Republic Steel Corp.

In the Matter of REPUBLIC STEEL CORPORATION , EMPLOYER and UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA (CIO), PETITIONER Case No. 8-R-0333.-Decided February 11, 1947 Messrs. George R. Rauschenberg, E. J. Magee, and Edward Mandry, all of Cleveland, Ohio, for the Employer. Messrs. Owen Dixon and Joseph Kanecki, both of Cleveland, Ohio, for the Petitioner. Mr. A. Swmner Lawrence, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Cleve- land, Ohio, on September 23, 1946, before John A. Hull, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings niade at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. The Employer's motion to dismiss is denied for reasons hereinafter stated. Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER Republic Steel Corporation, a New Jersey corporation with its principal offices in Cleveland, Ohio, is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of iron and steel products at numerous Nation- wide plants, including one known as the 98-inch Strip Mill, Cleveland District, located at Cleveland, Ohio, the only plant involved in this proceeding. The Employer currently uses at each of its plants in- cluding the 98-inch Strip Mill, Cleveland, District, substantial ton- nages of raw materials which are obtained from points outside the States wlierein are located the plants at which such material is used. Substantial tonnages of finished products are currently shipped from each of the said plants to points in States.other than those in which such plants are located. The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. 72 N L. P B, No. S8 525 526 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 11. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, claiming to represent employees of the Employer. III. THE QUESTION CONCEPNING REPRESENTATION The Employer refuses to recognize the Petitioner as the exclusive bargaining representative of certain clerical employees of the Eni- ployer until the Petitioner has been certified by the Board in an appro- priate unit. The Employer contends that the Board has no jurisdiction to enter- tain the present proceeding upon the grounds : ( 1) that the employees concerned are representatives of management; and (2) that the Peti- tioner is the same labor organization which represents the Employer's production and maintenance employees at the plant involved herein. Since it appears that the employees sought to be represented by the Petitioner are for the most part ordinary clerical employees without supervisory or managerial functions , the Employer's contention that such employees are representatives of management and beyond -the jurisdiction of the Board, is without mnerit . The further contention of the Employer that the Board is without jurisdiction by reason of the fact that the Petitioner presently represents the production and main- tenance employees at the plant herein concerned , is equally without merit. We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the representation of employees of the Employer , within the meaning of Section9 ( c) and Section 2 ( 6) and ( 7) of the Act. IV. THIN APPROPRIATE UNIT The Petitioner seeks a unit of factory and office clerical employees employed at the Employer's 98-inch Strip Mill, Cleveland District. The Employer contends that the unit sought is inappropriate upon the ground that all the employees in such unit-. are either supervisory or confidential employees. The employees included in the unit sought by the Petitioner will be considered from the point of view of their rela- tions to the several departments in which they are presently employed. Production Control Department Of the employees in this department, the Petitioner agrees that the superintendent of production and control and the latter's chief clerk should be excluded from the unit as supervisory employees. The Petitioner would, however, include in the unit all other employees in REPUBLIC STEEL CORPORATION 527 this departmment. The Employer contends : (1) that the employees in certain of the requested classifications should be excluded as super- visory ; 1 and (2) that 11 of the remaining employees in this department should be excluded as confidential employees. With respect to the supervisory status of the employees in the classi- fications referred to by the Employer, the record discloses that, while such employees cannot actually hire or discharge, they nevertheless are authorized to recommend changes in the status of employees under their supervision and have on a number of occasions effectively exer- cised such authority. Moreover, although it appears that in certain. instances their recommendations are subject to further investigation by higher management officials, we find that such employees are super- visory employees within the meaning of our usual definition, since the record does not establish that such investigations supersede or detract from the efficacy of their recommendations as a determinative factor in action taken by the Employer.2 We shall, accordingly, exclude them from the unit hereinafter found appropriate. As regards the remaining employees in this department, it appears that, aside from the'stenographer to the superintendent of production and control who exercises managerial functions with respect to labor relations, the other employees perform ordinary clerical duties. While the latter have access to certain business information considered confidential by the Employer, the evidence discloses that such employ- ees do not themselves exercise managerial functions with respect to labor relations, or act in a confidential capacity to management officials who are authorized to formulate or effectively determine managerial policies. Accordingly, we find that the employees in question are not confidential employees within the meaning of our usual definition.; We shall, therefore, include such employees, other than the stenog- rapher to the superintendent of production and control, in the unit lhereiilafter found appropriate. Metallurgical Department The Petitioner and the Employer agree that from among the em- ployees in this department, the assistant chief metallurgist, the metal- lurgist general, the metallurgical foreman, the chief inspector, and the foremen in the hot and cold strip divisions, should be excluded as supervisory employees. The Petitioner would include in its unit the reuanung employees in this department. The Employer contends that such employees should be excluded as confidential employees. "The classifications alleged be the Emplol•er to be supeivisory are as follows dispatch leader, plainer, service and expeditor, chief schedule, assistant chief schedule, chit hiller, assistant chief hiller, and chief clear iticeito 2 See 11attc) of Doughnut Con potation of America, 66 N L R P, 1231 ,Matte of The Elect. it, Coot, oiler ,C 31anataetminq Conipunmj, 69 N L R B 1242 7 t 12-12-47-vox 72 35 528 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The employees in question consist of those in the classifications of stenographer to the assistant chief metallurgist, mill metallurgical clerk, and clerks to the foremen in the hot and cold strip divisions, respectively. While it appears that certain members of this group handle correspondence relating to customers' complaints, or otherwise have access to business information considered confidential by the Employer, there is nothing in the record to indicate that they act as confidential secretaries to management officials who are authorized to formulate or effectively determine management policy. Accordingly, we shall include them within the unit. Operating Departments With respect to employees in these departments, the Petitioner and the Employer agree that certain employees therein should be excluded as supervisory employees.4 However, the Petitioner and the Employer disagree with regard to the remaining employees consisting, with exception of the clerk to the mill superintendent,' of the clerks and assistant clerks to the heads of the various operating divisions. While it appears that these employees have access to the files and handle the correspondence of the various department heads, par- ticularly with respect to the subject of grievances, the department heads do not themselves determine the policies of the employer other than to administer in their departments the policies as established by the Employer's industrial relations department. Accordingly, in the absence of evidence that the department heads have substanfial managerial functions in regard to labor relations, we find that the clerical employees who act as secretaries to the heads of such depart- ments are not confidential employees within the meaning of our defini- tion thereof." We shall, therefore, include such employees, with the exception of the clerk to the mill superintendent, within the unit here- inafter found appropriate. Accounting Department The Petitioner is in agreement with the Employer that the chief production clerk in this department is a supervisory employee and should be excluded from the unit. The Petitioner also is agreeable to the exclusion of employees in the classification of weigher, since they -tie included in the production and maintenance unit now represented 7`he classifications excluded by agreement are as follows : superintendent and assistant superintendent of the mill , superintendent of the hot mill, superintendent of the hot mill finishing , superintendent of the cold mill, master mechanic , chief electrician , foreman of the roll shop , stocker foreman and foreman BA. 5 The mill superintendent has substantial managerial duties with respect to labor I (,Ii I ions footnote 8, supra REPUBLIC STEEL CORPORATION 529 by the Petitioner. The latter would, however, include all the re- maining employees in this department in the present unit of clerical employees. The Employer contends that all such employees should be excluded therefrom as confidential employees and that employees in the classification of assistant chief clerk should also be excluded as supervisory employees. With respect to the confidential aspect of the Employer's contention, the evidence reveals that the production clerks, while concerned with business costs of the Employer, have nothing to do with labor relations and apparently do not act in a confidential capacity to any official with authority to formulate or effectively determine management policies. Accordingly, we find that they are not confidential employees within the meaning of our definition. As regards the further contention of the Employer that assistant chief production clerks should be excluded as supervisory employees, it appears that such employees have authority, which they have exer- cised effectively, to recommend changes in status of employees tinder their supervision. Accordingly, we find that assistant chief pro- duction clerks are supervisory employees and we shall exclude them from the unit. We shall, however, include therein the other account- ing employees not otherwise ineligible as supervisory employees or members of other bargaining units. Clock House In this department, which is a subdivision of the accounting depart- ment considered above, the Petitioner seeks to include all employees located therein, which comprise employees in the classification of clock house clerk and chief clock house clerk. The Employer contends that, since the clock house clerks check time records for pay-roll pur- poses, they are confidential employees. The Employer also contends that the chief clock house clerk should be excluded as a supervisory employee. With respect to the Employer's contention as regards the confidential status of such employees, we find, in the absence of any confidential duties with respect to labor relations on the part of clock house employees, and in accord with the principles set forth above, that such employees are not confidential within the meaning of our usual definition. On the other hand, since it appears that the chief clock house clerk has authority to recommend and has on occasion effectively recommended changes in status of employees under his supervision, we find that he is a supervisory employee and shall exclude him from the unit. We find that all factory and office clerical employees of the Employer at its 98-inch Strip Mill, Cleveland District, Cleveland, Ohio, exclud- ing employees in the production control department in the classifica- 530 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tion of superintendent of production control, chief clerk, dispatch leader, planner, service and expeditor, chief scheduler, assistant chief scheduler, chief biller, assistant chief biller, chief clerk inventory, and stenographer to the superintendent of production control ; employees in the metallurgical department in the classification of assistant chief met- allurgist, metallurgist general, metallurgical foreman, chief inspector, foreman hot strip and foreman cold strip; employees in the operating departments in the classifications of superintendent and assistant superintendent of the mill, superintendent of the hot mill, superintend- ent of the hot mill finishing, superintendent of the cold mill, master mechanic, chief electrician, foreman of the roll shop, stocker foreman, and foreman BA, and superintendent's clerk to the superintendent of the mill; employees in the accounting department in the classifications of chief production clerk, assistant chief production clerk, and weigher; employees in the clock house division of the accounting de- partment in the classification of chief clock house clerk; and all other supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, dis- cipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or effec- tively recommend such action, 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 Republic Steel Corporation , Cleve- land, Ohio , 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 supervision of the Regional Direc- tor for the Eighth Region , acting in this inattei as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject to Sections 203.55 and 203.56, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations- Series 4, among the employees in the unit found appropriate in Sec- tion IV, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period imme- diately 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 dis- charged 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 ( CIO), for the pur- poses of collective bargaining. MR. JAMES J. REYNOLDS, JR., took not part in the consideration of the above Decision and Direction of Election.