Aluminum Co. of America

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 13, 1943

52 N.L.R.B. 568 (N.L.R.B. 1943)

In the Matter of ALUMINUM COMPANY OF AMERICA and STANISLAUS
COUNTY CENTRAL LABOR COUNCIL, A. F. OF L.
In the Matter of ALUMINUM COMPANY or AMERICA and INTERNA-
TIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, DISTRICT LODGE #41
Cases Nos. R-5814 and R-5815 respectively.-Decided September 13,
1943
Messrs. W. N. Farquhar, H. TV. Giles, and R. B. Weaver, of River-
bank, Calif., for the Company.
Messrs. Charles J. Janigian, and George A. Mulkey, of San Fran-
cisco, Calif., for the Council.
Mr. Carl J. Guntert, of Stockton, Calif., for the I. A. M.
Gladstein, Grossman, Sawyer cC Edises, by Mr. Bertram Edises, of
Oakland, Calif., for the C. I. O.
Mr. William R. Cameron, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STAIFAIENT OF THE CASE
Upon amended petitions severally filed by Stanislaus County Cen-
tral Labor Council, A. F. of L., herein called the Council, and Inter-
national Association of Machinists, District Lodge No. 41, herein
called'the I. A. M., alleging that questions affecting commerce had
arisen concerning the representation of employees of Aluminum Com-
pany of America, Riverbank, California, herein called the Company,
the National Labor Relations Board provided for an appropriate
hearing upon due notice before Louis S. Penfield, Trial Examiner.
Said hearing was held at Modesto, California, on August 10, 1943.
The Company, the Council, the I. A. M., and Warehousemen's Union,
Local 6, International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union
(C. I. 0.), herein called the C. 1. 0., appeared, participated, and were
afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine
witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues. The Trial
Examiner's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial er-
ror and are hereby affirmed. All parties were afforded opportunity to
file briefs with the Board.
52 N. L. R. B., No. 95.
568
ALUMINUM COMPANY OF AMERICA a69
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Aluminum Company of America, a Pennsylvania corporation, is
engaged in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of aluminum, and
owns and operates plants in various States of the United States. It
also operates several plants for Defense Plants Corporation, includ-
ing the plant at Riverbank, California, with which we are here solely
concerned. At the Riverbank, California, plant the Company pro-
duces pig aluminum from aluminum ore. This plant commenced op-
erations approximately on May 15, 1943, and since that date has been
in partial operation. The plant, at the present time, uses raw ma-
terials, consisting of carbon anodes, aluminum ore, and electric power,
amounting in value to more than $1,000,000 per year, of which ap-
proximately 80 percent is obtained from points outside the State of
California. The gross value of the pig aluminum produced until the
present time has been at the rate of more than $2,000,000 per year. At
the present time approximately 60 percent of the pig aluminum pro-
duced is shipped to points outside the State of California. It is esti-
mated that when the plant is in full operation approximately 85 per-
cent of the pig aluminum produced will be shipped to points outside
the State of California.
H. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Stanislaus County Central Labor Council is a labor organization,
affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, admitting to mem-
bership employees of the Company. International Association of Ma-
chinists is a labor organization 1 admitting to membership employees
of the Company.
Warehousemen's Union, Local 6, International Longshoremen's
and Warehousemen's Union (C. I. 0.), is a labor organization, affili-
ated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, admitting to
membership employees of the Company.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
On or about March 15, 1943, the Council and the I. A. M. each
requested recognition by the Company as representative of the em-
i At the hearing the I . A. M. requested permission to withdraw its separate petition, and
stated , as the reason therefor , that it is affiliated with Stamslaus County Central Labor
Council , and desires that the employees named in its petition as constituting tl,e appropri-
ate unit be included in the unit claimed by the Council . The Council requested , and was
granted, permission to amend its petition to include within the unit sought by it, the
employees previously claimed by the I . A. M. The request of the I. A. M . to withdraw
its separate petition is hereby granted.
570 DECISJONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ployees in the unit which each then claimed to be appropriate. The
Company at that time refused to grant either organization such recog-
nition for the reason that it was not yet in production. At the pres-
ent time it is the Company's position that it will not recognize any
labor organization as the exclusive representative of its employees
in any appropriate unit until such labor organization had been cer-
•tified as the collective bargaining representative by the Board.
Statements of the Field Examiner introduced in evidence, and a
statement of the Trial Examiner read into the record at the hearing,
indicate that the Council, the I. A. M., and the C. I. 0., each represents
a substantial number of employees in the unit hereinafter found to
be appropriate.2
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Company within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Council contends that all production and maintenance em-
ployees, including plant clerical employees, truck drivers, laborers,
electricians , and operating engineers, but excluding general office
and office clerical employees, and supervisors, constitute a unit appro-
priate for collective bargaining. The Council would also include in
the unit machinists, blacksmiths, welders, and machinists helpers, as
well as the machinists' foreman, who are carried on the construction
pay roll. The latter are the employees whom the I. A. M. originally
sought to represent. The C. I. 0. and the Company agree that a gen-
eral production and maintenance unit is appropriate, but both seek
to exclude all construction workers, including the machinists. There
is further disagreement concerning inclusion of certain minor groups
of employees hereinafter discussed.
2 The Field Examiner reported that the Council had submitted 166 authorization cards,
most of them being dated in.May 1943, of which 110 appeared to bear genuine original
signatures of persons whose names are on the Company's pay-roll list dated June 9, 1943,
containing 224 names within the unit originally claimed by the Council to be appropriate.
The Field Examiner reported that the I. A. M. had submitted 16 authorization cards,
10 being dated in March, 4 in April, and 2 in May 1943. All the cards appeared to contain
genuine original signatures , and the names thereon correspond with the 16 names on the
Company's pay roll for its machine shop, the unit which had been petitioned for by the
I. A. M., for the pay period ending June 9, 1943. The employees of the machine shop
have, however, currently been carried on the Company's construction pay roll, and not
on the production pay roll above mentioned
The Field Examiner further reported that the C. I O. had submitted 45 authorization
cards dated in June 1943 , of which 38 appeared to bear the genuine original signatures of
persons whose names are on the above-mentioned production pay roll.
The Trial Examiner reported that the C. I. O. at the hearing submitted seven additional
authorization cards, dated in June , July, , and August 1943, of which four appeared to bear
the genuine original signatures of persons whose names are on the Company's production
pay-roll list for the week ending August 4, 1943
ALUMINUM COMPANY OF AMERICA 571
The Riverbank plant of the Company has been under construction
since July 1942, and is expected to be completed about October 15,
1943. Inasmuch as most of the construction work has already been
done, less than one-fourth of the construction employees remain in the
Company's employ. These employees are carried on a separate con-
struction pay roll, and their employment by the Company will be
terminated on or before completion of construction, unless they are
reemployed by the Company on regular production or maintenance
work. The testimony of the Company's plant manager and of the
construction superintendent indicates that of approximately 176 em-
ployees in various crafts now on the construction pay roll, possibly
54 to 64 will be needed, when the plant is completed, as maintenance
employees on the operating pay roll. Some of these construction
employees, however, and particularly the machinists, now spend a
portion of their time in plant maintenance work, even though still
on the construction pay roll; this is because the plant is as yet only
partially in operation, and the amount of maintenance necessary is
not yet sufficient to require the establishment of a maintenance de-
partment under the operating pay roll. Although there is dispute
in the record as to the amount of time spent by the machinists and
other craft employees at maintenance work, the record, taken as a
whole, indicates that these employees still spend the greater portion
of their time on construction work. In view of the fact that these
craft employees are engaged principally in construction and that in
a comparatively short time the employment of most of them will be
terminated, it does not appear that any of these craft employees now
on the construction pay roll has sufficient interest in the results of col-
lective bargaining in the operating unit that he should be entitled to
vote in an election with the production and maintenance employees.3
We shall therefore exclude from the unit all employees on the con-
struction pay roll.
Contention arose at the hearing concerning inclusion within the unit
of the line foremen in the reduction department. The record dis-
closes that each line foreman has about 35 employees working under
him, and that he himself does no work on the pot line of which he
has charge except such work as may be incidental to the instruction
and training of new employees. The record clearly indicates that the
line foremen have the right by virtue of their position to recommend
discipline, transfer, or dismissal, and that such recommendations are
usually given weight by those higher in authority. We shall there-
fore exclude line foremen.
8In this connection it may be noted that of these craft groups now on the construction
pay roll, the machinists, whom the I. A. M. originally sought to represent, appear to have
no greater prospects of employment upon the completion of the plant than do the other
craft groups now working on construction.
572 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD-
The Council and the C. I. 0. agree that office and office clerical em-
ployees should be excluded, but seek to include within the unit all
warehouse and plant clerical employees. The Company desires to
exclude plant clerical employees, although it does not contest inclusion
of the warehouse clerks. There are about 12 clerks and stenographers
in the warehouse who handle all incoming and outgoing shipments,
store goods on the shelves, check the material against the orders, keep
records, and make up reports. There are also clerical employees in
the pot room office whose duties are checking time and keeping records
dealing with the technical side of the pot room operations. The Com-
pany also contemplates the employment of a clerical employee in the
machine shop office and one in the electrical office whose duties will
include the keeping of time, answering the phone, routing the work
and other related duties. We shall include the warehouse and plant
clerical employees in the unit. We shall exclude, however, such plant
clerical employees as have timekeeping duties, in accordance with
our usual practice. Inasmuch as the record indicates that the store-
keeper, who has charge of the warehouse employees above mentioned,
has authority to discipline and to recommend promotion and dis-
charge, we shall exclude the storekeeper.
A dispute also exists concerning inclusion within the unit of chem-
ical laboratory employees. The Council and the C. I. 0. seek to
include and the Company to exclude them. These employees are en-
gaged, for the most part, in performing routine chemical analyses,
for which employment no other than a high school education is nec-
essary. The Company gives approximately 3 months training to these
employees, but their work is largely routine, some of which can be
done by a new employee, though not rapidly, at the very beginning
of his employment. It appears that their interests are similar to
those of the production employees, and we shall include them in the
unit. The record discloses, however, that the chief chemist has author-
ity to discipline and to recommend promotion and discharge. We
shall exclude the chief chemist from the unit.
We find that all production employees of the Company at its River-
bank, California, plant, including employees in the chemical labora-
tory and storeroom or warehouse, truck drivers, laborers, electricians,
and operating engineers, but excluding office and office clerical em-
ployees, timekeeping employees, all employees on the construction
pay roll, and all supervisory employees with authority to hire, pro-
mote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status
of employees or effectively recommend such action, constitute a unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
ALUMINUM COMPANY OF AMERICA 573
V. TILE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
We shall direct that the question concerning representation which
has arisen be resolved by an election by secret ballot among the em-
ployees in the appropriate unit who were employed during the pay-roll
period immediately preceding the date of the Direction of Election
herein, subject to the limitations and additions set forth in the Direc-
tion.4
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National Labor
Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations
Act, and pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of National Labor Rela-
tions Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2, as amended, it is hereby
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representa-
tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Aluminum Com-
pany of America, Riverbank, California, an election by secret ballot
shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than thirty (30)
(lays from the date of this Direction, under the direction and super-
vision of the Regional Director for the Twentieth Region, acting in
this matter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and
subject to Article III, Sections 10 and 11, of said Rules and Regu-
lations, among the employees in the unit found to be appropriate in
Section IV, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period
immediately preceding the date of this Direction, including employees
who did not work during said pay-roll period because they were ill
or on vacation or temporarily laid off, and including employees in
the armed forces of the United States who present themselves in person
at the polls, but excluding any who have since quit or been discharged
for cause, to determine whether they desire to be represented by
Stanislaus County Central Labor Council, A. F. of L., or by Ware-
housemen's Union, Local 6, ILWU (CIO), for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining, or by neither.
CHAIRMAN MILLIS took' no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Election.
• The parties requested that their names appear on the ballot respectively as follows :
Stanislaus County Central Labor Council , A. F. of L., and Warehousemen 's Union, Local
6, ILWU (CIO). These requests aie hereby granted.