Decatur Iron & Steel Co.

In the Matter of DECATUR IRON & STEEL Co. and STEEL WORKERS ORGANIZING COMMITTEE ON BEHALF OF AMALGAMATED ASSOCIATION OF IRON, STEEL AND TIN WORKERS OF NORTH AMERICA Case No. C-1286.-Decided November 30, 1939. Iron and Steel Industry-Compromise Agreement: between respondent and Regional Director, Union not a party thereto; charges of 8 (1) and 8 (3) to be withdrawn in return for respondent's agreement to reinstate employee involved upon application and to post notices of compliance ; refusal of Union and complaining employee to consent to agreement resulted in it not being carried out; respondent remains willing to comply with terms thereof; no evidence of unfair labor practices subsequent to date of; given effect in order to effectuate policies of the Act-Complaint : dismissed. Mr: A-le&ander E..Wilson and Mr. Warren Woods, for=the Board. Mr. John H. Peach, Mr. John. A. Caddell, and Mr. Charles H. Eyster, all of Decatur, Ala., for the respondent. Mr. Noel R. Beddow, of Birmingham, Ala., for the Union. Mr. Leonard Lindquist, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon charges duly filed by Steel Workers Organizing Committee, herein called the Union, on behalf of Amalgamated Association of Iron,-. 'Steel' and Tin -Workers of -North America, .the, National, Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by Charles N. Feidelson, Regional Director for the Tenth Region_ (Atlanta, Georgia), issued a complaint dated January 4, 1939, against Decatur Iron & Steel Co., herein called the respondent, alleging that the respondent had en- gaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting com- merce, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. The complaint alleged in substance that the respondent discharged and refused to reinstate Walter Millican because he had joined and assisted the-Union, and that by such discharge, and by other acts, 17 N. L. R. B., No. 107. 1073 1074 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the respondent, interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. Copies of the complaint, accompanied by notice of hearing, were duly served upon the respondent and the Union. On January 9, 1939, the respondent filed an answer denying that it had engaged in or was engaging in the alleged unfair labor practices. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Decatur, Alabama, on January 23, 24, 25, and 26, 1939, before Charles E. Persons, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board. Upon order of the Trial Examiner, the hearing was reopened and further hearing held on March 31, 1939. The Board and the respondent were represented by counsel, and the Union by its executive director; all participated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross- examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded all parties. At the commencement of the hearing, the respondent moved to strike paragraphs 4 and 7 of the complaint on the -groundthat the allegations contained -therein were not based upon any charges filed by the Union, and that the allegations were so general that they did not give respondent any notice or information upon which to base its defense. These motions were denied by the Trial Examiner. At the close of the Board's- case, counsel for the Board moved that the pleadings be conformed to the proof. This motion was granted by the Trial Examiner. Over the objections of counsel for the Board, the Trial Examiner received in evidence certain exhibits and testimony offered by the respondent as proof that a settlement of the unfair labor practice charges had been concluded between it and the Regional Director before the com- plaint' was issued. During the course of the hearing, the Trial Examiner ruled on various motions and on objections to the admis- sion of evidence in addition to those mentioned above. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. On April 10, 1939, the respondent filed a brief which the Board has considered. On May 12, 1939, the Trial Examiner filed an Intermediate Report, copies of which were duly served upon all parties, finding that the respondent had engaged in, and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, and recommending .that the respondent cease and desist from such unfair labor practices and reinstate Millican with back pay. The respondent thereafter filed exceptions to the Intermediate Re- port, and a brief in support thereof. DECATUR IRON & STEEL COMPANY 1075 Pursuant to notice duly, served on the parties, -a . hearing > for. the purpose of oral argument was held before the Board October 12, 1939, at Washington, D. C. The respondent appeared by counsel and participated in the hearing. No representative appeared for the Union. In view of our disposition of the respondent's exceptions relating to the alleged settlement of the unfair labor practice charges, we find it unnecessary to consider the respondent's remaining exceptions. Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT Decatur Iron & Steel Co., an Alabama corporation , with its plant and office located at Decatur, Alabama , is engaged in the production of structural steel , ornamental metal , and prison equipment. It is licensed to do business in Mississippi, Tennessee , and Louisiana. The principal raw materials used by the respondent are steel bars, shapes, plates, and sheets, approximately 30 per cent of which are obtained from sources outside the State of Alabama. The value of the products sold annually is $552,000 , and approximately 90 per cent of. these products are shipped to destinations outside the State of Alabama. At the time of the hearing , the respondent employed approximately 142 workers. II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED Steel Workers Organizing Committee is a labor organization affili- ated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, admitting to membership all employees engaged in the manufacturing processes of the respondent other than supervisory employees . Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel and Tin Workers of North America, represented by Steel Workers Organizing Committee , is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations. III. THE AGREEMENT COMPROMISING THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES On July 25, 1938, the Regional Director, by written communication, advised the respondent that he was in receipt of a charge filed by the Union, alleging that on or about July 15, 1938, the respondent had discharged Walter Millican because of his membership in the Union. The respondent, in a letter to the Regional Director dated August 2, 1938, denied that it had engaged in the alleged unfair labor practice, but concluded the letter by stating : 1076 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD * * * If you do not agree with us in this conclusion we would, in order, to avoid the expense of a hearing, be willing to take him back and give him work when it is available * * * At the suggestion of the Regional Director, representatives of the respondent met with him on October 5, 1938, at which time he repre- sented that if the respondent would reemploy Millican and post notices of compliance on forms which he agreed to furnish, the un- fair labor practice charges would be dismissed. The Regional Di- rector did not include back pay in the terms of this proposal for a settlement, nor did he suggest that any compromise agreement con- cluded between him and the respondent would be subject to the fur- ther approval of the Union. At the end of the conference, he sug- gested that the respondent's officials talk it over and inform him of their decision. On the next day, the respondent telegraphed : "We have concluded to accept your suggestion." On October 7, 1938, the respondent sent the Regional Director the following letter : We * * * agree as follows : 1. That we will put Walter W. Millican to work, without loss of seniority, on the job formerly filled by him with our Company upon application made by him, the employment to be under the same terms and conditions as others are employed. 2. We will post on the bulletin board in our shop an expression of our intention to comply with provisions of the National Labor Relations Act. It is our understanding that the charge against the Company will be dismissed and not re-opened. There is no evidence that the Regional Director objected to the respondent's understanding of the terms of the agreement as ex- pressed in the above letter. Subsequently, the Regional Director referred the agreement to the Union and on its refusal to approve the' settlement unless back pay was also awarded, he began negotia- tions anew with the respondent in an attempt to reach a compromise on the back-pay question. The respondent, however, claimed that a final settlement had been concluded as a result of the October 5, 1938, conference, and relying on its understanding of the terms thereof, it refused to compromise further on the issue of back pay. Negotia- tions thereafter terminated, and the Regional Director failed to fur- nish the respondent with the notices for posting. Millican applied for reinstatement a few days before the complaint was issued and at that time refused to fill out an application as required by the re- spondent's rules, although he was assured that such application would not affect his seniority status. As a result, the respondent did DECATUR IRON & STEEL COMPANY 1077 not reinstate Millican, and he has not applied for reemployment since that date. It is apparent from the foregoing, and we find, that as a result of the representations made by the Regional Director at the confer- ence of October 5, 1938, the respondent entered into a compromise agreement with him for the settlement of the unfair labor practice charges. The respondent defined what it understood to be the terms of that agreement in its letter to the Regional Director of October 7, 1938, which was referred to above. There is no evidence that the Regional Director objected to the respondent's understanding of the agreement as expressed in that letter, and we accept the terms specified therein as a correct statement of the understanding reached between the two parties. Although the Regional Director may have intended that the agree- ment be subject to the further approval of the Union, there is no evidence that the respondent had notice of such intention at the time it accepted the offer for a settlement. The Regional Director's fail- ure to supply the respondent with the notices of compliance which he had agreed to furnish resulted in the notices not being posted in keeping with the understanding reached between the parties. Ac- cording to the agreement, Millican was to be reinstated "upon application made by him." Millican applied for reinstatement, but as noted above, he refused to fill out an application blank as required by the respondent's rules; hence he was not put back to work. In view of the fact that Millican was assured of reinstatement without loss of seniority upon his filling out the application; we find that the respondent did not substantially vary the terms of the agreement by conditioning its reemployment of Millican in this manner. There is no evidence that the respondent engaged in any unfair labor prac- tices subsequent to the date of the agreement. At the oral argument before the Board, counsel for the respondent requested that the agreement be carried out, and represented that the respondent remained willing to fulfill its obligations thereunder. As we have heretofore stated, a settlement of an unfair labor practice charge even though participated in by the Board' s agents does not preclude the Board from proceeding to a determination of such charge. Nevertheless, effective administration of the Act requires that the Board's agents have the respect and confidence of parties with whom they negotiate. Repudiation by the Board of agree- ments entered into in good faith and in reliance upon the representa- tions of its agents would necessarily impair such respect and confi- dence. In the case before us, we believe that the policies of the Act will best be effectuated by giving effect to the agreement made be- 1078 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tween the respondent and the. Regional Director.' The complaint, therefore, will be dismissed. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of . fact and upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the,following : CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The operations of Decatur Iron & Steel Co. constitute a con- tinuous flow of trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) of the Act. 2. Steel Workers Organizing Committee and Amalgamated Asso- ciation of Iron, Steel and Tin Workers of North America are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. ORDER Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the complaint be, and it hereby is, dismissed. 1 Cf. Matter of Shenandoah-Dives Mining Company and International Union of Mine, Mill d Smelter Workers, Local No. 26, 11 N. L. R. B. 885; Matter of Godchaux Sugars, Inc. and Sugar Mill Workers' Union, Locals No. 21177 and No. 2188 Affiliated with the American Fed- eration of Labor, 12 N. L. R. B . 568; Matter of Hope Webbing Company and Textile Work- ers Organizing Committee of the C. I. 0., Local 14, 14 N. L. R. B. 55.