Aluminum Co. of America

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 10, 1936

1 N.L.R.B. 530 (N.L.R.B. 1936)

In the Matter of ALUMINUM COMPANY OF AMERICA and ALUMINUM
WORKERS UNION No. 19104
Case No. R-4.-Decided April 10, 1936
Aluminum Smelting and Products Industry-Labor Organization: Board will
not interfere in internal affairs of-American Federation of Labor-Unit Appro-
priate for Collective Bargaining : Board will not determine where only question
involved is one of internal affairs of labor organization-Petition for Investi-
gation and Certification of Representatives : denied.
Mr. Thomas I. Emerson for the Board.
Mr. F. B. Ingersoll, of Pittsburgh, Pa., for the Company.
Mr. Fred A. Wetmore for the Union.
Mr. David Williams for National Council of Aluminum Workers
and American Federation of Labor.
Mr. Stanley S. Surrey, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF CASE
In December, 1935, Aluminum Workers Union No. 19104, herein-
after referred to as the Union, petitioned the National Labor Rela-
tions Board for an investigation and certification of representatives
pursuant to Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act,
approved July 5, 1935. The petition stated that the Union repre-
sented 1,681, employees out of a bargaining unit of approximately
2,600 employees, said unit. constituting the employees engaged at
the plants of the Aluminum Company of America located at Alcoa,
Tennessee; that the National Council of Aluminum Workers Unions
claimed to represent the employees in said unit; that the Aluminum
Company of America and the National Council of Aluminum
Workers Unions were entering into an agreement respecting the
above plants against the wishes of the Union; and that such con-
duct gave rise to a question affecting commerce concerning the rep-
resentation of the employees in said unit. The Union requested that
the National Labor Relations Board investigate the controversy and
certify to the parties the name or names of the representatives that
have been designated or selected by said employees. On December
30, 1935, the National Labor Relations Board, acting pursuant to
Section 9 (c) of the Act and Article III, Section 11 of National
530
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 531
Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 1, issued a
notice of a hearing to be held before it. Pursuant to said notice, a
hearing was held on January 16, 1936 at Washington, D. C. by the
Board, all members being present, and testimony was taken. Full
opportunity to be heard, to examine and to cross-examine witnesses
and to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues was afforded to
the parties. The Aluminum Company of America, the Union, and
the National Council of Aluminum Workers were represented at
the hearing, the Aluminum Company of America stating that its
appearance at the hearing was not to be construed as a waiver of
any of its claimed constitutional rights.
Upon the record in the case, the stenographic transcript of the
hearing, and all the evidence, including oral testimony, documents
and other evidence offered and received at the hearing, the Board
makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The Aluminum Company of America, hereinafter referred to as
the Company, is a Pennsylvania corporation with its principal office
in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. It is both an operating and holding
company, and together with its subsidiaries, owns and operates a
number of plants and offices for the production, sale and distribution
of aluminum and aluminum products. Its smelting plants are located
at Alcoa, Tennessee; Badin, North Carolina; Massena, New York
and Niagara Falls, New York; its plants for the production of alumi-
num sheet and plate are located at Alcoa, Tennessee ; New Kensing-
ton, Pennsylvania; Arnold, Pennsylvania; Niagara Falls, New York
and Edgewater, New Jersey; its other fabricating plants, in which
various aluminum products are mainly produced, are located at
Edgewater, New Jersey; Massena, New York; New Kensington,
Pennsylvania; Logan's Ferry, Pennsylvania ; Arnold, Pennsylvania;
Fairfield, Connecticut; Cleveland, Ohio; Detroit, Michigan; Oak-
land, California and Harwood, New Jersey; its foundries for the
production of castings are located at Cleveland, Ohio; Fairfield, Con-
necticut; Detroit, Michigan and Oakland, California. In addition,
the Company operates a plant at East St. Louis, Illinois for the con-
centration of aluminum oxide and for other preliminary operations
in the production of aluminum, and mines in Arkansas, Alabama and
Georgia. The general purchasing of raw materials and other prod-
ucts for these plants is under the direction of a central purchasing
agency at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Some local purchasing is per-
formed by district purchasing organizations at each plant under the
supervision of the central agency. The products are sold through
sales offices located in industrial centers throughout the United
532 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
States, the orders being sent to Pittsburgh for acceptance. The
orders received are allocated among the plants by the Pittsburgh
office.
2. As stated above, two plants of the Company are located at Alcoa,
Tennessee. At one of these plants carbon electrodes are manufac-
tured and metallic aluminum produced; at the other, sheet and plate
aluminum are rolled and some commercial ingot produced. The
major portion of the raw materials used in the first plant are trans-
ported to Alcoa from states other than the state of Tennessee. The
ore or aluminum oxide is shipped from the Company's plant at East
St. Louis, being produced there from bauxite imported mainly from
Dutch Guiana and British Guiana. Practically all of the aluminum
used in the second plant is produced at the first plant, the two plants
being about two miles apart. The output of the first plant that is
not utilized in that fashion is shipped outside of Tennessee for further
fabrication. The second plant is the largest of the Company's five
sheet and plate mills. The preponderant portion of its products is
shipped to customers of the Company located outside of Tennessee.
Such customers include railroad companies, airplane lines, automobile
concerns, cooking utensil manufacturers and others, all of whose
orders are in very large quantities. Millions of pounds of aluminum
sheet and plate are shipped monthly to such customers.
3. The above operations described in paragraphs 1 and 2, including
the operations at the Alcoa plants, constitute a continuous flow of
commerce among the several states. Questions concerning the repre-
sentation of employees at the Alcoa plants lead and tend to lead to
labor disputes burdening and obstructing the free flow of that
commerce.
4. Aluminum Workers Union No. 19104, the petitioner, is a labor
organization which claims to represent a majority of the employees
at the Alcoa plants. It is a Federal Labor Union, having a charter
from the American Federation of Labor. Fred A. Wetmore has
been president of this Union since its organization in 1932.
5. In May, 1934, the Aluminum Workers Council was formed for
the purpose of working toward an international union of aluminum
workers. Composing this Council, which had been preceded by a
similar though much looser organization, were representatives of
aluminum workers unions in the Company's plants at Alcoa, New
Kensington, Massena and Logan's Ferry and in the plants of certain
independent aluminum companies. In addition, there were repre-
sentatives of two craft unions which had members employed at the
New Kensington plant. A. R. Beuhler, employed by one of the inde-
pendent companies, was president of the Council ; Wetmore was sec-
retary-treasurer. While the original intention had been the achieve-
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 533
ment of bargaining relations with the Aluminum Manufacturers
Association, the unions in the plants of the independent companies
decided not to join in such an attempt, although they still remained
in the Council. Consequently, the Aluminum Company of America
unions attempted to obtain an agreement from that Company alone.
On July 24, 1934, the officers of the Council presented an agreement
to the Company on behalf of the aluminum workers unions at the
East St. Louis, New Kensington, Massena, Logan's Ferry and Alcoa
plants. Upon the Company's refusal to enter into an agreement, a
strike ensued, commencing on August 10, 1934. It was settled on
September 6, 1934 by an "agreement" negotiated by the representa-
tives of the unions but signed only by the Company and purporting
to be between the Company and all of its employees. The agreement
was to be effective for six months and thereafter until modified upon
due notice.
6. In February, 1935, the Council was reorganized pursuant to the
direction of President Green of the American Federation of Labor.
Its name was changed to the National Council of Aluminum Workers
(hereinafter referred to as the Council) and David Williams, a gen-
eral organizer of the American Federation of Labor, was appointed
president of the Council by President Green. Unions in plants of
aluminum companies other than the Aluminum Company of America
were represented on the Executive Board of the Council.
Shortly thereafter the aluminum workers unions in plants of the
Aluminum Company of America attempted to negotiate an agree-
ment with the Company. However, the Company insisted that the
agreement would have to be submitted to non-American Federation
of Labor organizations that it claimed existed in its plants. The
unions refused and negotiations ceased. The Council then arranged
to have the members of the unions involved sign cards authorizing
the Council to represent the signatories in collective bargaining with
the Company. The officers of the Alcoa Union, believing that it
should not surrender its rights to the Council and supported in that
view by the members, substituted cards authorizing the Union, af-
filiated with the Council, as the representative for Alcoa and these
cards were signed by a large proportion of the employees at Alcoa.
7. In July, 1935, the Alcoa Union requested Williams to call a
conference of Aluminum Company of America aluminum workers
unions for the purpose of preparing a new agreement. Williams
refused, charging lack of cooperation on the part of the Alcoa Union.
That Union thereupon withdrew from the Council on August 3, 1935.
Through the efforts of President Green, a partial reconciliation was
effected and the officers of the Alcoa Union met with Williams to pre-
pare an agreement, although the Alcoa Union did not formally reen-
534 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ter the Council. The agreement was presented to the Company on
August 23 by Williams, as president of the Council, on behalf of the
unions of the' Alcoa, East St. Louis, Massena, Badin, Logan's Ferry
and New Kensington plants, negotiating through the Council. Nego-
tiations commenced on this agreement between the Company and the
representatives of the unions including Wetmore and Greene who
represented the Alcoa Union. On September 25 Wetmore and Greene,
became dissatisfied with the conduct and tenor of these negotiations
and withdrew. They informed both Williams and the Company of
their withdrawal and of their intent not to be parties to or to be
bound by any agreement that might result. The Company then in-
formed the remaining representatives that it could not continue nego-
tiations unless it was assured that the resulting agreement would be
binding upon all the aluminum workers unions in its plants, includ-
ing the Alcoa Union. The remaining union representatives, headed
by Williams, conferred with President Green of The American Fed-
eration of Labor. The latter stated that there should be only one
agreement applicable to the plants of the Company and that there-
fore the negotiations should continue. He attempted unsuccessfully
to persuade the Alcoa representatives to participate in the negotia-
tions. Upon being informed of President Green's statements, the
Company resumed negotiations with the remaining representatives.
On October 14, 1935, an "agreement" was adopted, again signed only
by the Company and purporting to be between the Company and all
of its employees. This "agreement" was to be in effect for at least
a year and thereafter until modified. During its life the Company
was not to enter into any conflicting agreement. On November 18,
1935, President Green wrote Williams that the agreement should be
given the official approval of the American Federation of Labor and
"should apply to the officers and members of aluminum workers local
unions who are employed by the Aluminum Company of America".
Of six such unions, all but Alcoa had approved and accepted the
agreement.
8. In the meantime, on October 8, 1935, Wetmore, on behalf of the
Alcoa Union, had submitted a proposed agreement to the Company
management at Alcoa to run concurrently with the September 6,
1934 agreement. The Company took no action on Wetmore's pro-
posal as it considered it inconsistent with the negotiations then cur-
rent between the Company and the other unions and later, with the
October 14 agreement that resulted therefrom.
9. At the hearing before the Board, Wetmore, representing the
Alcoa Union, contended that the Alcoa plants constituted an appro-
priate bargaining unit and that while the officers representing the
Alcoa Union could voluntarily join with representatives of the other
unions to present joint proposals to the Company they nevertheless
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 535
remained free to pursue an independent course unless they negotiated,
or entered. into, a joint agreement with the Company. Furthermore,
in view of the withdrawal of the Alcoa representatives from the
negotiations preceding the October 14 agreement, he maintained that
the Alcoa Union was not bound by that agreement and was free to
enter into a separate agreement applicable only to the Alcoa plants.
Williams, representing the Council and the American Federation of
Labor, contended that, at least during the life of the October 14
agreement, all of the plants of the Company at which 'aluminum
workers unions existed taken together were the appropriate bargain-
ing unit and that the Council represented such unit. Moreover, he
asserted that, in view of President Green's rulings and the member-
ship of the Alcoa Union in the American Federation of Labor, the
October 14 agreement was binding upon the Alcoa Union. The Com-
pany asserted that in theory it was willing to deal with the six unions
jointly through the Council or with each separately or with any group
of its employees, its willingness thus to negotiate being apparently
based upon its disinclination to deal exclusively with any group or
to recognize the majority rule. However, it thought that in view of
the October 14 agreement and President Green's ruling, which it
deemed authoritative, the Company was bound for the time being to
negotiate with the Council as representative of all of the unions.
10. As regards the membership of the Alcoa Union, Wetmore did
not produce competent records proving that at the time of the hear-
ing that Union represented a majority of the employees at the Alcoa
plants, although the incomplete records produced indicated that it
represented a large number of such employees. Wetmore claimed
that it did actually represent a majority. The Company, as indi-
cated above, said that the question of whether the Union represented
a majority was not material, inasmuch as it would bargain with any
group of its employees to an extent not inconsistent with the existing
agreement. However, it was apparently unwilling to enter into any
agreement to which a union was a formal party and signed as such.
CONCLUSION
Taking the petition in this case at its face value, the Board is only
asked to investigate and certify, pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the Act,
the "name or names of the representatives that have been selected"
by the employees at the Alcoa plants. Ordinarily, such a request
would involve (1) a decision as to whether the employees at those
plants constitute an appropriate bargaining unit within the meaning
of Section 9 (b) ; (2) if they do constitute such unit, the holding of
an election to determine whom the employees desire as their repre-.
97571-36-vol. 1-35
536 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
sentatives for collective bargaining; and (3) the certification of the
name or names of the representatives chosen at such an election.
Normally, such cases arise from situations in which the only organ-
ization claiming to represent the employees contends that it repre-
sents a majority of the employees in an appropriate unit but the
employer refuses to bargain with it on the ground that such repre-
sentation is not established, or in which each of two or more com-
peting organizations claims a majority. The machinery of Section
9 (b) and 9 (c) is thus designed to complement and make workable
the principle of the majority rule declared in Section 9 (a). Its
purpose is simply to resolve, by means of an election or other suitable
method, any doubts concerning which, if any, organization can claim
the exclusive right to bargain collectively for certain employees.
As stated above, on its face the instant petition appears to present
the normal situation described above : one organization, Aluminum
Workers Union No. 19104, claims to represent a majority of the em-
ployees at the Alcoa plants of the Company. It asserts that another
body, the Council, contests this claim. It in effect requests an election
to resolve the issue thus created. However, the foregoing brief sum-
mary of the facts in the case indicates that the issues here are of an
essentially different character. A short statement of the real issues
in the case makes it clear that under the guise of a petition for certifi-
cation the parties are presenting entirely different questions to this
Board for its decision.
Assuming for the purposes of the argument that the Alcoa plants
constitute an appropriate bargaining unit, as the Union contends,
an election would be necessary to establish the strength of the Union.
If the Union received a majority vote in such an election, the Board
would then certify it as the representative of the employees at Alcoa.
But such certification would in no way conclude this controversy
since the underlying question here is not whether the Union shall
represent the employees, but rather, who shall represent the Union
in its dealings with the Company. The solution of that question
is far from simple. Wetmore, the president of the Union, contended
before the Board that he speaks for the Union in all matters, includ-
ing its dealings with the Company. He claims that his contention
is supported by the actual wishes of the members of the Union.
With equal vigor, Williams asserted that the applicable rules of the
American Federation of Labor demand that the Alcoa Union bar-
gain only in concert with the other unions through the Council which
he heads and that consequently that body and not Wetmore speaks
for the Alcoa Union in its dealings with the Company. It may be
observed, so as further to point the problem, that the rules of the
American Federation of Labor as applied to this case are by no
DECISIONS AND ORDERS 537
means free from doubt. The Alcoa Union is a Federal Labor
Union directly chartered by the American Federation of Labor. The
Constitution of the Federation in Article XIV provides as follows :
"SEC. 2. The Executive Council (of the Federation) is au-
thorized and empowered to charter Local Trade Unions and
Federal Labor Unions, to determine their respective jurisdictions
not in conflict with National and International Unions, to de-
termine the minimum number of members required, qualifica-
tions for membership and to make rules and regulations relating
to their conduct, activities and affairs from time to time and as
in its judgment is warranted or deemed advisable."
While this section was referred to by Williams, he did not offer
evidence of any action by the Executive Council itself directed to the
instant case or any delegation of authority to President Green, but
introduced only the ruling of the latter. While it might be said that
a strict and technical view would therefore make that ruling of Pres-
ident Green inapplicable, it must be remembered that Wetmore and
the organization he represents are still, and voluntarily, parts of a
larger organization and that Green is its president. It is possible
that the unwritten law of tradition and custom makes his rulings
binding within the Federation until altered. However, as herein-
after appears, in our view of the case it becomes unnecessary to re-
solve these opposing contentions.
The course and conduct of the future bargaining of the Alcoa
Union is thus bound up with the question of who shall speak for that
Union. The real question is therefore who represents and speaks
for the Alcoa Union and not whether that Union represents a ma-
jority of the employees at Alcoa. The Board feels that the ques-
tion is not for it to decide. Such a question, involving solely and in
a peculiar fashion the internal affairs of the American Federation
of Labor and its chartered bodies, can best be decided by the parties
themselves. The availability ' of the Board as a convenient forum
for the airing of such problems would induce the parties to present
them to the Board without first having made any real attempt to
compose their differences among themselves. The consequent ac-
cumulation of cases on its docket would considerably hamper the
work of the Board. Nor do we feel that the petitioner itself after
a full consideration of the implications of its request would desire the
Board to pass judgment upon such matters.
It is preferable that the Board should not interfere with the inter-
nal affairs of labor organizations. Self-organization of employees
implies a policy of self-management. The role that organizations
of employees eventually must play in the structure established by Con-
538 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
gress through that Act is a large and vital one. They will best be
able to perform that role if they are permitted freely to work out the
solutions to their own internal problems. In its permanent opera-
tion the Act envisages cohesive organizations, well-constructed and
intelligently guided. Such organizations will not develop if they
are led to look elsewhere for the solutions to such problems. In fine,
the policy of the National Labor Relations Act is to encourage the
procedure of collective bargaining and to protect employees in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed to them from the denial and inter-
ference of employers. That policy can best be advanced by the
Board's devoting its attention to controversies that concern such
fundamental matters. The petition for certification is accordingly
dismissed.