Harrisburg Steel Corp.

In the Matter of HARRISBURG STEEL CORPORATION and UNITED FOREMEN, LOCAL INDUSTRIAL UNION #1425 (CIO) Case No. 4 R 17 . Decided April 9, 1946 Mr. Frederick Shefeld, of New York City, and Messrs. Wilbert Wear, C. B. Loy, E. G. Wig field, W. Traut, Jr., and C. Marsh, of Harrisburg, Pa., for the Company. Mr. Frank J. Donner, of Washington, D. C., and Mr. George Craig, of Philadelphia, Pa., for the Union. Mrs. Augusta Spaulding, of counsel to the Board. DECISION r AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon petition duly filed by United Foremen, Local Industrial Union #1425 (CIO), herein called the Union, alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation of em- ployees of Harrisburg Steel Corporation, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, herein called the Company, the National Labor Relations Board pro- vided for an appropriate hearing upon due notice before Herman Lazarus, Trial Examiner. The hearing was held at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, on September 12, 1945. The Company and the Union appeared, participated, and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evi- dence bearing on the issues. During the course of the hearing, the Company moved to dismiss this proceeding. The Trial Examiner did not rule on this motion. For reasons stated in Section III, below, the motion is denied. 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 Harrisburg Steel Corporation is engaged in the manufacture of steel specialties at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. During the past year the 67 N. L. R B., No. 24. 164 HARRISBURG STEEL CORPORATION 165 Company used at its plant raw materials valued at approximately $10,000,000, over 20 percent of which came to its plant from points outside Pennsylvania. The Company admits, and we find, that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED United Foremen, Local Industrial Union #1425, is a labor organ- ization, chartered by the Congress of Industrial Organizations, admit- ting to membership employees of the Company. III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION On May 2, 1945, the Union informed the Company that a majority of foremen at the Company's plant had designated the Union as their collective bargaining representative, and requested a bargaining con- ference. On May 10, 1945, the Company declined to discuss recog- nition with the Union. The Company urges that the Union's petition be dismissed, on the grounds (1) that foremen are not employees within the meaning of the Act and (2) that the relationship of the Union with Local 1608 of United Steelworkers of America, herein called the Steelworkers, the bargaining representative of the Company's production and mainte- nance employees, precludes the Union from serving foremen in a representative capacity for bargaining purposes. In the Company's first contention we find no merit, for reasons we have set forth at length in other decisions, and which we have recently affirmed.,, In the Company's second contention, we likewise find no merit. The Union is chartered by the Congress of Industrial Organizations and, thus, immediately subject to the latter's direction and control. Local 1608 is chartered by the Steelworkers, an autonomous organization, only one of the many international unions which are affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations and participate in shaping the policies and procedures of their group for their common interests. Representatives of the Steelworkers gave to the Company's foremen certain information and assistance in organizing a separate organ- ization after Local 1608 first accepted, and then dropped foremen from its membership. A comity exists between the Union and Local 1608 which permits foremen who. have been demoted into rank-and- file categories of employment covered by the contract between Local I Matter of Soss Manufacturing Company, et al , 56 N. L R B. 348 ; Matter of Packard Motor Car Company, 61 N. L. R B. 4, and 64 N. L R. B. 1212, Matter of L. A. Young Spring & Wire Corporation, 65 N L R B 298; Matter of Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation, Vesta-Shannopin Coal Division, 66 N. L. It. B. 886. 166 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1608 and the Company,2 and for this reason dropped from membership in the Union, to join Local 1608 without the payment of initiation dues. From these facts, we cannot infer that there exists any domina- tion of Local 1608 over the Union. Even were direct affiliation be- tween the Union and Local 1608 found to exist, the Act imposes no limitations upon the choice of employees in appropriate units to select for the purposes of collective bargaining representatives of their own choice.3 A statement of a Board agent, introduced into evidence at the hear- ing, indicates that the Union represents a substantial number of em- ployees in the unit hereinafter found appropriate 4 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 contends that foremen at the Company's plant, exclud- ing leadermen and all supervisory employees above foremen, consti- tute an appropriate bargaining unit. Subject to its position set forth in Section III, above, the Company does not oppose the position of the Union with respect to the scope of the unit for foremen. The Company fabricates steel production of standard quality at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, presently employing 1,100 employees in various job categories. Control and over-all supervision of all pro- duction operations is vested in the Company's vice president. Under him, and in charge of the 12 operating departments, are the several department superintendents. Where a department is large, an assist- ant superintendent may share the superintendent's work. Under the superintendents in the several departments are 36 foremen in charge of specific operations within the departments. Foremen are immediately responsible for the performance of work by production and maintenance employees working under them. Fore- men are paid on a salary basis or on an hourly basis, according to practice established in the respective departments where they may serve. Production and maintenance employees are for the most part hourly paid or piece-work employees. Under certain conditions, fore- men may change work assignments within their departments; may 2 After August 1945, as noted in Section IV, below, the Company 's production opera- tions were curtailed, necessitating the reduction of the number of foremen from 134 to 36 at the time of the hearing . Some foremen were dropped into non-supervisory categories of employment and thus became ineligible to retain their membership in the Union. 3 Matter of Jones t Laughlin Steel Corporation, supra. * The Field Examiner reported that the Union submitted 129 authorization cards. There were approximately 134 employees in the unit proposed by the Union at the time of its organization among the Company 's employees . There were, at the time of the hearing, 36 employees in the appropriate unit. HARRISBURG STEEL CORPORATION 167 assign tardy employees to any minor work jobs under their control; may recommend transfers of employees to other departments; and may scold, discipline, or temporarily lay off employees under them. Foremen approve "down time" for employees under them, thus mak- ing the Company's record of the amount of straight pay to which piece workers are entitled when their machines are not operating. Foremen handle the initial stages of grievances of the men in their departments. They may submit suggestions for the betterment of the Company's operations, as may other employees of the Company. Suggestions submitted by foremen have been the basis of rules incorporated in the Company's handbook for employees. The Company's foremen whom the ITnion seeks to represent are production and maintenance foremen, including shipping foremen, stock foremen, and warehouse foremen. Leadermen, who the parties agree should be excluded from the unit for foremen, are not super- visory employees within our definition of that term, and they are presently part of the production and maintenance group represented by Local 1608 of the Steelworkers and covered by its contract with the Company. The curtailment of production for war purposes reduced the number of production and maintenance employees at the Company's plant from 3,000 to 1,100 employees, and the number of foremen from 134 to 36: Before this reduction took place, the Company classified its 134 fore- men as general foremen, foremen, and assistant foremen, depending upon the number of employees working under them and the degree of responsibility imposed upon them. At the time of the hearing, the Company's 36 foremen were all of one classification. The Union would describe the unit appropriate for foremen as including "general fore- men, foremen, and assistant foremen." Since the Company now em- ploys one class of foremen and the record does not indicate that any changes are imminent in the Company's operations, we will describe the unit for foremen in terms of existing circumstances. If, as a result of this proceeding, the Union is certified as bargaining representative of foremen, and any disagreement arises with respect to the unit place- ment of "general foremen" and "assistant foremen" who may thereafter be hired, we will entertain a motion to clarify the scope of the unit for foremen employed at the Company's plant. We find that production and maintenance foremen at the Company's plant, including shipping foremen, stock foremen, and warehouse fore- men, but excluding leadermen and all supervisory employees above the rank of foremen, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. 168 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES 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 Harrisburg Steel Corporation, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, 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 super- vision of the Regional Director for the Fourth 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 tempo- rarily laid off, and including employees in the armed forces of the United States who present themselves in person at the polls, but ex- cluding 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 Foremen, Local Industrial Union #1425 (CIO), for the pur- poses of collective bargaining. MR. GERARD D. REILLY, dissenting : For the reasons stated in my dissenting opinion in Matter of Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation, Vesta-Shannopin Coal Division,5 I am constrained to dissent from this decision. 5 66 N L R B 386