Republic Steel Corp.

864 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD application was partially completed by Macdonald and returned to Mehl . There was further conversation between Mehl and Macdonald after the application was returned and Macdonald testified that he said : "And I told him that l .had another contact that I was going to make that night in regard to a job, that I couldn't tell him any- thing definite then because I didn 't feel that there was any definite prospect of going to work for McGraw right then. And he [Mehl] told me he would put it in chan- nels and that I would be notified." Thereafter Macdonald departed from the McGraw construction site and went to the office of Respondent Local where he desired to talk to the business agent, but after waiting some 20 or 25 minutes during which time the business agent was busy with a number of telephone calls; Mac- donald departed. Accepting as I do Macdonald's version of his efforts to obtain employment with McGraw, it fails completely to establish an exclusive hiring-hall arrangement and/or practice between the Respondent McGraw and the Respondent labor organizations. His testimony only proves that on the day he sought employ- ment the Company put to work a number of employees who had referrals from the Union. He was neither told that he would be employed if he obtained a referral nor refused employment because he did not have a referral . He was simply told that the only thing being done on that day was signing up those people who had referrals. Being a union member in good standing, it is entirely possible that had Macdonald sought referral from Respondent Local he might have obtained one and conceivably obtained employment with the Respondent at the time he applied. The fact that Macdonald was provided with an application, given an opportunity to complete same, and return it to the Respondent McGraw tends to corroborate the evidence presented by the Respondent McGraw throughout this entire case to the effect that it obtained employees not only through the Unions but also from those people who apply directly to the Company and from its own company records on former employees. Consistent with the foregoing the Trial Examiner shall recommend dismissal of the complaint issued in Case No. 9-CA-2053 in its entirety. Upon the above findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Respondent McGraw is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. The Respondent Council and the Respondent Local are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 3. Neither the Respondent McGraw nor the Respondent Council and/or Re- spondent Local has engaged in unfair labor practices as alleged in the complaint. [Recommendations omitted from publication.] Republic Steel Corporation, Warren District, Niles Plant and United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 8-RC-4036. May 29, 1961 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION On February 9, 1961, the Board issued a Decision and Direction of Election in the above-entitled proceeding,' in which it directed an election in a voting group of plant clerical employees at the Employ- er's Niles, Ohio, plant. This decision provided that if a majority of the plant clerical employees voted for the Petitioner, they should be deemed to constitute a part of the existing production and mainte- nance unit represented by the Petitioner, but that if a majority of said employees voted against the Petitioner, they should be taken to have 1 Not published in NLRB volumes. 131 NLRB No. 107. REPUBLIC STEEL CORP., WARREN DIST., NILES PLANT 865 indicated their desire to remain unrepresented. In its decision, the Board noted that the petitioning union sought a unit of plant clerical employees separate and apart from the production and maintenance employees represented by it and that the Employer was in accord with the appropriateness of the unit sought. Thereafter, on February 27, 1961, the Employer and the Petitioner filed a joint motion for recon- sideration of the above decision, with supporting brief, contending that a separate unit of plant clerical employees was proper under the entire circumstances of this case, as hereinafter set forth. As these circumstances have been set forth in documents which have been signed jointly by the parties, we shall treat them as having been stipulated as a part of the record herein. The Employer has had an unbroken bargaining history since at least 1952 under which clericals at its other plants have been treated separately from production and maintenance employees, although the Petitioner has represented both groups of employees. While the pro- duction and maintenance contract covering all plants deals with mat- ters relating solely to hourly employees, the office and clerical contract deals with matters relating to salaried employees as well as hourly employees. There are numerous subjects such as incentive pay, sick leave, vacations, apprentices, holidays, and hours of work, which are not contained in both agreements or are treated differently in each agreement. Other areas of collective bargaining, such as insurance and wage classification manuals, are handled separately for salaried employees and are negotiated by the parties. Fifteen of nineteen employees who are plant clericals at the Niles plant are salaried, and, if they were part of the production and maintenance unit, they would be the only such group so included in the entire bargaining structure over the past 18 years. In view of the foregoing, including agreement of the parties to the appropriateness of a separate unit of plant clerical employees, the long-established pattern of a separate bargaining history for produc- tion and maintenance employees on the one hand and clerical and office employees on the other in other plants of the Employer repre- sented by the Petitioner, and the indicated serious consequences with which the parties view the sole departure from the bargaining pat- tern, were the decision allowed to stand, we find merit in the parties' contentions and, accordingly, grant the motion for reconsideration on the record as a whole. We shall, accordingly, vacate the Decision and Direction of Elec- tion of February 9, 1961, insofar as it relates to the establishment of a voting group of mill clerical employees and shall direct an election among the following employees of the Employer who we find con- stitute an appropriate unit for purposes of collective bargaining with- 599198-62-vol. 131-56 866 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD in the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act : All mill clerical employees at the Employer's Niles, Ohio, plant, excluding production and main- tenance employees, office clerical employees, professional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. [The Board ordered the Decision and Direction of Election in Case No. 8-RC-4036 relating to the establishment of a voting group of mill clerical employees vacated.] [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] MEMBER BROWN took no part in the consideration of the above Deci- sion and Direction of Election. The Marley Company and District 50, United Mine Workers of America, Petitioner. Case No. 9-RC-4363. May 29, 1961 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 Arthur P. West, 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 Leedom, Fanning, and Brown]. 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 organizations involved claim to represent employees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the represen- tation 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 Employer and the Intervenor move to dismiss the petition, as amended at the hearing, on the ground that it alleges a unit sub- stantially different from that originally claimed and is therefore un- timely because made within the 60-day insulated period! The petition herein was filed on December 29, 1960. The Em- ployer's and the Intervenor's most recent agreement was entered into on March 1, 1959, and terminated on February 28, 1961. At the hear- ing on January 18, 1961, the Petitioner amended its petition by ex- I See Deluxe Metal Furniture Company, 121 NLRB 995. 131 NLRB No. 103.