United States Steel Corp.

U. S. STEEL CORP. United States Steel Corporation, Central Furnace and United Protection Workers of America , # 50059, In- dependent, Petitioner. Case 8-RC-7901 February 1, 1971 DECISION ON REVIEW BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING AND BROWN On August 18, 1970, the Regional Director for Re- gion 8 issued a Decision and Direction of Election in the above-entitled proceeding in which he found ap- propriate a unit of all plant guards employed at the Employer's Central Furnace in Cleveland, Ohio. He also devised a formula for determining the eligibility of certain plant guards who serve for varying periods of time as temporary relief foremen in the production operation. Thereafter, in accordance with Section 102.67 of the National Labor Relations Rules and Regulations, the Employer filed a timely request for review of the Regional Director's Decision, with re- spect to the eligibility formula, contending that it arbi- trarily restricts the voting right of certain plant guards who are permanently attached to the guard force and that all temporary relief foremen secured from the guard force be ruled eligible to vote. On September 16, 1970, the National Labor Rela- tions Board by telegraphic Order granted the request for review and stayed the election pending decision on review. The Employer thereafter filed a timely brief on review. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel. The Board has reviewed the entire record in this case with respect to the issues under review and makes the following findings: The Employer is engaged in the manufacture of steel and related products. At its Central Furnace location involved herein, it is engaged in the manufac- ture of merchant pig iron. There are two blast fur= naces at this facility. Depending upon production requirements and the life cycle of a given furnace,' these two furnaces are operated simultaneously or one at a time. When only one furnace is in operation, the nonsupervisory force numbers approximately 300. When both furnaces are in operation at the same time, that force is increased by approximately 100 employ- ees and the regular supervisory force is also enlarged. The Employer secures this additional supervisory per- ' A blast furnace cannot be operated indefinitely as periodically it must be mechanically rehabilitated and relined. 309 sonnel from the production and maintenance unit, the clerical-technical unit, or from the nonsupervisory plant guard force in which an election is now being directed. While serving in this supervisory capacity, these guard employees are classified as temporary re- lief foremen, but retain their guard seniority and other benefits. When no longer needed, they return to their rank-and-file duties. During the past 6 years, both blast furnaces have operated simultaneously for substantial periods. At the present time both are being operated, although it is anticipated that by April or no later than July 1971, one of the furnaces will have to be shut down for rehabilitation. Six plant guards have been continuous- ly working as temporary relief foremen since Septem- ber 1969 and another has been so working for an undisclosed period. They will continue in that capaci- ty until the 1971 shutdown, when they will return to their regular plant guard duties. The Union urged that the seven guards who are serving as temporary relief foremen be excluded from the unit as supervisors, while the Employer contended that they be included, at least with respect to their nonsupervisory guard duties, and be found eligible to vote in the election. Although the Regional Director found that the guards were statutory supervisors while serving as temporary relief foremen, he further found that they were primarily attached to the nonsupervisory guard force and shared a substantial community of interest with their fellow nonsupervisory guards. He therefore concluded that the guards who are serving as tempo- rary relief foremen should be granted the right to representation for the periods they are employed in nonsupervisory guard positions? However, he qual- ified their right to vote in the election by the require- ment that during the preceding 24 months they must have spent at least 50 percent of their time performing nonsupervisory guard duties. Although the Board has on occasions devised spe- cial formulas for determining eligibility, we do not believe this is an appropriate case for the use of any such formula. On this record we regard the involved guards to have been temporarily detailed out of the nonsupervisory guard unit with a virtual certainty of returning. Their status, with the possible exception of Charles Druschel who serves as temporary relief fore- man in the guard unit,' is analogous to that of employ- ees in temporary layoff status at the time of an election and as such are eligible to vote in accordance with our normal eligibility rule. Accordingly, the case is hereby remanded to the Regional Director for the conduct of an election pur- 2 No request for review was filed as to the above findings 3 Any issue as to his eligibility may be resolved through the challenge procedure 188 NLRB No. 39 310 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD suant to his Decision and Direction of Election, as modified herein. Further, the eligibility date for par- ticipation in said election shall be the payroll period immediately preceding the date of this decision .4 4 In order to assure that all eligible voters may have the opportunity to be informed of the issues in the exercise of their statutory right to vote, all parties to the election should have access to a list of voters and their addresses which may be used to communicate with them . Excelsior Underwear Inc., 156 NLRB 1236, N.LR.B. v. Wyman-Gordon Co., 394 U.S. 759. Accordingly, it is hereby directed that an election elegibihty list, containing the names and addresses of all the eligible voters, must be filed by the Employer with the Regional Director for Region 8 within 7 days of the date of this Decision on Review. The Regional Director shall make the list available to all parties to the election. No extension of time to file this list shall be granted by the Regional Director except in extraordinary circumstances. Failure to comply with this requirement shall be grounds for setting aside the election whenever proper objections are filed.