Great Lakes Steel Corporation

In the Matter of GREAT LAKES STEEL CORPORATION and BROTHERHOOD OF RAILROAD TRAINMEN In the Matter of GREAT LAKES STEEL CORPORATION and BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE FIREMEN AND ENGINEMEN Cases Nos. R-1311 and R-1310, respectively.Decided August 4, 1939 Steel Manufacturing Industry-Investigationw of Representatives : controversy concerning representation of employees : stipulated that petitioning unions and Company could not agree upon the appropriate unit-Units Appropriate for Col- $ective Bargaining : unit of conductors and switchmen and unit of engineers, firemen , and hostlers held appropriate ; units sought opposed primarily by the Company, arguments found not to be persuasive ; employees not intimately asso- ciated with production and can be separated from broader unit ; employees per- forming similar functions in division of the Company a short distance from this division not included, since collective bargaining would be delayed due to absence of membership in unions involved , separate unit proper where divisions sufficiently distinct, little interchange of employment, considerable distance apart; petitioning unions admit railroad employees in industrial plants to membership ; contention that seniority system to be urged by petitioning unions in collective bargaining was unsuitable for the business of the Company has no merit in determining appropriateness of unit-Elections Ordered: as to employees within units held appropriate. Mr. Charles F. McErlean, for the Board. Mr. Prewitt Semmes, of Detroit, Mich., for the Company. Mr. Harold C. Heiss and Mr. Russell B. Day, of Cleveland, Ohio, for the B. R. T. and B. L. F. & E. Dykema, Jones & Wheat, by Mr. Nathan B. Goodnow, of Detroit, Mich., for the I. S. W. A. Mr. Charles Kiser and Mr. Harold J. Padget, of Detroit, Mich, for the S. W. O. C. Mr. Theodore W. Kheel, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS STATEMENT OF THE CASE On May 22, 1937, the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, herein called the B. R. T., and on May 12, 1938, the Brotherhood of Loco- 14 N. L. R. B., No. 14. 197 198 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD motive Firemen and Enginemen, herein called the B. L. F. & E.,' filed with the Regional Director for the Seventh Region (Detroit, Michigan), petitions each alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation of employees of Great Lakes Steel Corporation, Ecorse, Michigan, herein called the Company, and requesting an investigation and certification of representatives pur- suant to Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. On October 5, 1938, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, acting pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the Act and Article III, Section 3, of National Labor Rela- tions Board Rules and Regulations-Series 1, as amended, ordered an investigation and authorized the Regional Director to conduct it and to provide for an appropriate hearing upon due notice. The Board, acting pursuant to Article III, Section 10 (c) (2), of said Rules and Regulations, further ordered that the cases be consolidated for purposes of hearing. On November 2, 1938, the Regional Director issued a notice of hearing, copies of which were duly served upon the Company, upon the B. R. T., upon the B. L. F. & E., upon the Independent Steel Workers Association, herein called the I. S. W. A., a labor organiza- tion claiming to represent employees directly affected by the investi- gation, and upon the Steel Workers Organizing Committee, herein called the S. W. O. C., a labor organization claiming jurisdiction over employees directly affected by the investigation. Pursuant to the notice, and a supplemental notice, a hearing was held on March 16 and 17, 1939, at Detroit, Michigan, before William Seagle, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board. The Board, the Company, the B. R. T., the B. L. F. & E., the I. S. W. A., and the S. W. O. C. were represented by counsel and participated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues was af- forded all parties. Thereafter oral argument participated in by counsel for the Company, the B. R. T., the B. L. F. & E., and the I. S. W. A. was heard by the Board in Washington, D. C., on April 27, 1939, following due notice to all parties. Briefs were filed by the Company, the Brotherhoods, and the I. S. W. A., to which due consideration has been given. During the course of the hearing, the Trial Examiner made several rulings on motions and on objec- tions to the admission of evidence. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : i Jointly referred to herein as the Brotherhoods. GREAT LAKES STEEL CORPORATION FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY 199 The Company is a Delaware corporation, wholly owned by the National Steel Corporation. At its plants and properties, located in Ecorse, Michigan, it manufactures coke, coke byproducts, pig iron, and such finished steel products as hot rolled strip, hot rolled annealed, and cold rolled sheets, merchant bars, automobile spring steel, etc. Ore, coal, coke, limestone, scrap, and fuel oil are the princi- pal raw materials used in production. During the first 10 months of 1938 the Company consumed raw materials valued at approximately $7,000,000. Of this amount, approximately 60 per cent was obtained outside the State of Michigan. During the same period of time, the Company produced finished products valued at approximately $20,000,000. Of this amount, approximately 20 per cent was shipped to points outside the State of Michigan. For all of its operations, the Company was employing approximately 7,900 men at the time of the hearing. II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen is a labor organization. Its constitution contains the following qualifications for membership : "A candidate for admission to this lodge by initiation shall have been employed at least one month as a railroad trainman . . ." By resolution, the president of the B. R. T. is empowered "to place any interpretation on the words `Railroad Trainman' as conditions, in his opinion, may justify." In this case, the B. R. T. seeks to repre- sent "That group of employees [at the Great Lakes division of the Company] assigned to the moving of cars or other vehicles designed for the transportation of property by motive power upon fixed rails, except those operating such motive power." These employees are designated as "switchmen or yardmen" in the petition and at times during the hearing and in the briefs were referred to as "conductors, brakemen, and switchmen," "conductors and switchmen," "train- men," "ground crew," and "charge of crew." Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen is a labor organization. Its constitution provides that "An applicant for membership shall have served at least thirty days as a locomotive fireman, engineman, engine hostler, hostler helper, engine dispatcher, employee handling engines in or about . . . industrial plants ..." It seeks to represent the engineers,2 fireman, and hostlers at the Great Lakes division of the Company. Sometimes referred to as enginemen. 190935-40-vol. 14-14 200 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Independent Steel Workers Association is a labor organization admitting to membership all employees of the Company. Steel Workers Organizing Committee is a labor organization admitting to membership all employees of the Company engaged in production, except supervisory and clerical employees. III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION It was stipulated at the hearing that a question concerning repre- sentation has arisen because of the inability of the Company and the petitioning unions to agree upon the appropriate units. We find that a question has arisen concerning the representation of employees of the Company. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION UPON COMMERCE We find that the question concerning representation which has arisen, occurring in connection with the operations of the Company, described in Section I above, has a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tends to lead to labor disputes burdening and, obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT This proceeding involves the employees at the Great Lakes divi- sion of the Company engaged in the operation of a plant railroad. Of these employees, the B. R. T. seeks a unit composed of conductors and switchmen ,3 while the B. L. F. & E. wants the engineers, fire- men, and hostlers. The I. S. W. A. insists that it represents majori- ties within each of these units but is unconcerned about the appro- priateness of the units. By letter dated April 14, 1938, the S. W. O. C., through Charles Kiser, its district manager, advised the Board that it "does not claim to represent the trainmen, enginemen, switchmen or yardmen" of the Company. At the commencement of the hearing, Mr. Kiser announced, "We don't know just exactly what our position is going to be until the status of these employees has been established. There is a question in our mind as to whether they are production men or railroad men." When the Brotherhoods had completed their case, Kiser said, speaking of the employees claimed by the Brotherhoods, "I think after hearing the evidence so far in the case that they come under our jurisdiction as set forth in our rules and methods of procedure for lodges, adopted at the Conven- 8 So designated on the pay roll accepted as representative. GREAT LAKES STEEL CORPORATION 201 tion as heretofore stated." The S. W. O. C. does not claim any membership among the railroad employees at the present time. At one time, Kiser alleged, it had some of these men but advised them to join the Brotherhoods. On the unit question, the Company is the prime opponent of the Brotherhoods. The I. S. W. A. is admittedly indifferent. By prac- tice and admission, the S. W. O. C. concurred in the units sought by the Brotherhoods before the hearing. Only after the Brotherhoods had presented their case, designed to prove that the employees in- volved were engaged in railroading and not production, did Kiser "think" that the men were engaged in production and therefore within the jurisdiction of the S. W. O. C. Before discussing the arguments advanced by the Company, it is significant to note' that none of the unions involved has or has ever had a contract with the Company. The Brotherhoods and I. S. W. A. began their organizational efforts in 1937. The Brotherhoods were unable to secure recognition from the Company because it did not believe the units claimed were appropriate. The I. S. W. A. asserted that it had a membership of 3,800 in the plants at one time, but admitted that it only had a "couple of hundred" active members at the present time. The S. W. O. C. introduced no evidence of mem- bership either within the units claimed by the Brotherhoods or throughout the Company. The Company maintained that the Brotherhood units were inap- propriate because the men were engaged in production and not railroading. To this end it introduced evidence tending to prove that the work accomplished by these employees was intimately related to production. A brief description of certain of the jobs will demon- strate this fact. One job consists of loading carriage buggies or boxes with scrap at the stock house and transporting the loaded cars to the open hearth furnaces into which the scrap is dumped. Another job involves taking assembled moulds to the pouring platforms where they are filled with molten steel and then hauled to the strippers which removes the solidified ingots. Other jobs have a similar inti- macy with production. But these railroad employees also perform jobs more closely related to railroading. Nine times during every 24 hours, the railroad leaves the Great Lakes division on what is. known as the "hot metal run." The purpose of this run is to bring molten pig iron from the blast furnaces at the Hanna division of the Company 4 to the open hearth furnaces at the Great Lakes division. These two divisions are ap- proximately 21/2 miles apart. The railroad travels over the tracks of the Detroit, Toledo & Ironton and Delray Connecting Railroads 4 See infra for discussion of the Hanna division. 202 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the entire distance. In order to make this run, the railroad employees must know the signal and flagging rules of the railroads and pass an examination prescribed by the Detroit, Toledo & Ironton. Besides the "hot metal run," these employees haul freight to and from the interchange tracks where it has been delivered or is picked up by a common-carrier railroad. In this manner, they complete the run of the common carrier. They also make deliveries of freight to the Murray Body and Nicholson Terminal and Dock, companies which adjoin the property of the Company. A great majority of the em- ployees have had previous railroad experience. In fact, the Com- pany frequently permits railroad employees to return to work on regular railroads for short periods of time in order to preserve their seniority status. A specialized skill is required for these railroad jobs. Little interchange of employment between the railroad em- ployees and other employees of the Company takes place, except pos- sibly during slack times, when the Company prorates available jobs among all its departments. From the facts of this case, we are unable to conclude that the rail- road employees are so intimately associated with production that they, cannot be separated from the industrial unit.5 Other arguments, which we will now consider, were advanced by, the Company in support of its position. It contended that the Brotherhoods did not have any members among the railroad em- ployees and, in fact, were not authorized by their constitutions to ac- cept them as members. The Company admits that this does not pre- vent the Brotherhoods from representing the railroad employees,6 but argues that the rules of the Brotherhoods governing eligibility for membership bear on the appropriateness of the units. In. their be- half, the Brotherhoods alleged that they could admit employees of the Company to membership and, in fact, had members among them. The constitution of the B. L. F. & E., it was pointed out, specifically entitles that union to take in members in industrial plants.7 In the constitution of the B. R. T., it is provided that "Railroad Trainmen" are eligible for membership. By resolution, the president was em- powered to construe that term as he deemed proper." The organizer for the B. R. T. testified that he had been instructed by the president to admit employees at the Great Lakes division to membership, al- though the letter giving him this power was not introduced in evi- 6 See Matter of Sloss Sheffield Steel & Iron Company and Brotherhood of Railway Tram. teen, et al., 14 N. L. R. B. 186, decided this day : Cf. Matter of Wheeling Steel Corpora- tion, Steubenville, Ohio and Order of Railway Conductors of America, 8 N. L. R . B. 102. a Cf. Matter of American Furniture Company and Textile Workers Organizing Committee, 4 N. L. It. B. 710. 7 See Section II, supra. 8 See Section II, supra. GREAT LAKES STEEL CORPORATION 203 dente. Both Brotherhoods claimed membership among the employees of the Company. We believe that they can and do accept employees of the Company as members. Consequently, it is not necessary for us to consider the possible effect of a contrary position on the appropri- ateness of the units. The Company also argues that the seniority system which the Brotherhoods will seek as one of their main objectives is unsuitable for the operation of a steel plant. We see no merit in the argument which would determine the appropriateness of a unit by the work- ability of the terms which may be sought by the union. The proposed seniority system is a matter for negotiation in collective bargaining. The petition in this case relates solely to the railroad employees at the Great Lakes division of the Company. Situated about 21/2 miles from this division, the Company has another division, known as Hanna, which also has a plant railroad. The work performed by the railroad employees at both divisions is practically the same, except for such differences as arise from the fact that pig iron and coke are manufactured at Hanna and steel products at Great Lakes. The Company argues that both divisions should be combined into one unit. There is some merit in this argument, but at the time of the hearing none of the unions involved had any membership at the Hanna division. If we were to combine both divisions into one unit, it would delay collective bargaining. We have said, "Wherever pos- sible, it is obviously desirable that, in the determination of the appro- priate unit, we render collective bargaining of the Company's em- ployees an immediate possibility." 9 These two divisions are suffi- ciently distinct for us to separate them in accordance with this prin- ciple. They are situated at a considerable distance from each other and little interchange of employment occurs between them. Under the circumstances, we will not combine the two divisions into one unit. Neither the I. S. W. A. nor the S. W. 0. C. is now seeking certi- fication for the industrial unit. The I. S. W. A. expressed its disin- terest in the appropriateness of the units claimed by the Brother- hoods. The S. W. 0. C. introduced no proof of membership either within the units sought by the Brotherhoods or throughout the plant. As indicated below, we are not including the S. W. 0. C on the ballots in the elections which we will direct. In light of these circumstances and the facts set forth above, we conclude that the units sought by the Brotherhoods are appropriate.lo. - See Matter of Gulf Oil Corporation and International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Shipbuilders, Welders & Helpers of America, 4 N. L. R. B. 133. 10 Cf. Matter of Sloss Sheffield Steel d Iron Company and Brotherhood of Railroad Train- men, et al., 14 N. L . R. B. 186 , decided this day. . 204 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD We find that the conductors and switchmen at the Great Lakes division of the Company, and the engineers, firemen, and hostlers at the Great Lakes division of the Company, constitute units appropri- ate for the purposes of collective bargaining, and that such units will insure to employees of the Company the full benefit of their right to self-organization and collective bargaining and otherwise effectuate the policies of the Act. VI. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES All parties stipulated that the pay roll of March 10, 1939, intro- duced into evidence, should be used to determine those employees eligible to vote in an election. This pay roll contained the names of 40 employees within the unit claimed by the B. L. F. & E. and 60 within the unit claimed by the B. R. T. The Brotherhoods and I. S. W. A. submitted designations signed by employees within the units. Neither the B. R. T. nor the I. S. W. A. established a majority within the unit of conductors and switchmen. The B. L. F. & E. did introduce into evidence unduplicated designations which would give it a majority of three within the unit of engineers, firemen, and hostlers. However, three B. L. F. & E. designations were signed 2 days after the same employees had designated the I. S. W. A., five employees designated the B. L. F. & E. soon after signing a letter repudiating it, and four designations bore dates in May 1938 al- though there had been organizational drives by both unions since that time. In view of these facts, we deem it best to direct elections. The S. W. 0. C. made no claim of membership within the units found appropriate. We will not include it on the ballot. The bal- lot shall contain the names of the I. S. W. A. and the B. R. T. within the unit of conductors and switchmen, and the I. S. W. A. and the B. L. F. & E. within the unit of engineers, firemen, and hostlers. As noted above, the parties agreed that the pay roll of March 10, 1939, should be used to determine eligibility to vote. We accept this agreed pay roll with one qualification. Since considerable time has elapsed since the date of the hearing, we think that any employees in the units who have been hired between March 10, 1939, and the date of our Direction of Election should also be permitted to vote. Those who have quit or been discharged since March 10 will, of course, be excluded: Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record of the case, the Board makes the following : CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. A question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the repre- sentation of employees at the Great Lakes division of the Great GREAT LAKES STEEL CORPORATION 205 Lakes Steel Corporation, Ecorse, Michigan, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act. 2. All conductors and switchmen at the Great Lakes division of the Great Lakes Steel Corporation constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act. 3. All engineers, firemen, and hostlers at the Great Lakes division of Great Lakes Steel Corporation constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act. DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National Labor Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Re- lations Act, and pursuant to Article III, Section 8, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2, it is hereby DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation authorized by the Board to ascertain representatives for the purposes of collective bargain- ing with the Great Lakes Steel Corporation at the Great Lakes divi- sion, Ecorse, Michigan, an election by secret ballot shall be con- ducted within fifteen (15) days from the date of this Direction, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Seventh Region, acting in this matter as agent for the National Labor Rela- tions Board, and subject to Article III, Section. 9, of said Rules and Regulations, among (1) the conductors and switchmen and (2) the engineers, firemen, and hostlers, employed by the Great Lakes Steel Corporation at its Great Lakes division, Ecorse, Michigan, during the period preceding the pay roll for March 10, 1939, including those hired since the date of hearing, but excluding those who have since quit or been discharged for cause, to determine whether the conductors and switchmen desire to be represented for the purposes of collective bar- gaining by the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, by the Independ- ent Steel Workers Association, or by neither, and whether the engi- neers, firemen, and hostlers desire to be represented for the purposes of collective bargaining by the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen & Enginemen, by the Independent Steel Workers Association, or by neither. MR. EDwIN S. SMITH, concurring : I concur in the decision that the craft units sought by the Brother- hoods are appropriate under the circumstances of this case. Here there is no labor organization in a position to assert bargaining rights for a broader unit of employees which would include the railroad 206 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD workers. To deny the Brotherhoods' claim would be to nullify any immediate collective bargaining in the plant 11 In this respect, which is in my opinion controlling under the circumstances,- this case differs from the otherwise similar Sloss Sheffield case 12 in which I dissented. "See my similar concurring opinion in Matter of Waterbury Manufacturing Company and International Association of Machinists, Local 1535,5 N. L. R. B . 288, 294. 'a See Matter of $loss Sheffield Steel & Iron Company and Brotherhood of Railroad Train- men, et at., 14 N. L. R. B. 186, decided this day. -