Joseph T. Ryerson & Son, Inc.

In the Matter of JosEPII T. RYERSON & SON, INC. EMPLOYER and SI3OPMEN'S LOCAL 509, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BRIDGE STRUCTURAL AND ORNAMENTAL IRON WORKERS, AFL, PETITIONER Case No. 21-RC-1-276.Decided August 5, 1950 DECISION AND ORDER 'Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing.was held before Ben Grodsky, 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 Styles]. 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 labor organization involved claims to represent employees of the Employer. 3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the represen- tation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, for the following reasons: The Petitioner seeks a unit of production and maintenance em- ployees in the reinforcing department of the Employer's Los Angeles, California, plant. The Employer contends that only a plant-wide unit is appropriate. The employer is engaged in the warehousing and distribution of finished steel products. It handles 5 classes of steel consisting of ap- proximately 10,000 items, 10 items being reinforcing bars used in con- crete construction work. Each class of metal is stored in a separate area, referred to as sections : namely, the structural, cold-rolled, cold- finished, sheared, and reinforcing-bar sections.' However, the plant is not administered on a sectional basis. There is common supervision of work in all 5 sections. All employees receive daily assignments to ' The items sold through the reinforcing-bar section are stocked, shaped, and cut in an open space behind the plant. 91 NLRB No. 5. 1 `Z DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD work locations which vary with the nature of the orders to be filled during the day. An analysis on the record of the time spent by the 42 employees in the plant during a 4-month period, showed that 17 de- voted no time, 18, part-time; and 7, their entire time to work in the reinforcing-bar section.' A majority of employees have at some time worked in all 5 sections and can do most of the work involved.3 In addition, all employees are subject to the same personnel policies, par- ticipate in the same employee benefits and privileges, and have the same general working conditions. The Petitioner does not seek to justify a unit limited to employees of the reinforcing-bar section either on a departmental or craft basis, but asserts that such units have been recognized by other companies within the Los Angeles area, including some of the Employer's com- petitors. In the circumstances of this case, however, the factor is not controlling.4 In view of the interchangeable duties of these semi- skilled employees, and the integrated nature of the Employer's opera- tion, we agree With the Employer that the unit sought by the Peti- tioner is too limited in scope.5 Accordingly as the unit is inappro- priate we shall dismiss the petition. ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed. z Of the 1.8, 5 worked in excess of 60 percent of their time on reinforcing work. The Employer's established job classifications are based on experience in the perform- ance of the various operations and equipment involved. The majority of the employees have worked up through the classifications from "new and inexperienced helpers" to "miscellaneous regular leaders ," whose classification description includes performing the work involved in cutting , shearing, or bending reinforcing bars into the standard shapes required . The Employer estimates that 35 of the 42 can perform all the machine opera- tions in the plant. 4 Sears Roebuck and Company, 90 NLRB No. 152 . We note that none of these units are pursuant to a Board certification , and that the bargaining history in the Employer's other four plants which contain comparable sections has been on a plant-wide basis. Joseph T. Ryerson & Son, Inc., 67 NLRB 88. , Although a plant-wide unit would be appropriate the Petitioner does not have a sufficient showing of interest to justify an election in such a unit.