Joseph T. Ryerson & Son, Inc.

In the Matter of JOSEPH T. RYERSON & SON, INC. and UNITED STEEL- woRKERs OF AMERICA, CIO Case No.1-R-2850.Decided April 5,1946 Cravath, Swaine, and Moore, by Mr. John H. Morse, of New York City, for the Company. Grant and Angoff, by Mr. Harold B. Roitman, of Boston, Mass., for the Union. Mr. Emil C. Farkas, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon a petition duly filed by United Steelworkers of America, CIO, herein called the Union, alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation of employees of Joseph T. Ryerson & Son, Inc., Cambridge, Massachusetts, herein called the Company, the National Labor Relations Board provided for an appro- priate hearing upon due notice before Leo J. Halloran, Trial Exam- iner. The hearing was held at Boston, Massachusetts, on February 13, 1946. The Company and the Union 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 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 Joseph T. Ryerson & Son, Inc., is a Delaware corporation, having places of business in Illinois, Wisconsin, Missouri, Michigan, Penn- sylvania, Ohio, New York, Massachusetts, and New Jersey, where it is engaged in the purchase, sale, and distribution of steel products. More than 90 percent of the materials purchased by the Company for 67 N. L R. B., No. 8. 88 JOSEPH T. RYERSON & SON, INC. 89 resale at its Cambridge, Massachusetts, plant, with which we are solely concerned in this proceeding, is purchased outside the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and approximately 20 percent of its sales is made to customers outside the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The Com- pany's Cambridge warehouse annually sells and distributes steel prod- ucts valued at more than $100,000. The Company has warehouses in certain other States from which it carries on the same general type of business that it does from its Cambridge warehouse. We find that the Company is engaged in commerce within the mean- ing of the National Labor Relations Act' II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED United Steelworkers of America is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, admitting to mem- bership employees of the Company. III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION On January 14, 1946, the Union, by letter, advised the Company that it represented a majority of the Company's employees and re- quested a conference. On the same day, the Union filed its petition in this case. The Company refuses to recognize the Union as the rep- resentative of its employees. A statement of a Board agent, introduced into evidence at the hear- ing, indicates that the Union represents a substantial number of employees in the unit hereinafter found 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 Union requests a unit composed of all production and main- tenance employees of the Company, but excluding executives, watch- men, office clerical employees, and all supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively recommend such action. The Company agrees, but would define the unit as restricted to hourly paid employees.' For the purpose of determining appro- Matter of Joseph T. Ryerson it Son, Inc, 65 N. L R B 921. The Field Examiner reported that the Union submitted 59 cards bearing the names of 58 employees, and that the cards are dated in January 1946, one being undated. There are approximately 77 emplovees in the appropriate unit The Company's position regarding probationary and part-time employees is not one which relates to occupational categories of employment, but rather to voting eligibility, and will, therefore, be discussed under the heading of "determination of representatives." 90 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD priate bargaining units, we do not differentiate between employees paid on a salary basis and those paid on an hourly basis, solely on the ground of difference in mode of payment 4 We, therefore, reject the Com- pany's contention. We find that all production and maintenance employees at the Company's Cambridge, Massachusetts, plant, excluding executives, watchmen, office clerical employees, and all supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, diseharge, 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. V. THE DETERMINATON OF REPRESENTATIVES Employees of the Company who are on the regular pay roll but have worked for less than 6 months are regarded as probationary employees. The Company also hires a number of part-time employees. The parties are in disagreement concerning the participation in the election of both probationary and part-time employees. They agree that "casual" employees should not be eligible, and we so find. The record shows that the probationary employees have the same substantial interest in the terms and conditions of employment as have regular employees and are hired with the expectation that they will be permanent if their work is satisfactory. We shall, therefore, permit them to vote in the election.5 Similarly, the part-time em- ployees work a regular schedule of hours each week, though lesser in number than regular employees, and have a sufficient interest to entitle them to vote in the election e We shall direct that the question concerning representation which has arisen be resolved by an election by secret ballot among employees 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 Direction. 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 3, as amended, it is hereby DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representa- tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Joseph T. Ryer- 4 Matter of Edgewater Steel Company, 56 N. L. R. B. 1778. rs Matter of Ideal Roller & Manufacturing Company, 60 N. L. R. B. 1105. n Matter of Avery, Elton R. at al., 44 N. L. R. B. 801. JOSEPH T. RYERSON & SON, INC. 91 son & Son, Inc., Cambridge, Massachusetts, an election by secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than thirty (30) days from the date of this Direction, under the direction and supervi- sion of the Regional Director for the First 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 Regulations, among employees in the unit found 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 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, to determine whether or not they desire to be represented by United Steelworkers of America, affiliated with the CIO, for the purposes of collective bargaining.