Gabriel Steel Co.

In the Matter of GABRIEL STEEL COMPANY, EMPLOYER and MECHANICS EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA, LOCAL No. 6, PETITIONER Case No. 7-RC-707.-Decided January 19,1550 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before Francis E. Burger, 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-menmber panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Murdock]. 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 and the Intervenors, United Steel Workers of America, CIO (herein the Steelworkers), and United Construction Workers, Local Union No. 301, affiliated with the United Mine Work- ers (herein the Construction Workers), are labor organizations claim- ing to represent employees of the Employer. 3. The question concerning representation : The Construction Workers contends that its current contract with the Employer is a bar to this proceeding. We find no merit in this contention. The contract is expressly made subject to the Board's rulings on the present petition.' The Petitioner is currently recognized as the bargaining repre- sentative for the are and acetylene welders, burners, spot welders, and machine burners. Although the Petitioner introduced its current contract covering these employees in evidence, it did not urge that contract as a bar to an election relating to them. We find, therefore, that a question affecting commerce exists con- cerning the representation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 1 See Shell Chemical Corporation, 81 NLRB 965. 88 NLRB No . 54. 201 202 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 4. The appropriate unit : The Petitioner requests a unit consisting of all employees, excluding the are and acetylene welders, spot welders, machine burners, office and clerical employees, guards, and supervisors. The Intervenors contend that the only appropriate unit is the plant-wide unit, which prevailed from 1941 to December 20, 1948, when the Board decertified the Con- struction Workers as representative for the are and acetylene welders, .spot welders, and machine burners.2 The Employer takes no position concerning the appropriate unit. The Steelworkers contends that the evidence before the Board in the decertification case was incomplete,3 and urges as grounds for revers- ing that decision the fact that the welding department employees enjoy both plant and department seniority and that the apprenticeship pro- gram, in fact, consists chiefly in promoting welder setup men to spot welders on the basis of the knowledge they acquire from working with welders, and in requiring merely a proficiency test of welders. How- -ever, our decision that the employees in the welding department could either constitute a separate unit or continue to be represented as part .of the plant-wide unit was based upon other considerations,4 which are in no way affected by the factors which the Steelworkers now brings to our attention. We therefore see no reason for reversing our original determination in this matter. We shall accordingly direct that separate elections be held in the following groups, and shall defer our final determination as to the scope of the unit until the_ results of these elections have been .ascertained. Voting group 1.-All are and acetylene welders, spot welders, and machine burners. Voting group 2.-All employees, excluding are and acetylene welders, spot welders, machine burners, office and clerical em- ployees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. If a majority in voting group 1 vote for the Petitioner, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to constitute a separate unit. If a majority vote for the Steelworkers, they will be taken to have indi- cated their desire to be included with the other employees in a single unit. 2 Gabriel Steel Company, 80 NLRB 1361. 3 The recognized union, the Construction workers, did not appear at the hearing in that case. See 80 NLRB 1361. The Construction workers is omitted from the ballot because that union is not in compliance with Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) of the Act. 0 GABRIEL STEEL COMPANY 2O3 DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS 's As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining with the Employer, elections by secret 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 voting groups set forth above, who were employed during the payroll period immediately preceding the date of this Direction of Elections, 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 elections, and also excluding employees on strike who are not entitled to reinstatement, to determine whether they desire to be represented for the purpose of collective bargaining, by Mechanics Educational Society of America, Local No. 6, or by United Steel Workers of America, CIO, or by neither. 9 Any participant in the elections herein may, upon its prompt request to , and approval thereof by, the Regional Director, have its name removed from the ballot.