Aluminum Co. of America

In the Matter of ALUMINUM COMPANY OF AMERICA and STANISLAUS COUNTY CENTRAL LABOR COUNCIL, A. F. OF L. In the Matter of ALUMINUM COMPANY or AMERICA and INTERNA- TIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, DISTRICT LODGE #41 Cases Nos. R-5814 and R-5815 respectively.-Decided September 13, 1943 Messrs. W. N. Farquhar, H. TV. Giles, and R. B. Weaver, of River- bank, Calif., for the Company. Messrs. Charles J. Janigian, and George A. Mulkey, of San Fran- cisco, Calif., for the Council. Mr. Carl J. Guntert, of Stockton, Calif., for the I. A. M. Gladstein, Grossman, Sawyer cC Edises, by Mr. Bertram Edises, of Oakland, Calif., for the C. I. O. Mr. William R. Cameron, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION STAIFAIENT OF THE CASE Upon amended petitions severally filed by Stanislaus County Cen- tral Labor Council, A. F. of L., herein called the Council, and Inter- national Association of Machinists, District Lodge No. 41, herein called'the I. A. M., alleging that questions affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation of employees of Aluminum Com- pany of America, Riverbank, California, herein called the Company, the National Labor Relations Board provided for an appropriate hearing upon due notice before Louis S. Penfield, Trial Examiner. Said hearing was held at Modesto, California, on August 10, 1943. The Company, the Council, the I. A. M., and Warehousemen's Union, Local 6, International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union (C. I. 0.), herein called the C. 1. 0., appeared, participated, and 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 er- ror and are hereby affirmed. All parties were afforded opportunity to file briefs with the Board. 52 N. L. R. B., No. 95. 568 ALUMINUM COMPANY OF AMERICA a69 Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY Aluminum Company of America, a Pennsylvania corporation, is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of aluminum, and owns and operates plants in various States of the United States. It also operates several plants for Defense Plants Corporation, includ- ing the plant at Riverbank, California, with which we are here solely concerned. At the Riverbank, California, plant the Company pro- duces pig aluminum from aluminum ore. This plant commenced op- erations approximately on May 15, 1943, and since that date has been in partial operation. The plant, at the present time, uses raw ma- terials, consisting of carbon anodes, aluminum ore, and electric power, amounting in value to more than $1,000,000 per year, of which ap- proximately 80 percent is obtained from points outside the State of California. The gross value of the pig aluminum produced until the present time has been at the rate of more than $2,000,000 per year. At the present time approximately 60 percent of the pig aluminum pro- duced is shipped to points outside the State of California. It is esti- mated that when the plant is in full operation approximately 85 per- cent of the pig aluminum produced will be shipped to points outside the State of California. H. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED Stanislaus County Central Labor Council is a labor organization, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, admitting to mem- bership employees of the Company. International Association of Ma- chinists is a labor organization 1 admitting to membership employees of the Company. Warehousemen's Union, Local 6, International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union (C. I. 0.), is a labor organization, affili- ated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, admitting to membership employees of the Company. III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION On or about March 15, 1943, the Council and the I. A. M. each requested recognition by the Company as representative of the em- i At the hearing the I. A. M. requested permission to withdraw its separate petition, and stated , as the reason therefor, that it is affiliated with Stamslaus County Central Labor Council , and desires that the employees named in its petition as constituting tl,e appropri- ate unit be included in the unit claimed by the Council. The Council requested , and was granted, permission to amend its petition to include within the unit sought by it, the employees previously claimed by the I . A. M. The request of the I. A. M . to withdraw its separate petition is hereby granted. 570 DECISJONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ployees in the unit which each then claimed to be appropriate. The Company at that time refused to grant either organization such recog- nition for the reason that it was not yet in production. At the pres- ent time it is the Company's position that it will not recognize any labor organization as the exclusive representative of its employees in any appropriate unit until such labor organization had been cer- •tified as the collective bargaining representative by the Board. Statements of the Field Examiner introduced in evidence, and a statement of the Trial Examiner read into the record at the hearing, indicate that the Council, the I. A. M., and the C. I. 0., each represents a substantial number of employees in the unit hereinafter found to be appropriate.2 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 Council contends that all production and maintenance em- ployees, including plant clerical employees, truck drivers, laborers, electricians, and operating engineers, but excluding general office and office clerical employees, and supervisors, constitute a unit appro- priate for collective bargaining. The Council would also include in the unit machinists, blacksmiths, welders, and machinists helpers, as well as the machinists' foreman, who are carried on the construction pay roll. The latter are the employees whom the I. A. M. originally sought to represent. The C. I. 0. and the Company agree that a gen- eral production and maintenance unit is appropriate, but both seek to exclude all construction workers, including the machinists. There is further disagreement concerning inclusion of certain minor groups of employees hereinafter discussed. 2 The Field Examiner reported that the Council had submitted 166 authorization cards, most of them being dated in.May 1943, of which 110 appeared to bear genuine original signatures of persons whose names are on the Company's pay-roll list dated June 9, 1943, containing 224 names within the unit originally claimed by the Council to be appropriate. The Field Examiner reported that the I. A. M. had submitted 16 authorization cards, 10 being dated in March, 4 in April, and 2 in May 1943. All the cards appeared to contain genuine original signatures , and the names thereon correspond with the 16 names on the Company's pay roll for its machine shop, the unit which had been petitioned for by the I. A. M., for the pay period ending June 9, 1943. The employees of the machine shop have, however, currently been carried on the Company's construction pay roll, and not on the production pay roll above mentioned The Field Examiner further reported that the C. I O. had submitted 45 authorization cards dated in June 1943 , of which 38 appeared to bear the genuine original signatures of persons whose names are on the above-mentioned production pay roll. The Trial Examiner reported that the C. I. O. at the hearing submitted seven additional authorization cards, dated in June , July, , and August 1943, of which four appeared to bear the genuine original signatures of persons whose names are on the Company's production pay-roll list for the week ending August 4, 1943 ALUMINUM COMPANY OF AMERICA 571 The Riverbank plant of the Company has been under construction since July 1942, and is expected to be completed about October 15, 1943. Inasmuch as most of the construction work has already been done, less than one-fourth of the construction employees remain in the Company's employ. These employees are carried on a separate con- struction pay roll, and their employment by the Company will be terminated on or before completion of construction, unless they are reemployed by the Company on regular production or maintenance work. The testimony of the Company's plant manager and of the construction superintendent indicates that of approximately 176 em- ployees in various crafts now on the construction pay roll, possibly 54 to 64 will be needed, when the plant is completed, as maintenance employees on the operating pay roll. Some of these construction employees, however, and particularly the machinists, now spend a portion of their time in plant maintenance work, even though still on the construction pay roll; this is because the plant is as yet only partially in operation, and the amount of maintenance necessary is not yet sufficient to require the establishment of a maintenance de- partment under the operating pay roll. Although there is dispute in the record as to the amount of time spent by the machinists and other craft employees at maintenance work, the record, taken as a whole, indicates that these employees still spend the greater portion of their time on construction work. In view of the fact that these craft employees are engaged principally in construction and that in a comparatively short time the employment of most of them will be terminated, it does not appear that any of these craft employees now on the construction pay roll has sufficient interest in the results of col- lective bargaining in the operating unit that he should be entitled to vote in an election with the production and maintenance employees.3 We shall therefore exclude from the unit all employees on the con- struction pay roll. Contention arose at the hearing concerning inclusion within the unit of the line foremen in the reduction department. The record dis- closes that each line foreman has about 35 employees working under him, and that he himself does no work on the pot line of which he has charge except such work as may be incidental to the instruction and training of new employees. The record clearly indicates that the line foremen have the right by virtue of their position to recommend discipline, transfer, or dismissal, and that such recommendations are usually given weight by those higher in authority. We shall there- fore exclude line foremen. 8In this connection it may be noted that of these craft groups now on the construction pay roll, the machinists, whom the I. A. M. originally sought to represent, appear to have no greater prospects of employment upon the completion of the plant than do the other craft groups now working on construction. 572 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD- The Council and the C. I. 0. agree that office and office clerical em- ployees should be excluded, but seek to include within the unit all warehouse and plant clerical employees. The Company desires to exclude plant clerical employees, although it does not contest inclusion of the warehouse clerks. There are about 12 clerks and stenographers in the warehouse who handle all incoming and outgoing shipments, store goods on the shelves, check the material against the orders, keep records, and make up reports. There are also clerical employees in the pot room office whose duties are checking time and keeping records dealing with the technical side of the pot room operations. The Com- pany also contemplates the employment of a clerical employee in the machine shop office and one in the electrical office whose duties will include the keeping of time, answering the phone, routing the work and other related duties. We shall include the warehouse and plant clerical employees in the unit. We shall exclude, however, such plant clerical employees as have timekeeping duties, in accordance with our usual practice. Inasmuch as the record indicates that the store- keeper, who has charge of the warehouse employees above mentioned, has authority to discipline and to recommend promotion and dis- charge, we shall exclude the storekeeper. A dispute also exists concerning inclusion within the unit of chem- ical laboratory employees. The Council and the C. I. 0. seek to include and the Company to exclude them. These employees are en- gaged, for the most part, in performing routine chemical analyses, for which employment no other than a high school education is nec- essary. The Company gives approximately 3 months training to these employees, but their work is largely routine, some of which can be done by a new employee, though not rapidly, at the very beginning of his employment. It appears that their interests are similar to those of the production employees, and we shall include them in the unit. The record discloses, however, that the chief chemist has author- ity to discipline and to recommend promotion and discharge. We shall exclude the chief chemist from the unit. We find that all production employees of the Company at its River- bank, California, plant, including employees in the chemical labora- tory and storeroom or warehouse, truck drivers, laborers, electricians, and operating engineers, but excluding office and office clerical em- ployees, timekeeping employees, all employees on the construction pay roll, and all supervisory employees with authority to hire, pro- mote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees or effectively recommend such action, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. ALUMINUM COMPANY OF AMERICA 573 V. TILE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES We shall direct that the question concerning representation which has arisen be resolved by an election by secret ballot among the em- ployees in the appropriate unit who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of the Direction of Election herein, subject to the limitations and additions set forth in the Direc- tion.4 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 Act, and pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of National Labor Rela- tions Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2, as amended, it is hereby DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representa- tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Aluminum Com- pany of America, Riverbank, California, an election by secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than thirty (30) (lays from the date of this Direction, under the direction and super- vision of the Regional Director for the Twentieth 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 Regu- lations, among the employees in the unit found to be appropriate in Section IV, above, 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 at the polls, but excluding any who have since quit or been discharged for cause, to determine whether they desire to be represented by Stanislaus County Central Labor Council, A. F. of L., or by Ware- housemen's Union, Local 6, ILWU (CIO), for the purposes of col- lective bargaining, or by neither. CHAIRMAN MILLIS took' no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Direction of Election. • The parties requested that their names appear on the ballot respectively as follows : Stanislaus County Central Labor Council , A. F. of L., and Warehousemen 's Union, Local 6, ILWU (CIO). These requests aie hereby granted.