Tennessee Coal, Iron and Railroad Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 10, 1942

39 N.L.R.B. 617 (N.L.R.B. 1942)

In the Matter of TENNESSEE COAL, IRON AND RAILROAD COMPANY
and LOCAL B287 , INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL
WORKERS
CaseWo. R-3190.-Decided March 10, 1942
Jurisdiction : steel manufacturing and fabricating industry.
Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining : unit confined to "electrical workers"
in steel plants held inappropriate, where "electrical workers" not shown to
constitute a well-defined craft, or a definable functional group of employees;
integrated nature of steel manufacturing operations; the appropriateness of,
and history of, industrial bargaining within the Company and the steel indus-
try generally, considered as persuasive factors.
Practice and Procedure : petition dismissed where no appropriate unit within
scope of petition.
Mr. James W. Dorsey, for the Board.
Mr. B. L. Rawlins, Jr., of Pittsburgh, Pa., and Mr. Borden Burr,
of Birmingham, Ala., for the Company.
Mr. J. R. May and Mr. L. E. Brown, of Montgomery, Ala., for
the I. B. E. W.
Mr. Lee Pressman and Mr. Joseph Kovner, of Washington, D. C.,
and Mr. William E. Mitch and Mr. Noel R. Beddow, of Birmingham,
Ala., for the S. W. 0. C.
Mr. C. M. Bloomfield, of Fairfield, Ala., for the United.
Mr. J. H. Howard and Mr. J. D. Baumgardner, of Birmingham,
Ala., for the I. A. M.
Mr. W. 0. Hare, of Birmingham, Ala., for the American Federation
of Labor.
Mr. Charles W. Schneider, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On October 4, 1941, Local B287,, International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, herein called the I. B. E. W., filed with the Re-
gional Director for the Tenth Region (Atlanta, Georgia) a petition-
39 N. L. R. B., No. 113.
617
618 DECISIONS' OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning
the representation of employees of Tennessee Coal, Iron and Rail-
road Company, Birmingham, Alabama, herein called the Company,
and requesting an investigation and certification of representatives
pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49
Stat. 449,' herein called the Act. On October 10, 1941, the National
Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, acting pursuant to
Section 9 (c) of the Act and Article III, Section 3, of National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2, as amended, ordered
an investigation and authorized the Regional Director to conduct it
and to provide for an appropriate hearing upon due notice.
On October 14, 1941, the Regional Director issued a notice of
hearing, copies of which were duly served upon the Company, the
I. B. E. W., and also upon the following labor organizations claiming
to represent employees directly affected by the investigation: Steel
Workers Organizing Committee, herein called the S. W. O. C., and
United Association of Iron, Steel & Mine Workers, herein called the
United. Pursuant to notice a hearing was held on October 21, 1941,
at Birmingham, Alabama, before Alexander E., Wilson, Jr., the Trial
Examiner duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The Com-
pany, the I. B. E. W., the S. W. O. C., and the United were represented
at and participated in the hearing,, The International Association
of Machinists, herein called the I. A. NI., also appeared and was
represented.'
Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine wit-
nesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded
all parties. During the course of the hearing, the Trial Examiner
made several rulings on motions and on objections to the admission
of evidence. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Ex-
aminer and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed. 'The
rulings are hereby affirmed.
The Company and the S. W. O. C. filed briefs which the Board has
considered. °
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE , BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
The Tennessee Coal, Iron and Railroad Company is a Tennessee
corporation engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of
iron, steel, and steel products. The Company is a subsidiary of the
United States Steel Corporation. Its principal office is located in
Birmingham, Alabama, and it maintains sales offices in the principal
.cities of the United States. ' In connection with its business it operates
I An appearance was also noted by the Reporter for the American Federation of Labor.
T'ENNE'SSEE COAL, IRON AND RAILROAD COMPANY 619
coal, ore, and limestone mines and a dolomite quarry in the Birming-
ham, Alabama, area and maintains a steel Manufacturing Division
consisting of six plants. During the year 1940, a negligible percentage
of raw materials used by the Manufacturing Division, consisting
principally of iron ore, scrap, alloys, coal, and limestone, was received
from sources outside the State of Alabama. During the same year,
78.79 percent of the finished products manufactured and fabricated
by the Company were shipped to points outside the State of Alabama.
The Company employs a total of approximately 30,000 persons; the
Manufacturing Division employs 17,147.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Local B287, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, is a
labor organization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor,
admitting to membership employees of the Company.
Steel Workers Organizing Committee is a labor organization
affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, admitting to
membership employees of the Company.
United Association of Iron, Steel & Mine Workers is an unaffiliated
labor organization admitting to membership employees of the Com-
pany.
International Association of Machinists is a labor organization
affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, admitting to
membership employees of the Company.
III. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
1. The contentions of the parties:
The I. B. E. W. contends that all electrical workers employed in the
Manufacturing Division and engaged in electrical construction,
electrical repairs, electrical maintenance, electrical powerhouse and
substation electricians and switchboard operators, excluding chief
electricians, assistant chief electricians, general foremen, turn fore-
men, and clerical workers constitute an appropriate unit. The
Company, the S. W. O. C., and the United contend that the I. B. E. W.
unit is inappropriate on the grounds that (1) there is no defined craft
or functional group of electrical workers within the Division and (2)
the appropriate unit is industrial.' The I. A. M. stated no position.
2. The Company
The Company consists of five Divisions or Departments. Only
one of these, known as the Manufacturing Division, is involved in
2 Compnsmg all employees of the Division , excluding foremen , assistant foremen or supervisors in charge
of any classes of labor, watchmen , guards, clerical and salaried employees . This is the same unit as that
covered by an existing contract between the Company and the S. W. 0. C. and by a similar one between
the Company and the United , recognizing each of those organizations as the collective bargaining repre-
sentative of its members. These contracts are discussed Infra.
i
620 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL , LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the present case.' The Manufacturing Division consists of six plants
located on adjacent land, engaged in the manufacture and fabrication
of steel and coke byproducts, and constituting one management
unit.4 The Company employs a total of 30,000 men; the Manufac-
turing Division 17,147.5 Each of the five Divisions constitutes a
separate and distinct management unit having its own operating
set-up, function, supervision, and pay structure.
Two of the manufacturing plants, the Ensley Works and the
Fairfield Steel Works, produce all the steel and generate all but a
small portion of the power required for the operation of the entire
Manufacturing Division.' The other four plants are fabrication mills,
wholly dependent for their supply of steel and substantially all their
power upon Ensley and Fairfield.7 Ensley, in turn, is entirely
dependent -upon Fairfield for coke necessary to operate the Ensley
furnaces. The immediate Division head is the Works Manager,
under whom is a Works Head in each plant with subordinate depart-
mental superintendents. Each department is an integral part of the
whole Division, whose basic function is the production and fabrication
,of' steel. The Company's policy with respect to wages, hours, and
working conditions has been to apply them uniformly throughout the
Division and not on a departmental or group basis. Seniority is
likewise Division-wide and is not affected by transfer from one plant
or from one department to another. Each plant has an employment
office under the control of a central divisional employment office.8
3. The Electrical group
As classified by the Company for pay-roll purposes, the 17,147
employees in the Manufacturing Division represent numerous occu-
pational groups. In one plant, the Fairfield Steel Works, there are
-535 such classifications. The unit claimed by the I. B. E. W. includes
some 681 employees embracing, as nearly as can be determined from
the record, approximately 20 of the 535 classifications. The list of
681 alleged electrical workers was compiled,by the Company for the
purpose of adjusting the claims of the I. B. E. W., and does hot repre-
sent its own classification. Due to uncertainty as to the exact extent
s The other divisions are the Ore and Limestone Mines, the Dolomite Quarry; the Coal Mines Division,
and the Rail Transportation Department
4 The Manufacturing Division and the Rail Transportation Department are under the jurisdiction of a
United States Steel Corporation Vice-President in Charge of Manufacturing , the other divisions are respon-
sible to a Vice-President in Charge of Raw Materials.
E The Manufacturing Division consists of the following plants The Ensley Works, the Fairfield Steel
Works, the Fairfield Wire Works, the Fairfield Sheet Mill, the Fairfield Tin Mill, and the Bessemer Rolling
Mills.
E Some power is purchased from a public utility.
r Ensley fabricates or finishes a small part of its ingot production : about 18 percent , Fairfield Steel a more
substantial portion; about 81.5 percent.
Except the Fairfield Steel Works and the Fairfield Tin Mill, which share the same employment officer.
TENTNE)S'SIEE COAL, IRON AND RAILROAD COMPANY 621
of the I. B. E. W. unit, employees were included on the list wherever
the majority of their work, was deemed to be electrical in nature .9
Although the record is not' entirely clear, a11' the employees claimed'
by the I. B. E. W. appear to be in the Maintenance Department.
Some of them perform work of a mixed electrical and mechanical
character.10 The duties of the remainder of those who are asserted
to be electrical workers are not clearly described. The I. B. E. W.
conceded at the hearing that, at least in some cases, the work was
varied in character but contended' that employees should be included
within its unit wherever their work was predominantly of an electrical
nature. The evidence as to the specific duties of the alleged. electrical
workers, however, is not sufficiently definitive to permit such a
determination to be made. Nor does the record afford a basis for
finding that functionally the so-called electrical workers are separate
and distinct from the rest of the production and maintenance employ-
ees. On the contrary, the organization and operations of the Company
as described above, point to the integrated and interrelated character
of the work of all the employees in the Manufacturing Division.
4. Collective bargaining
The Company's first collective bargaining agreement, with any
labor organization 11 was signed with the S. W. O. C. on March 16,
1937. That agreement recognized the S. W. O. C. as the bargaining
representative of its members on an industrial basis. Similar con-
tracts with the other steel-manufacturing subsidiaries of the United
States Steel Corporation were made at about the same time.12 The
0 The I B E . W submitted to the Trial Examiner a "certified list of members " totaling 537 The Trial
Examiner found 429 of the 537 names on the list referred to above . The other labor organizations did not
submit evidence of membership With respect to the individual plants, the ratio of employees , occupational
groups, and those claimed by the I. B. E. W , is as follows-
i
Works Total No. ofEmp.
No. claimed
by I. B. E . W.
No of Occup.
Groups
Ensley Works ------------------------------------------ 4,210 113 264
Fairfield Steel Works----------------------------------- 7,307 400 535
Fairfield Wire Works----------------------------------- 836 20 116
Fairfield Sheet Mill --------------------- ---------------- 1,664 33 126
Fairfield Tin Mill--------------------------------------- 2,493 107 133
Bessemer Rolling Mills ----- ---------------------------- 637 8 68
is One group claimed by the I. B E W consists of so-called electrical repairmen. In addition to repairing
electric motors , these employees make mechanical repairs on cranes and crane rails , clean air filters , remove
and install motors and motor mounts , repair and lubricate tractors , install machine guards, and even do
some painting . Such work is performed in conjunction with millwrights, who are primarily mechanical
workers , and are not claimed by the I B E. W There is credible testimony that occasionally an electrical
repairman will exchange shifts with a millwright The electrical switchboard operator in the powerhouse,
who is claimed by the I. B E W , assists the turbo-generator operator, who is not claimed , in replacing pipe
valves and fittings
11 According to the present record
u In these negotiations a contract was first signed with the Carnegie -Illinois Steel Corporation , the largest
manufacturing subsidiary of the United States Steel Corporation . After the terms of that agreement were
agreed upon, the other subsidiaries signed similar contracts.
622 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1937 contract was renewed in 1938 and replaced by a new agreement
on April 1, 1941. The 1941 agreement recognized the S. W. O. C. as
the representative of its, members employed " . . . . in and about
the Company's steel manufacturing and byproduct coke plants . . .
[excluding] Foremen, Assistant Foremen, or Supervisors in charge of
any classes of labor, or Watchmen, Guards, Clerical or Salaried em-
ployees." On both occasions the other subsidiaries of the United
States Steel Corporation signed similar contracts.l3 The 1941 contract
provides that it shall continue in effect until changed or terminated
upon 20 days' written notice. -
Following the signing of each of its agreements with the S. W. O. C.
the Company also made a similar agreement with the United.14 Up to
the time the present controversy arose no labor organization appears
to have sought to represent employees in the Manufacturing Division
of the Company on any basis other than industrial.'-' The S. W. 0. C.
has bargained for its membership since 1937 and has handled hundreds
of grievances under the machinery provided in its contracts, including
grievances of electrical workers, among whom the S. W. O. C. claims
a substantial membership.
The 1941 contract negotiated by the S. W. O. C.. provided for a
ten-cent per hour wage increase. This pay raise was, promptly ex-
tended by the Company to all its employees, irrespective of union
membership.
The I. B. E. W. first chartered a local in the Manufacturing Division
on November 13, 1940, and made its initial demand for bargaining
recognition on February 14, 1941. At that time locals of seven A. F.
of L. unions-the I. B. E. W., the International Association of Plumb-
ers and Steamfitters, the I. A. M., the International Association of
Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, and three Federal
unions-demanded exclusive recognition within the Division and pre-
sented to the Company two proposed collective bargaining agreements,l6
which provided for separate recognition of each union and set forth
separate terms of employment respecting the different alleged trades,
crafts, or departments in which the respective union members were
employed. At subsequent conferences, the Company expressed a
willingness to recognize the unions for their members, provided the
unions would merge their interests and identities for bargaining
purposes. The General Organizer of the A. F. of L. stated that the
13 The various 1941 contracts are identical except for a wage differential between Northern and Southern
mills.
14 The first United agreement was signed about November 12, 1937, the 1941 agreement on May 16, 1941.
The record does not disclose the dates of either the S W 0 C 's or the United 's 1938 renewals.
is See Matter of Tennessee Coal, Iron and Railroad Company , Open Hearth Dept of Ensley Works and
Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen , 39 N L R B. 626, Case No R-3344
19 The Federal unions claimed to represent , respectively , the Inspection , the Warehouse , and the Rolling
Mill Departments How many -of the Company 's operations or employees are involved in those depart-
ments, is not disclosed by the record.
TENNESSEE COAL, IRON AND RAILROADS COMPANY 623
unions did not propose to follow craft organizational procedure but
desired an agreement providing for the handling of grievances first
by the representative of the union involved, and thereafter by a
representative or representatives of all the unions. At a meeting on
April 29, 1941, the Company offered the unions a "members only"
contract on substantially the same terms as the S. W. O. C. and the
United agreements. The unions rejected the proposal." On July 8,
1941, the I. B. E. W. took a strike vote. Conciliation failed and the
issue was submitted to the National Defense Mediation Board. After
conferences with that Board the Company and the I. B. E. W. agreed
to negotiate concerning two issues: (1) reclassification of certain
electrical employees; and (2) application of an incentive plan to such
employees. On August 8, 1941, the parties reached an agreement
whereby certain of these workers were reclassified, and a temporary
bonus arrangement was instituted for them, pending the working out
of a permanent incentive plan. Some time thereafter, the I. B. E. W.
again demanded exclusive bargaining recognition and was again
refused, following which it filed the present petition.
The incentive plan which was one of the subjects of discussion was
first proposed by the S. W. O. C. eighteen months previously for all
employees in the Maintenance Department. At the ' time of the
I. B. E. W. demands a study was in progress for the purpose of estab-
lishing the plan. In negotiating the I. B. E. W. proposals the parties
utilized the grievance procedure established by the S. W. O. C.
contract.
5. Conclusions
As we have herein above found, the operations of the Company's
Manufacturing Division are inter-related and inter-dependent with a
resultant substantial community of interest among the approximately
17,000 employees engaged in those operations with respect to wages,
hours, and conditions of employment, which constitute the basic
subject matter of collective bargaining. Self-organization of em-
ployees and collective bargaining both within the Company and within
the steel industry as a whole has been essentially on an industrial
17 In a memorandum prepared by the Company and introduced into evidence as Company Exhibit 1,
and which the I . B E. W agreed contained an accurate statement of the facts , the following was stated
"In a conference , May 28, the International Organizer of the A F of L stated that in the discussion which
had previously occurred no consideration had been given by the Company to the various crafts in respect to
classifications of employees and rates of pay . The Company again pointed out that the negotiations were,
in the first instance , entered into on the basis of agreement by the representatives of the Unions that any
agreement would recognize an' industrialhorgamzation set-up. This conference concluded with the Unions
agreeing to discuss the entire matter further among themselves and to contact Management at some later
date On June 5 and June 26, certain representatives of the Unions accompanied by the International
Organizer conferred with Management , stating that the agreement proposed by the Company must be
changed before the International Organizations would be permitted to execute it The changes proposed by
the Unions involved the re-introduction of craft sub-divisions and recognition thereof."
448105-42-vol. 39-41
624 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and multiple-plant basis since 1937.18 Such a development is conso-
nant with the integrated nature of the industry.19
Upon the basis of these fundamental considerations, we are of the
opinion that a bargaining unit which conforms to the nature of the
industrial operation involved and which gives full recognition to the
form of self-organization and practice of collective bargaining adopted
by the employees engaged in such operation will best insure to the
employees the full benefit of their right to self-organization and collec-
tive bargaining as the Act commands. Further, in the instant case,
the unit proposed by the I. B. E. W. does not comprehend a clearly
defined craft group '20 nor even a segregable or functional group of
employees.21 Furthermore, the unit now proposed by the I. B. E. W.
represents a marked departure from the broad unit basis for bargain-
ing first sought by the I. B. E. W. and the other A. F. of L. unions.22
No reason is given for the present attempt to constrict the appropriate
unit within narrower limits.23
18 The following data is confirmatory of our conclusion : Organization of the steel industry 's approximately
530,000 employees was begun by the S. W. O. C. in July 1936 . By August of 1937 the S W. O. C. had 350
written contracts . Only 50 of these , however, were in the iron and steel industry , according to the Iron and
Steel Institute . These 50 companies employed approximately 260,000 hourly, tonnage , and piece workers
Harbison , Collective Bargaining in the Steel Industry. 1937 , Industrial Relations Section, Princeton Uni-
versity, pp . 6, 7. By September 1938, the written agreements with steel manufacturing , processing, and
fabricating plants had risen to 541 covering over 400,000 workers , and by December 1938, to 565 covering
over-three-fourths of the basic iron, steel , and tin-producing industry The number of agreements has
continued to increase . Written Trade Agreements in Collective Bargaining , National Labor Relations Board,
Division of Economic Research, Bulletin No 4, 1939, p. 229.
In December 1940 the S W. O. C. claimed to have 691 contracts with steel manufacturing , fabricating,
and processing companies covering "close to 600 ,000 steel workers ." Steel Labor , Vol. 5, No 12, December
27, 1940. Substantially all these contracts were on an industrial basis. The S. W. O. C. was recognized as
the bargaining representative of its members in most of the agreements , but in some it was recognized as
the exclusive bargaining representative . At the time that Carnegie-Illinois signed its first contract with the
S. W. O C., on March 1, 1937, Carnegie -Illinois employed about half the steel workers in the United States
Steel Corporation and about one quarter of the total number of workers employed in the entire industry
Harbison , op. cit., p. 7.
Although the agreements with the United States Steel Corporation are for members only it has been said
that: "In practical fact the S . W. O. C. has an exclusive bargaining contract with United States Steel sub-
sidiaries." Robert R. R Brooks, As Steel Goes , 1940, p. 246.
19 Expert opinion has found this type of organization peculiarly suited to the industry : " The structure
and organization of the iron and steel industry [ has] for decades been appropriate to industrial unionism and
not to craft unionism." Daugherty , De Chazeau and Stratton , The Economics of the Iron and Steel Indus'rv,
1937, Vol I, p. 195
"The logic of the industry 's operations is such that vertical rather than craft organization is called for _
Integrated operations extending from blast furnace to the finished rolled-sheet product constitute the eco-
nomic unit , and a form of organization that would encourage jurisdictional disputes would be socially ineffi-
cient. Furthermore , since management is organized on a vertical basis, any approach to equality of bargain-
ing power would require a similar vertical organization of the workers " Op. cit., Vol II , p 1152.
29 Cf Matter of Globe Machine and Stamping Company and Metal Polishers Union , Local No 3, et at , 3
N L. R. B. 294
21 Matter of Carnegie-Illinois Steel Corp , Engineering Division, Naval Ordnance Plant and Local Union
466, 1 B E. W , 34 N L. R. B , No 5, Matter of The National Tube Company, Subsidiary of United States
Steel Corporation and Local 1640 , International Longshoremen 's Association (A. F. of L ), 33 N L R. B
1248.
22 See supra , and footnote 17 ,
23 See Matter of Justin McCarty , Inc and International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, Local No 387.
36 N L R. B. 800 ; Matter of Weyerhaeuser Timber Company , Longview Branch and International Wood-
workers of America , Local No 36 , affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations , et at, 29 N L R B
571, Long-Bell Lumber Company and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union # B77,
affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, et at, 29 N . L R. B 586.
TENNESSEE COAL, IRON, AND RAILROAD COMPANY - 625
For all these reasons we are of the opinion and find that the unit
now sought by the petitioner -is not appropriate and the petition,
accordingly, will be,dismissed.24 -
IV. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
Since, as pointed out in Section III above, the bargaining unit
sought to be established by the petition is inappropriate for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining, we find that no question has been raised
concerning the representation of employees in an appropriate bargain-
ing unit.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire
record in the case, the Board makes the following:
CONCLUSION OF LAW
No question concerning the representation of employees of Tennes-
see Coal, Iron and Railroad Company, Birmingham, Alabama, has
arisen in a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations
Act.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the above findings of 'fact and conclusion of law,
the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the petition
for investigation and certification of representatives filed by Local
B287, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, be,, and it
hereby is, dismissed.
MR. WM. M. LEISERSON took no part in the consideration of the
above Decision and Order.
24 Matter of Tennessee Coal, Iron and Railroad Company, Open Hearth Dept 'of Ensley W orks and Brother-
hood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen , 39 N L R B 626, (Case No R-3344), Matter of Carnegie-
Illinois Steel , Corporation , Engineering Division, Naval Ordnance Plant and Local Union 466, I B E W ,
supra, Matter of The National Tube Company , Subsidiary of United Slates Steel Corporation and Local 1640,
International Longshoremen 's Association (A F of L ), supra, Matter of Inland Steel Company and Inter-
national Association of Machinists, Local 126, affiliated with the A F of L , et at , 34 N L R B 1294,
Platter of American Steel & Wire Company and Steel and Wire Workers Protective Association, 5 N L R
B 871