Aluminum Co. of AmericaDownload PDFNational Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsAug 26, 194985 N.L.R.B. 915 (N.L.R.B. 1949) Copy Citation In the Matter of ALUMINUM COMPANY OF AMERICA AND THE ALIIMI- NUM COOKING UTENSIL COMPANY, ITS WHOLLY-OWNED SUBSIDIARY, EMPLOYER and AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR, PETITIONER Case No. 6-RC-359.-Decided August 26, 1919 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before Erwin Lerten, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Murdock]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. 2. The Petitioner, American Federation of Labor, United Steel- workers of America, CIO, hereinafter called the Steelworkers, and the Pattern Makers League of North America, hereinafter called the Pattern Makers, are labor organizations claiming to represent cer- tain employees of the Employer. The Petitioner objected to the hear- ing officer's ruling permitting the Steelworkers to intervene. Peti- tioner based its objection on the ground that because the Steelworkers' contract with the Employer contained a union-security clause in viola- tion of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, that contract was unlawful and therefore no legal basis existed on which the Steelworkers, which had failed to comply with Section 9 (h) of the Act,' could intervene. The legality of the contract between the Employer and the Steelworkers is one of the issues to be resolved at the hearing. In accordance with our established policy permitting noncomplying unions which enjoy con- tractual relations with the Employer to intervene for all purposes, the hearing officer's ruling permitting the Steelworkers to intervene is affirmed 2 I The Steelworkers has since complied with Section 9 (h). 2 Hatter of Campbell Soup Company, 76 N. L. R. B. 950. 85 N. L. R. B., No. 158. 857829-50-vol. 85-59 915 916 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 3. The question concerning representation : The Steelworkers contends that its agreement with the Employer executed May 8, 1947, and extended on June 25, 1948, to May 31, 190., colastitiltes a: ,bar to this. proceeding. We do • not agree. The agreemelt., of May. 8, 1947, , provides that all employees -who were members of the Steelworkers 15 days after thesigning of the agree- ment or who became members thereafter, should, as a condition of employment,' maintain thei'r membership -in the. Steelworkers. No provision was made for ratification of this clause in accordance with Section 9 (e) of the Act and no authorization election has been held. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in C. Hager do Sons Hinge Manufactwring Company,3.the contract does not constitute a bar.4 We find that a question affecting commerce exists concerning the represen- tation of employees of the Employer, within the meaning of Section 9 '(c) '(1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The appropriate unit : The Employer and the Petitioner agree that the appropriate unit should-consist of all production and maintenance employees of the Aluminum Company of America and the Aluminum Cooking Utensil Company, its wholly-owned subsidiary, at their New Kensington, Pennsylvania, Works, excluding office clerical employees, wood and -metal pattern makers and apprentices, watchmen and guards, pro- fessional employees, and supervisors. The Steelworkers contends that the appropriate unit consists not only of all the production and main- tenance employees at the Employer's New Kensington Works in- cluding the pattern makers, but also of the production and mainte- nance employees of the Employer's plants in Alcoa, Tennessee; Badin, North Carolina; Bauxite, Arkansas; Detroit, Michigan; Drury, Ark- ansas; Edgewater, New Jersey; Fairfield-Bridgeport, Connecticut; Mobile, Alabama; and Richmond, Indiana. The unit sought by the Steelworkers consists of those 10 of the Employer's 23 plants which are presently covered by a master agree- ment between the Employer and the Steelworkers. The plants cov- ered by this agreement are widely separated geographically and pro- duce Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation