Allegheny Ludlum Steel Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 29, 1945

64 N.L.R.B. 1055 (N.L.R.B. 1945)

In the Matter of ALLEGHENY LUDLUM STEEL CORPORATION and UNITED
STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO
Case No. 2-R-5631.Decided November 09, 1945
Mr. C. Harold Skodol, of Brackenridge, Pa., and Mr. John Q. A.
Doolittle, of Watervliet, N. Y., for the Company.
Mr. David D. Hughes, of Watervliet, N. Y., for the CIO.
Mr. Donald H. Frank, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon all aiiieiicled petition duly filed by United Steelworkers of
America, CIO, herein called the CIO, alleging that a question affecting
commerce had arisen concerning the representation of employees of
Allegheny Ludlum Steel Corporation, Watervliet, New York, herein
called the Company, the National Labor Relations Board provided for
an appropriate hearilfg upon due notice before Henry J. Kent, Trial
Examiner. The hearing was held at Albany, New York, on July 20,
1945. The Company and the CIO appeared and participated., All
parties were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and
cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the
issues. At the hearing and thereafter, the Company moved the dis-
missal of the petition. For the reasons stated in Section IV, infra,
the motion is hereby denied. The Trial Examiner's rulings made at
the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
All parties were afforded an opportunity to file briefs with the Board.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. TILE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Allegheny Ludlum Steel Corporation is a Pennsylvania corpora-
tion with its principal place of business in Pittsburgh , Pennsylvania.
I The American Federation of Labor United Construction Workers was requested to
submit evidence of interest in this proceeding , but failed to do so
64 N. L. R. B., No. 172. 1055
1056 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Company is engaged in the manufacture and distribution of vari-
ous types of steel products at its five plants in the States of New York
and Pennsylvania, one of which is the Watervliet, New York, plant,
the sole operation of the Company involved in this proceeding. At
that plant the Company manufactures and processes alloy bar steels.
Its annual purchases of raw materials for that plant are in excess of
$4,000,000, of which approximately 25 percent is purchased outside the
State of New York. Annually that plant's sales exceed $8,000,000, of
which approximately 90 percent is transacted outside the State of
New York.
The Company admits that it is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, and we so find.
If. THE 0110 \NIZA'I'ION INVOLVED
United Steelworkers of America, affiliated with the Congress of
Industrial Organizations, is a labor organization admitting to mem-
bership employees of the Company.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENT4TION
The Company has refused to grant recognition to the CIO as the
exclusive bargaining representative of the Company's plant-protection
employees until the CIO has been certified by the Board in an appro-
priate unit.
A statement of a Board agent, introduced into evidence at the hear-
ing, indicates that the CIO represents a substantial number of em-
ployces in the unit hereinafter found appropriate.'
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Conlp