The Colorado Fuel and Iron Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 8, 1946

67 N.L.R.B. 100 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

In the Matter of THE CoLoiADo FUEL AND IRON CORPORATION and
UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, C. I. 0., LOCAL UNION No. 2102
Case No. 17-R-1180.-Decided April 8,1946
Mr. Fred Farrar, of Denver, Colo., and Mr. George E. Diggory, of
Pueblo, Colo., for the Company.
Mr. Michael J. Soldiren, of Pueblo, Colo., for the C. I. O.
Mr. Julius Topol, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a petition duly filed by United Steelworkers of America,
C. I. 0., Local Union No. 2102, herein called the C. I. 0., alleging that
a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representa-
tion of employees of The Colorado Fuel and Iron Corporation, Pue-
blo, Colorado, herein called the Company, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board provided for an appropriate hearing upon due notice be-
fore Robert S. Fousek, Trial Examiner. The hearing was held at
Pueblo, Colorado, on November 19, 1945. The Company and the
C. I. O. appeared and participated., All parties were afforded full
opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and
to introduce, evidence bearing 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 an 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
The Colorado Fuel and Iron Corporation, a Colorado corporation,
operates a number of plants in various parts of the United States.
i After proper notice of hearing, the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Engine-
men and the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen , herein collectively called the Brother-
hoods, mailed a joint motion to intervene to the Company. The Company presented this
motion at the hearing . The Trial Examiner admitted the motion into evidence but
reserved ruling on the motion for the Board . In view, of, our dismissal of the petition
hereinafter, we find it unnecessary to rule on the joint motion of the Brotherhoods
67 N. L. It. B., No. 11.
100
THE COLORADO FUEL AND IRON CORPORATION 101
We are here solely concerned with the Company's iron and steel mill
at Pueblo Colorado. At this mill, known as the Minnequa plant, the
Company is engaged in the manufacture of a wide variety of steel
and iron products, including standard rails for railroads, rail fasten-
ings, nails, wire, and fencing. During each year, more than 500,000
tons of iron ore are shipped to the Minnequa plant from mines in
Wyoming and Utah. During a similar period, a large percentage
of the finished products manufactured at this plant is shipped to points
outside the State of Colorado.
The Company admits, and we find, that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
It. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
United Steelworkers of America, Local Union No. 2102, is a labor
organization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations,
admitting to membership employees of the Company.
III. THE ALLEGED APPROPRIATE UNIT
At its Minnequa plant the Company operates as part of its produc-
tion processes, a blast fux%ace department where it is engaged in the
production of iron, and an open hearth department where it further
processes the iron into steel. In connection with the operation of
these two departments the Company uses transportation equipment
of various types. The transportation equipment in the blast furnace
department, which consists of ladles -mounted on railway trucks
hauled by small engines, carries molten iron from the blast furnaces
to the open hearth department. In addition, it carries slag from
the blast furnaces to "slag dumps" nearby. The crews who operate
the transportation facilities in the blast furnace department are com-
prised of engineers, firemen, and switchmen. The transportation
equipment in the open hearth department is of two types. One type,
which consists of small containers called "charge boxes" pulled by
"dinky" engines, moves materials used in the production of steel and
"spots" them along the "charging" side of the open hearth furnaces.
The other type, which consists of ingot cars, operates along the op-
posite side of these furnaces and receives the molten steel, which it
then carries to one of two nearby mills, or to a stock pile. The crews
who operate the transportation facilities in the open hearth depart-
ment are comprised of engineers and switchmen.
The Company utilizes the transportation facilities of its wholly
owned subsidiary, the Colorado and Wyoming Railway Company,
herein called the Railroad, to carry raw materials to, and finished ma-
terials from the Minnequa plant.
102 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
From 1918 until recently, the transportation facility employees
in the blast furnace and open hearth departments have been repre-
sented by the Brotherhoods and have been grouped, for bargaining
purposes, with the employees of the Railroad, each Brotherhood be-
ing recognized as the bargaining representative of the classifications
falling within its jurisdiction. This bargaining pattern was undis-
turbed by a Board decision,2 in 1941, which established a unit of the
Company's production, maintenance, and construction employees at
the Minnequa plant 3 but specifically excluded from the unit the trans-
portation facility employees of the Company. At that time, the
predecessor organization of the petitioner herein did not seek to rep-
resent these excluded employees. However, after an Emergency
Board appointed by President Roosevelt, pursuant to Section 10 of
the Railway Labor Act, had found that the plant transportation fa-
cility employees were not subject to the Railway Labor Act and after
the General Counsel of the Railroad Retirement Board had rendered
an opinion that these employees were not subject to the Railroad Re-
tirement Act, the petitioner undertook the organization of these
employees.
The C. I. 0. now seeks a separate unit of the transportation facility
employees who work in the blast furnace department. The Company
does not object to the proposed unit. It expresses, however, its oppo-
sition to the continuance of the afore-mentioned over-all units cover-
ing employees of both the Railroad and the Company on the ground
that they are no longer workable.4
The unit sought by the C. I. 0. does not satisfy the requirements
of either a craft or a departmental unit and is, in our opinion, open
to the serious objection that it seeks to establish an artificial grouping
of employees as appropriate for collective bargaining purposes. As
noted above, the bargaining pattern among these employees, although
also embracing in the same unit the transportation employees of the
Railroad, has, since 1918, been along craft lines, i. e., the Brotherhood
of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen has represented the firemen
and engineers and the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen has repre-
sented the switchmen. Contrary to this craft pattern of bargaining,
which is traditional among railroad or transportation employees and
which we have recognized in previous decisions,-' the C. I. 0. now pro -
poses to include switchmen in the same unit with firemen and engi-
2 See Matter of The Colorado Fuel d Iron Corporation , 29 N. L. R B 541.
'The Steel Workers Organizing Committee was certified as the exclusive bargaining
representative of the employees in the unit . The Committee and its successor, the peti-
tioner, have represented these employees since that certification.
' This objection was apparently evoked by the Brotherhoods ' motion to intervene which
indicated a desire on their part to maintain the units for which they have bargained here-
tofore.
' See Matter of Contractors, Pacific Naval Air Bases , 64 N. L . R. B. 866.
THE COLORADO FUEL AND IRON CORPORATION 103
neers. At the same time, it would select from among these categories
only those employees whom it apparently regards as being part of the
blast furnace department. In doing so, it would exclude from the
unit the engineers and switchmen who work in the open hearth de-
partment, despite the similarity of their duties and the integrated
nature of their functions in the industrial process. Moreover, even
though the unit purportedly includes employees of the blast furnace
department only, it actually would encompass a substantial number
of engineers whose departmental affiliations are obscure if not un-
ascertainable. The record reveals, in the latter connection, that all
the engineers involved, almost 25 percent of the total number of
employees comprising the unit, divide their working time among the
blast furnace department, the open hearth department, and the Rail-
road. Furthermore, we note that between September 1, 1945, and
November 15, 1945, half of these engineers worked more hours either
In the open hearth department or on the Railroad than they worked
in the blast furnace department.
The C. I. 0. apparently attempts to justify its unit request for
transportation facility employees in the blast furnace department only
on the asserted ground that, if the blast furnace and open hearth
departments are grouped together in one unit, the Negro employees in
the unit would be in the minority and would not, therefore, obtain
fair and equal representation. We cannot entertain such considera-
tions in determining the propriety of a proposed unit. Although the
Board has diligently sought to protect the right of minority racial
groups to equal and fair representation," it has consistently refused to
establish units based upon racial considerations, in the absence of a
showing of sufficient differentiation of functions.?
Accordingly, inasmuch as the proposed unit is without distinct
craft or departmental characteristics and would result in an arbitrary
grouping of employees, we perceive no basis for establishing its appro-
priateness. We therefore find that the unit sought by the C. I. 0. is
inappropriate and we shall dismiss the petition.
IV. THE ALLEGED QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
Since the bargaining unit sought to be established by the petition
is not appropriate, as found in Section III, above, we find that no
a See Matter of Larus & Brothers Company, Inc, 62 N. L . R. B. 1075 ; Matter of Atlanta
Oak Flooring Company, 62 N. L. R. B . 973; Matter of General Motors Corporation (Chev-
rolet Shell Division ), 62 N. L. R. B. 427 ; Matter of Southwestern Portland Cement Com-
pany, 61 N. L. R. B . 1217; Matter of Bethlehem-Alameda Shipyard, Inc., 53 N. L. It. B.
999.
Y See Matter of U. S. Bedding Company, 52 N. L. It. B . 382; Matter of Southern Wood
Preserving Company, 37 N. L. R. B. 25; Matter of Aetna Iron and Steel Company, 35
N. L. It. B. 136; Matter of G eorgia Power Company, 32 N. L. R. B. 692.
104 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the representation
of employees of the Company within the meaning of Section 9 (c) of
the Act.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for investigation and certi-
fication of representatives of employees of The Colorado Fuel and
Iron Corporation, Pueblo, Colorado, filed by United Steelworkers of
America, C. I. 0., Local Union 2102, be, and it hereby is, dismissed.