Mosher Steel Co.

In the Matter Of MOSHER STEEL COMPANY, EMPLOYER and UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, C. I. 0., PETITIONER Case No. 16-RC-440.-Decided January 17,1950 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before Charles Y. Latimer, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Reynolds]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. 2. The Petitioner is a labor organization claiming to represent cer- tain employees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The appropriate unit : The Petitioner, and the Employer agree that an appropriate unit should consist of all production and maintenance employees at the Employer's Dallas, Texas, plant, excluding office clerical employees, professional employees, guards, and supervisors. The Employer con- tends, however, contrary to the Petitioner, that individuals classified as subforemen and gang leaders should be excluded from the unit as supervisors, and that employees of its John Deere plow department should be excluded as temporary employees. The Alleged Supervisors There are approximately 200 production and maintenance em- ployees at the plant, of whom 15 are classified as subforemen or gang 88 NLRB No. 35. 173 174 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD leaders. Seven of these individuals work in the structural depart- ment and the ornamental and miscellaneous department, the 2 largest- departments in the plant, under the direction of the foremen of their- respective departments. They direct the operations of the employees- working with them, on the basis of their experience and superior skill,. but spend the greater part of their time doing manual work similar- to that done by the other employees. The remaining subforemen and the 2 gang leaders work in the 5 departments of the plant which are not headed by foremen 1 and report directly to the plant superintendent. These subforemen spend less of their time in manual labor than do, the subforemen in the structural and ornamental and miscellaneous. departments. The 2 gang leaders, however, are engaged in manual work almost constantly. All the subforemen and gang leaders are hourly paid and receive 10, to 20 cents an hour more than the employees working with them. They do not have authority to hire or discharge employees or effectively to recommend any action with respect to the status of other employees.. Moreover, the subforemen and gang leaders were included in a pro- duction and maintenance unit certified by the Board as a result of a. consent election held in 1943, and were bargained for as part of such unit. It does not appear that their duties and responsibilities have changed since 1943. Accordingly, we find that the subforenien and gang leaders are not supervisors within the meaning of the Act, and shall include them in the unit. The John Deere Plow Department The John Deere plow department is the only department at the Employer's plant which is not engaged in the fabrication of structural steel. This department was established in November 1947, pursuant to a 1-year contract between the Employer and John Deere Plow Works, providing that the Employer would manufacture parts for plows and that Deere would furnish the necessary raw materials, cast- ings, machinery, and equipment. At that time, Deere was negotiating for the purchase of a new plant in Des Moines, which it has since acquired. It was contemplated that, after the expiration of the con- tract, Deere would manufacture these parts itself at its Des Moines plant. At the end of the year, however, Deere was unable to do so and the contract has been extended several times by supplementary letters. 1 These departments are comparatively small , consisting of from 10 to 20 employees, MOSHER STEEL COMPANY 175 There are approximately 30 employees in this department, most of - whom were hired specifically for this work.2 The Employer alleges that they were hired on a temporary basis and that, when the work is completed, they will be laid off, as it cannot possibly absorb them in its main plant. The Employer therefore contends that all employees -in the plow department, with the exception of those who have been transferred from the main plant and will be retransferred, should be excluded from the unit. The Employer introduced into the record a letter of October 10, 1949, from John Deere Plow Works, stating that, at the expiration of -their current contract, it will no longer be necessary for the Employer to manufacture these parts. It is the Employer's position that, on -the basis of this letter, its work for Deere will be permanently termi- nated sometime between the first and fifteenth of January 1950. It .admitted, however, that, for the past year and a half, representatives .of Deere have been continuously advising the Employer that the work would soon be terminated, but that orders have continued to come in. We therefore believe that this letter alone is insufficient to establish that the Employer's plow department will soon be discontinued and -that the employees involved will be permanently laid off. The Em- ployer's expectations are too indefinite to warrant the exclusion of .employees of the plow department from the unit. Moreover, no elec- tion is likely to be held herein before January 15. If, as the Employer asserts, the production of plow parts is actually discontinued by that date, all employees in the plow department who will have been laid .off, without reasonable expectation of reemployment, will be regarded as having been permanently severed and will be ineligible to vote." We find that all production and maintenance employees 4 at the Employer's Dallas, Texas, plant, excluding office clerical employees, professional employees, guards, and supervisors, as defined in the Act, ,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 the Employer, an election by secret 2 Approximately six of these employees were transferred from other departments in the plant. 2 See Corn Products Refining Company, 87 NLRB 187; Sunshine Broadcasting Com- pany, 83 NLRB 1244. * Including subforemen and gang leaders, and employees of the John Deere plow department. 176 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than 30 days from the date of this Direction, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Region in which this case was heard, and subject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62 of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, among the employees in the unit found appropriate in paragraph numbered 4, above, who were employed during the payroll period immediately preceding the date of this Direction of Election, including employees who did not work during said payroll period because they were ill or on vacation or tempo- rarily laid off, 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, and also excluding employees on strike who are not entitled to reinstatement, to determine whether or not they desire to be represented, for purposes of collective bargaining, by United Steelworkers of America, C. I. 0.