Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp.

JONES & LAUGHLIN STEEL CORPORATION 259 3. All employees of Cheney California Lumber Company in the unit hereinafter described, constituted at all times pertinent hereto, a unit appropriate for the pur- poses of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. The unit is described as-follows: All employees of the Company at its sawmill , exclusive of clerical and super- visory employees, as described in the Act. 4. The above-named Local is, and at all times pertinent hereto has been, the exclusive representative of all the employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit for the purpose of collective bargaining. 5. The above-named District Council is, and at all times material hereto has been, the duly designated bargaining representative of the Local for the purposes of collective bargaining on industrywide issues with the Company and its representa- tive. 6. Pine Industrial Relations Council is, and at all times material hereto has been, the duly designated representative of the Company for the purposes of collective bargaining on industrywide issues with the Local and its r representative. 7. By restraining and coercing the Company in the selection of Pine as its repre- sentative for the purposes of collective bargaining , as found above, the Local and the District Council, and the above-named individuals, have jointly engaged in un- fair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (1) (B ) of the Act. 8. By refusing to bargain with Pine , as found above, the Local and the District Council and the above -named individuals have jointly engaged in unfair labor prac- tices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (3) of the Act. 9. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com- merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. [Recommendations omitted from publication.] Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation I and United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 9-RC-4201. Feb- ruary 15, 1961 DECISION AND ORDER Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Arthur P. West, hearing offi- cer. 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 designated its powers in connection with this case to a three- member panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Fanning and Kimball]. 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 named above claims to represent certain employees of the Employer.2 3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 1 The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing. 2 Warehouse, Production and Maintenance Employees , Local 661, International Brother- hood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of America , was permitted to intervene at the hearing on the basis of a contractual interest. 130 NLRB No. 35. 260 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 9(c) (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act, for the following reasons: The Employer is a Pennsylvania corporation engaged in the manu- facture and sale of iron and steel products. At the time of the hearing, the Employer operated two warehouses, one located at Cincinnati, Ohio, at Front and Smith Streets (herein referred to as the Cincinnati warehouse), and another at Sharonville, Ohio (herein referred to as the Sharonville warehouse), which is a distance of approximately 8 miles from Cincinnati. The Petitioner originally sought a unit composed of all warehousemen employed at the Cincin- nati warehouse, including those "temporarily assigned" to the Sharon- ville warehouse, and excluding, in addition to the usual exclusions, truckdrivers and salesmen. At the hearing, the Petitioner was per- mitted to amend its petition to seek, with the same exclusions, all warehousemen employed at the Cincinnati warehouse, including those "formerly assigned to this [Cincinnati] location, but currently as- signed to the Employer's warehouse at Sharonville, Ohio." As an alternative, the Petitioner at the hearing sought to represent, with the same exclusions, all warehousemen at both the Cincinnati and Sharonville warehouses. The Employer and Intervenor contend that the petition should be dismissed on the ground that (1) each of the units sought by the Petitioner is inappropriate and (2) the petition is barred by a contract now in effect between the Employer and Inter- venor covering the warehousemen at the Sharonville warehouse. The record discloses that there is now in effect a collective- bargaining agreement between the Employer and the Intervenor, effective from January 4, 1960, until September 30, 1962, covering the production and maintenance employees at the Employer's Sharonville warehouse.' At the time of the hearing, the Employer was in the proc- ess of liquidating its Cincinnati warehouse and moving the Cincinnati warehouse operation to its warehouse at Sharonville. The Employer, at the time of the hearing, employed 11 warehouse employees at its Cincinnati warehouse and 9 employees, who had previously been em- ployed by the Employer at the Cincinnati warehouse, had been trans- ferred to the Sharonville warehouse. These assignments were perma- nent and the transferred employees are employed as production and maintenance employees at the Sharonville warehouse.' Subsequent to the close of the hearing, the Board was administra- tively advised that on November 14, 1960, the Employer closed its Cincinnati warehouse completely, that the warehouse building is now for sale, and that of the 11 production and maintenance employees at 3 The record indicates that the terms "warehouseman" and "production and mainte- nance employee at a warehouse" are used interchangeably by the Employer. 4 The Board was administratively advised that at the time of the hearing the Employer employed 52 employees at its Sharonville warehouse , including those transferred from Cincinnati. NORTHERN MOTOR CARRIERS, INC., ETC. 261 Cincinnati, 10 were transferred to the Sharonville warehouse and 1 employee has retired.' On the basis of the foregoing, we find merit in the contentions of the Employer and Intervenor and we shall accordingly dismiss the peti- tion. As there are no longer any employees employed at the Cincin- nati warehouse, we find it unnecessary to consider the petition insofar as it sought such employees, and we shall therefore treat the petition as seeking all warehouse employees at Sharonville who were formerly employed at Cincinnati, and, in the alternative, all warehouse employ- ees at Sharonville. As the warehouse employees previously employed at Cincinnati have been permanently transferred to Sharonville and as these employees, like the other Sharonville employees, are employed as production and maintenance workers at the warehouse, we find that the transferred employees have lost their separate identity and have become integrated with the other Sharonville warehouse employ- ees and for this reason do not constitute a separate appropriate unit.e With respect to the Petitioner's alternative unit request, as the con- tract between the Employer and the Intervenor, effective from Janu- ary 4, 1960, until September 30, 1962, covers all warehouse employees at Sharonville, we find that this contract constitutes a bar to the peti- tion, filed on August 5, 1960, insofar as it seeks warehouse employees at Sharonville.' We shall accordingly dismiss the petition. [The Board dismissed the petition.] s The employees transferred subsequent to the hearing were , like those transferred prior to the hearing, production and maintenance employees at the Cincinnati warehouse and they presumably are also employed as production and maintenance employees at the Sharonville warehouse. 6 See Continental Can Company, Inc, 127 NLRB 286. As the warehouse employees transferred from Cincinnati are now an integral part of the Sharonville warehouse, we also find, for the reasons stated below , that the petition insofar as it seeks such employees is barred by the current contract between the Employer and the Intervenor. I In view of the fact that the present operations at Sharonville are substantially the same as its operations at the time this contract was entered into, and as it does not appear from the record that there has been a substantial increase in personnel at Sharonville, we find that the changed circumstances within the contract term are not of such a nature to remove the contract as a bar. General Extrusion Company, Inc , General Bronze Alwintste Products Corp., 121 NLRB 1165, 1167. Northern Motor Carriers, Inc. and Fort Edward Express Co., Inc. and Lawrence C. Mattison . Case No. 3-CA-1427 (formerly Case No. O-CA-7179). February 15, 1961 DECISION AND ORDER On July 5, 1960, Trial Examiner Thomas N. Kessel, issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that Northern Motor Carriers, Inc. and Fort Edward Express Co., Inc., 130 NLRB No. 45.