Aluminum Co. of America

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 31, 1945

61 N.L.R.B. 245 (N.L.R.B. 1945)

In the Matter of ALUMINUM COMPANY OF AMERICA AND CAROLINA
ALUMINUM COMPANY and UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA,
DISTRICT 50
Case No. 10-R 1290: Decided March 31, 194f5
Messrs. R. R. Kramer and Porter Greenwood, of Knoxville, Tenn.,
for the Company.
Messrs. Fred L. Ruscoe and J. Carl Bunch, of Knoxville, Tenn., for
District 50. %
Mr. Philip N. Curran,°of Pittsburgh, Pa., Mr. W. H. Crawford, of
Atlanta, Ga., and Mr. M. C. Weston, of Maryville, Tenn., for the
Steelworkers.
Messrs. R. 0. Ross and C. C. Maples, of Knoxville, Tenn., for the
AFL.
Miss Frances Lopinsky, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon an amended petition duly filed by United Mine Workers of
America, District 50, herein called District 50, alleging that a ques-
tion affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation of
employees of Aluminum Company of America and .Carolina Alu-
minum Company, Alcoa, Tennessee, herein collectively called the
Company, the National Labor Relations Board provided for an appro-
priate hearing upon due notice before Paul S. Kuelthau, Trial Exam-
iner. Said hearing was held at Knoxville, Tennessee, on November
287 1944. The Company, District 50, United Steelworkers of America,
CIO, herein called the Steelworkers, and American Federation of
Labor, herein called the AFL, 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 the Steelworkers moved for the dismissal of
the petition on the grounds (1) that District 50 has not presented a
sufficient showing on cards to warrant the proceeding, and (2) that
61 N. L . R. B., No. 30.
245
246 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the pendency before the National War Labor Board of certain issues
involving employees of the Company at its Alcoa plant, is a bar to
a present determination of representatives in this proceeding. For
reasons hereinafter given the motion is denied. On December 14,
1944, the Steelworkers moved the Board to reopen the record herein
to permit the introduction of further evidence on the issue of the ap-
propriate unit. For reasons hereinafter given, the motion'was denied
by Board Order, dated March 10, 1944. 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
V
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Aluminum Company of America, a Pennsylvania corporation, to-
gether with a number of subsidiaries, is engaged in the mining and
refining of bauxite and in the smelting, manufacturing, and fabricating
of aluminum. The Carolina Aluminum Company, a North Carolina
corporation, is one of the subsidiaries of Aluminum Company of Amer-
ica. The Carolina Aluminum Company, Western Division, owns and
operates power plants at Tapoco and Santeetlah, North Carolina, which
supply power to the Alcoa Works in connection with the manufacture
of aluminum. The present proceeding concerns the Company's em-
ployees at Alcoa, and Cal'derwood, Tennessee, and the power plants of
the Carolina Aluminum Company, Western Division, at the two loca-
tions indicated.
The Alcoa plants 1 are engaged principally in the manufacture of
carbon electrodes, smelting of aluminum, fabrication of sheet and plate
aluminum, fabrication of aluminum ingots, and the manufacture of
aluminum powder. The principal raw material used at Alcoa is
alumina, which is shipped to Alcoa from points outside the State of
Tennessee. The Company uses many other products, a majority of
which comes from points outside the State of Tennessee. More than
90 percent of the products of the Alcoa plants is shipped to points out-
side the State of Tennessee.
The Company admits and we find that its operations affect commerce
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
H. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
United Mine Workers of America, District 50, is an unaffiliated labor
organization admitting to membership employees of the Company.
Including Calderwood.
ALUMINUM COMPANY OF AMERICA 247
United Steelworkers of America , affiliated with the Congress of In-
dustrial Organizations , is a labor organization admitting to member-
ship employees of the Company.
American Federation of Labor is a labor organization admitting to
membership employees of the Company.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Company refused to recognize District 50 as exclusive bargain-
ing representative for employees at its Alcoa plants on the ground that
Aluminum Workers of America, CIO, herein called the AWA, has been
certified by the Board as bargaining representative for the said
employees.
On November 1, 1942, the Company and the AWA executed a con-
tract , herein called the Master Agreement , covering employees of the
Company at Alcoa and seven other of the Company's plant, wherein
the AWA was recognized as exclusive bargaining representative. This
Agreement was made effective for a term of 18 months and thereafter
until modified after at least 30 days ' notice. During the term of the
Master Agreement the AWA made demands upon the Company for a
general wage increase . On January 27, 1944, the setting of a retro-
active date from which any wage increase granted should be effective,
was referred to the National War Labor Board. On March 28, 1944,
a second case was certified to the National War Labor Board involving
wage demands covering all of the plants of the Company wherein
employees were then represented by the AWA. On March 14, 1944,
the AWA requested a conference for the purpose of negotiating a new
master agreement to succeed the one which would terminate May 1,
1944. The Company entered into such negotiations and the parties
agreed that the Master Agreement of 1942 should remain in effect until
a new master agreement should be executed . On May 19, 1944, the
parties certified to the National War Labor Board, 17 non-wage con-
tract issues . On October 16, 1944, when District 50 filed its petition
in the instant case, the 3 proceedings , above-mentioned , were pending
before the National War Labor Board and neither the proposed master
agreement nor a new local agreement for employees at Alcoa had been
signed . In June 1944, the AWA merged with the Steelworkers and the
Company recognized the Steelworkers as exclusive bargaining repre-
sentative of its employees at all plants where the AWA had been
certified . For purposes of convenience in the discussion which follows,
the AWA and its successor , the Steelworkers , are indiscriminately
referred to as the CIO.
The CIO contends that because it submitted disputes to the National
War Labor Board, which have been pending before that Board for
an unusual length of time , under the doctrine enunciated by the Board
248 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
in Matter of Allis-Chalmers, and related cases, 2 no present deter-
mination of representatives should be made. We find no merit in
this contention inasmuch as the CIO enjoyed collective bargaining
rights as exclusive representative of the employees at Alcoa for
several years prior to the War Labor Board proceedings upon which
the contention is based. 3
A statement made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing indicates
that District 50 and the AFL represent a substantial number of em-
ployees in the unit hereinafter found appropriate. 4
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 parties stipulated that all production and maintenance em-
ployees of the Company at its Alcoa Works, including employees of
the Carolina Aluminum Company, Western Division, at the San-
teetlah powerhouse and the Cheoah powerhouse, including mainte-
nance employees at the Santeetlah and Cheoah operations, but exclud-
ing office employees, watchmen, guards, office janitors, farm and dairy
employees, bricklayers, employees of the brick and tile plant, and all
supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, dis-
cipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or effec-
tively' recommend such action, constitute an appropriate unit. Dis-
trict 50, the AFL, and the Company would confine such a unit to the
named employees at Alcoa. The CIO contends, however, that all
employees of the Company at all plants wherein the CIO is recognized
as collective bargaining representative comprise a single unit, includ
ing employees at Alcoa. This contention was not raised at the hear-
ing but was incorporated in a motion filed by the CIO subsequent to
the hearing, requesting the Board to reopen the records in the instant
2Matter of Allis -Chalmers Manufacturing Company, 50 N. L. R. B. 306; Matter of
Taylor Forge and Pipe Works , 58 N. L R B. 1375
MMatter of MacClatchie Manufacturing Company, 53 W. L. R. B. 1268 ; Matter of Fort
Dodge Creamery Company, 53 N. L. R. B. 928 . District 50 contended that the employees
at Alcoa have never ratified the merger of the AWA with the Steelworkers and that it is
doubtful that they desire representation by the Steelworkers . Inasmuch as we find herein
that a present determination of representatives is for other reasons desirable at this time,
we shall not examine the merit of the AFL's contention.
* The Trial Examiner reported that District 50 submitted authorization cards and peti-
tions purporting to be signed by 1,506 employees of the Company , constituting approxi-
mately 16 1 percent of the employees within the appropriate unit, and that the AFL sub-
mitted cards apparently signed by 118 employees of the Company constituting 2 percent of
the employees in the appropriate unit. A check of these cards was made against the
Company ' s pay roll for October 20, 1944 . Inasmuch as the CIO has a maintenance-of-
membership contract we reject its contention that the showing thus made is insufficient
to warrant this proceeding . The VIO relied upon its contract to show its interest in the
proceeding.
ALUMINUM COMPANY Off' AMERICA 249
case and in Case No. 8-R-1663, concerning employees at the Newark,
Ohio, plant of the Company, to accept evidence which, the CIO said,
would prove the existence of a multi-plant unit. In Case No.
19-R-1381, decided this day, the contention was raised at the hearing
that employees at the Company's Troutdale, Oregon, plant, who had
previously designated the CIO as their exclusive bargaining repre-
sentative, constituted a part of the same multi-plant unit which the
CIO contends encompasses employees at Alcoa. Evidence to support
the contention was adduced at the hearing in Case No. 19-R--1381, but
established no bargaining on a multi-plant basis, stabilized by agree-
ment. Accordingly, the Board in that case rejected the contention
that a multi-plant unit had been created and found appropriate a
single plant unit of the Company's employees at Troutdale. Since
the evidence which the CIO would present at a rehearing of the instant
matter is presumably the same as that offered at the hearing in the
Troutdale case, above-mentioned, we have heretofore denied the re-
quest for a rehearing. 5
We find that all production and maintenance employees at the
Alcoa, Tennessee, Works of the Company, including employees of the
Carolina Aluminum Company, Western Division, at the Santeetlah
powerhouse and the Cheoah powerhouse, including maintenance em-
ployees at the Santeetlah and Cheoah operations, but excluding office
employees, watchmen, guards, office janitors, farm and dairy em-
ployees, bricklayers and employees at the brick and tile plant, and all
supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, 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.
V. THE 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
Direction.
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-
S Order dated March 10, 1944.
250 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tions Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3, 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 and Carolina Aluminum Company, Alcoa, Tennessee,
an election by secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but
not later than sixty (60) days from the date of this Direction, under
the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Tenth
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
Regulations, among the employees in the unit found 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 and have not been rehired or reinstated prior to the date of
the election, to determine whether they desire to be represented by
United Mine Workers of America, District 50, by American Federation
of Labor (AFL), or by United Steelworkers of America (CIO), for
the purposes of collective bargaining, or by no union.
[See infra, 61 N. L. R. B.' 770 for Supplemental and Amended
Decision.]