not otherwise ineligible as supervisory employees or
members of other bargaining units.
Clock House
In this department, which is a subdivision of the accounting depart-
ment considered above, the Petitioner seeks to include all employees
located therein, which comprise employees in the classification of
clock house clerk and chief clock house clerk. The Employer contends
that, since the clock house clerks check time records for pay-roll pur-
poses, they are confidential employees. The Employer also contends
that the chief clock house clerk should be excluded as a supervisory
employee. With respect to the Employer's contention as regards the
confidential status of such employees, we find, in the absence of any
confidential duties with respect to labor relations on the part of clock
house employees, and in accord with the principles set forth above, that
such employees are not confidential within the meaning of our usual
definition. On the other hand, since it appears that the chief clock
house clerk has authority to recommend and has on occasion effectively
recommended changes in status of employees under his supervision,
we find that he is a supervisory employee and shall exclude him from
the unit.
We find that all factory and office clerical employees of the Employer
at its 98-inch Strip Mill, Cleveland District, Cleveland, Ohio, exclud-
ing employees in the production control department in the classifica-
530 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tion of superintendent of production control, chief clerk, dispatch
leader, planner, service and expeditor, chief scheduler, assistant chief
scheduler, chief biller, assistant chief biller, chief clerk inventory, and
stenographer to the superintendent of production control ; employees in
the metallurgical department in the classification of assistant chief met-
allurgist, metallurgist general, metallurgical foreman, chief inspector,
foreman hot strip and foreman cold strip; employees in the operating
departments in the classifications of superintendent and assistant
superintendent of the mill, superintendent of the hot mill, superintend-
ent of the hot mill finishing, superintendent of the cold mill, master
mechanic, chief electrician, foreman of the roll shop, stocker foreman,
and foreman BA, and superintendent's clerk to the superintendent of
the mill; employees in the accounting department in the classifications
of chief production clerk, assistant chief production clerk, and
weigher; employees in the clock house division of the accounting de-
partment in the classification of chief clock house clerk; and all other
supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, dis-
cipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or effec-
tively recommend such action, constitute a unit appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b)
of the Act.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining with Republic Steel Corporation , Cleve-
land, Ohio , 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 Direc-
tor for the Eighth Region , acting in this inattei as agent for the
National Labor Relations Board, and subject to Sections 203.55 and
203.56, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-
Series 4, among the employees in the unit found appropriate in Sec-
tion IV, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period imme-
diately 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 at the
polls, but excluding those employees who have since quit or been dis-
charged 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 ( CIO), for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining.
MR. JAMES J. REYNOLDS, JR., took not part in the consideration of the
above Decision and Direction of Election.