Pittsburgh Valve Co.

e PITTSBURGH VALVE COMPANY log additional violations of the Act. As we see it, the issue of restraint and coercion of Capital Service's employees now attempted to be raised by the charging party involves an unfair labor practice, fundamentally different and distinct from the secondary boycott violations encompassed by the complaint and litigated at the hearing, i.e., forcing customers of Capital Service and their suppliers to cease doing business with Capital Service by inducing the employees of these secondary employers to withhold their labor. Although the court of appeals deemed it necessary to consider the impact of the consumer boycott on Capital Service's employees in order to decide the jurisdictional is sue in the above -mentioned injunction case and stated in so deciding, that it regarded the Board to have the "power" on the facts presented before the court to find such action a violation of Section 8 (b) (1) (A), and to enjoin it, "if in its discretion, it determines so to act," we do not believe that the court could have intended that this language be construed as an anticipatory ruling that such substantive issue was in fact raised and litigated in the com- plaint proceeding now under consideration by the Board. We therefore believe that a fundamental procedural rule against deciding an issue which has not been framed or raised by the pleadings and which has not been litigated before the Board, precludes our reaching this issue , regardless of what our views might prove to be on an independent consideration of the issue were it properly before us for determination. In view of the foregoing, Capital Service's motion to modify the Decision and Order herein is hereby denied. Chairman Farmer took no part in the consideration of the above Order Denying Motion to Modify Decision and Order. PITTSBURGH VALVE COMPANY, STERLING MANUFAC- TURING COMPANY, ands HARDWARE BRASS MANUFAC- TURING COMPANY and UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 6-RC-1256. July 13, 1953 DECISION AND ORDER Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before W. G. Stuart Sherman, 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 Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Members Houston, Murdock, and Peterson]. 'The Employer's name appears as amended at the hearing. 106 NLRB No. 12. 1 10 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Upon the entire record in this case , the Board finds:2 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The labor organization involved claims to represent cer- tain employees of the Employer. 3. No question of representation exists concerning the representation 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 requests a unit embracing the production and maintenance employees of Pittsburgh Valve Co., Sterling Manufacturing Co., and Hardware Brass Manufacturing Com- pany, each of which operates a separate plant in Reedsville, West Virginia. These three companies , herein called the Employer, contend that the proposed unit is inappropriate in scope, and that their employees may only be represented in a bargaining unit which also includes the employees of the Sterling Faucet Company and Sa-Mor Quality Brass , Inc., each of which operates a separate plant in Morgantown , West Virginia, 13 miles distant from Reedsville . The Employer also contends that in the event the Board should find the unit proposed by the Petitioner to be appropriate , no present election should be held because of the appreciable expansion now taking place at Reedsville. These 5 corporations have a substantial common ownership, common officers and directors , and a very centralized control of both production operations and labor relations policies. Together they are devoted to the manufacture of brass products for the plumbing industry . There is no question , and all of the parties seemingly agree , that absent extraordinary circum- stances , the integrated character of the operations and man- agement of the 5 plants owned by these companies would require a finding that only a single bargaining unit for all 5 plants of the 5 separate corporations is appropriate. The 2 p l a n t s at Morgantown have been in continuous operation for several years , and in 1951 the Board found a unit embracing those 2 plants to be appropriate and directed an election therein.' The Petitioner , which then sought to repre- sent those employees , filed objections to the election which followed the Board's decision, and also charges of unfair labor practices against those 2 companies .4 The issues raised by both the objections and the unfair labor practice charges are still pending before the Board. In 1951, because of a substantial increase in the Morgantown production operations , the 3 Reedsville companies were orga- nized and housed in 3 buildings which they sublet from the Sterling Faucet Company; the Reedsville operations commenced in 1952 and have been going on for about 9 months. Some per- sonnel was transferred from Morgantown and a substantial 2 The Employer 's request for oral argument is hereby denied inasmuch as the record and the briefs adequately present the issues and positions of the parties. 3Sa-Mor Quality Brass , Inc , 93 NLRB 1225. (Cases Nos . 6-RC-694 and 695, consolidated.) 4Sterling Faucet Company, 6-CA-428, 444, 445, and 459 , consolidated. PITTSBURGH VALVE COMPANY 1 1 1 amount of machinery and equipment was sold by the old com- panies to the 3 new ones. The Employer ' s president testified without contradiction that at the time of the hearing production operations at the 3 Reeds- yule plants were still in their very early stages . As to Pitts- burgh Valve Company , it is now using only 15 percent of the foundry and core equipment already purchased for it. Within the next year it will also have a pattern shop, a core and foundry room, a grinding department and other operational phases and services now handled by the parent company. Its departments will increase from 3 to 11. The present comple- ment of 20 production and maintenance employees will increase to between 75 and 100 within 6 months, and will reach 200 within a year , the categories of employees during the same period will change from 7 to 34. Sterling Manufacturing Company is also carrying on limited operations , and has definite plans to increase equipment, departments , and job classifications . Within 6 months its present working force of 23 production employees will expand to 35 . Within a year , when regular production has been achieved, there will be 65 employees and the current 11 job classifications will double in number. Hardware Brass Manufacturing Company , also operating on a limited basis, is now making 1 item, but ultimately will produce from 40 to 50 brass items. The present labor force will increase from 11 employees to 40 within 6 months , and by early 1954, when the projected toolroom engineering department, warehouse , and receiving departments will be established, the plant will have 75 employees and its 4 current job classifica- tions will expand to 15. The parties ' disagreement both as to the appropriateness of establishing a unit limited to the Reedsville plants and as to polling those employees apart from the Morgantown workers, arises from their conflicting constructions of the Board's decision in the Waterous Company case .5 The Employer con- tends that because the question concerning representation affecting the Morgantown employees in Cases Nos . 6-RC-694 and 695 is as yet unresolved , the Reedsville employees, being a group previously unrepresented in what could now be an appropriate unit of 5 plants , may not be polled as a separate group , but can only be polled together with the employees of all 5 plants . To the contrary , the Petitioner agrees that the unsettled conditions resulting from the alleged unfair labor practices of the companies at Morgantown takes this situation out of the purview of the rule of the Waterous case. We find it unnecessary to decide this dispute between the parties, because it is clear that the Reedsville plants are in the process of a definite and substantial expansion , both as to the number of employees and as to the diversity of categories which will eventually be employed there. The present complement of employees is neither a substantial nor representative segment of the group which will ultimately be employed. In such cir- 5 92 NLRB 76 1 12 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD cumstances, the Board ordinarily does not order animmediate election.6 Even assuming, therefore, that because of the unsettled conditions at the Morgantown plants, the three-plant unit proposed by the Petitioner is appropriate, we would nevertheless not direct an election now. Accordingly, because the unit requested is in the process of definite and imminent substantial expansion, we shall dismiss the petition without prejudice to the subsequent filing of another petition at a more appropriate time. [The Board dismissed the petition.] 6 Coast Pacific Lumber Co., 78 NLRB 1245; A. O, Smith Corp. ( Air Frame Component Division), 100 NLRB 1379; Individual Drinking Cup Co., Inc., 101 NLRB 1751. MESTA MACHINE COMPANY and AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR, Petitioner. Case No. 6-RC,-1291. July 13, 1953 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Joseph C. Thackery, 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 Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Members Murdock, Styles, and Peter- son]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds: 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The labor organization involved claims to representcer- tain employees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The Petitioner seeks to represent a unit of all bricklayers, bricklayer helpers, and apprentices employed by the Employer. The Employer contends that the proposed unit is inappropriate for the reasons set forth below. The employees involved are engaged in the construction, maintenance, and repair of bricklinings and other brickwork used by the Employer in the process of manufacturing steel and steel products at its plant in West Homestead, Pennsylvania. The bricklayers possess and exercise craft skills, acquired after a 4-year apprenticeship. There is no history of collective bargaining for these em- ployees. The Employer contends that the proposed unit is inappropriate because of the integrated nature of the Employer's operations, because the bricklayers are engaged in a program of replacing and repairing equipment on regularly succeeding occasions and 106 NLRB No. 16.