Aluminum Ore Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 13, 1946

69 N.L.R.B. 1450 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

In the Matter of ALUMINUM ORE C03IPANY, EMPLOYER and FEDERAL
LABOR UNION #23860, A. F. or L., PETITIONER
Case No. 141-R-126,3,-Decided August 13, 1946
Mr. Harold F. Hecker, of St. Louis, Mo., and Mr. Robert K. Heine-
man, of Pittsburgh, Pa., for the Employer.
Messrs. John R. Barr, and Horner Jones, of St. Louis, Mo., for the
Union.
Mr. Herbert J. Nester, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon an amended petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held
at St. Louis, Missouri, on May 13 and 14, 1946, before Keith W. Bli*_nn,
Trial Examiner. The Trial Examiner's rulings made at the hearing
are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. At the hear-
ing the Employer moved to dismiss the petition, which motion was re-
ferred to the Board by the Trial Examiner. For reasons hereinafter
stated, the motion is denied.
Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations
Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Aluminum Ore Company, a Delaware corporation maintaining
plants and offices in Illinois, Arkansas, and Alabama is engaged in
the manufacture of alumina and allied chemical products. The Em-
ployer's East St. Louis, Illinois, plant is alone involved in this proceed-
ing. During the calendar year 1945 this plant purchased raw materials
consisting of bauxite, soda ash, limestone, and coal valued at in excess
of $1,000,000, of which approximately 50 percent was shipped to the
East St. Louis plant from points outside the State of Illinois. Dur-
ing the same period, the Employer manufactured and sold finished
products valued at in excess of $1,000,000, of which approximately 90
69 N. L. R. B., No. 186.
1450
ALUMINUM ORE COMPANY 1451
percent was shipped from the East St. Louis plant to points outside
the State of Illinois.
The Employer admits, and we find, that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with the American
Federation of Labor, claiming to represent employees of the Em-
ployer.
III. TIIE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Employer has refused to recognize the Petitioner as the ex-
elusive bargaining representative of certain supervisory employees
of the Employer until the Petitioner has been certified by the Board
in an apropriate unit.
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Employer, within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. TIIE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Petitioner urges as appropriate a unit composed of all general
supervisors, assistant general supervisors, department foremen, assist-
ant department foremen, and foremen in the Service and Production
Sections of the Employer's East St. Louis plant, but excluding all
other supervisory employees.' The Employer contends that the unit
sought is inappropriate for the reasons that these supervisors are not
"employees" within the meaning of the Act, and further that the
proposed unit is inclusive of three distinct levels of supervisors, all of
whom constitute an inseparable part of management and consequently
are incapable of forming the basis of an appropriate bargaining unit.
In support of its contention that the supervisors herein concerned
are not employees within the meaning of the Act, the Employer
has set forth no compelling argument which has not been previously
fully considered by the Board in recent similar cases,2 wherein the
Board held that comparable supervisory employees are "employees"
as defined in Section 2 (3) of the Act. We therefore find, in accord
1 The composition of the supervisory unit sought herein Is based on the three lower super-
visory levels in the Service and Production Sections only. The presently existing unit of
production and maintenance employees is likewise limited to those in the Service and
Production Sections.
2 See Matter of Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation , 66 N. L. R. B. 386 ; Matter of L. A.
Young Spring & Wire Corporation, 65 N. L. R. B. 298; Matter of The Midland Steel Products
Company, Parish d Bingham Division, 65 N. L. R. B . 997; Matter of Carnegie Illinois
Steel Corporation, 67 N. L. It. B. 1238.
1452 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
with the determination made in those cases, that the supervisory em-
ployees concerned herein are "employees" within the meaning of the
Act.
The Employer's managerial hierarchy in its order of rank consists
of the works manager, who coordinates the operational activities
between the Staff, the Service Section, and the Production Section;
two general superintendents in charge of the Service Section and
Production Section, respectively; superintendents in charge of each
of the various divisions comprising the Service and Production
Sections; division general foremen and assistant general foremen who
are subordinate to the superintendent in each division; general super-
visors and assistant general supervisors who are in charge of one or
more departments within the division ; department foremen and
assistant department foremen, who are in charge of one department
within the division; foremen, assistant foremen, and lead men 3 imme-
diately above the rank and file employees. With respect to the
supervisory levels included in the proposed unit, the record discloses
that the general supervisors and the department foremen are of
comparable rank, the only distinction being that the general super-
visor may be in charge of more than one department in the division,
while the jurisdiction of the department foremen is limited exclu-
sively to one individual department. The assistant general super-
visor and the assistant department foremen are comparable in rank,
with the same distinguishing features prevailing between them as
prevails between the general supervisor and the department foremen.
The foremen are first level supervisors above the rank and file
employees.
Upon consideration of the evidence as a whole, it is apparent that
the three supervisory levels herein concerned have a definite commu-
nity of interest derived from the comparable departmental scope of
their authority. We are of the opinion that the supervisory duties
and functions of the employees involved herein are sufficiently' di stin-
guishable from those of the higher divisional and sectional super-
visory levels to warrant a finding that they constitute a separate
homogeneous group appropriate for collective bargaining.'
We find that all general supervisors, assistant general supervisors,
department foremen, assistant department foremen, and foremen in
the Service Section and Production Section of the Employer's East
St. Louis plant, but excluding all other supervisory employees, consti-
3 The parties are in accord that the lead men are not supervisory employees within the
scope of the Board's definition thereof . The lead men exercise no supervisory authority
and are presently included in the unit of rank and file employees.
4 See Matter of The Midland Steel Products Company, cited supra; Matter of Westing-
house Electric Corporation ( East Springfield Works), 66 N. L. it. B. 1297 ; Matter of
American Brakeblok Division of American Brake Shoe Company, 67 N. L. R. B. 169;
Matter of Hudson Motor Car Company , 67 N. L. It. B. 368 ; Matter of Carnegie Illinois
Steel Corporation, cited supra.
ALUMINUM ORE COMPANY 1453
tute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within
the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
purposes of collective bargaining with Aluminum Ore Company,
East St. Louis, Illinois , an election by secret ballot shall be conducted
as early as possible, but not later than thirty (30) days from the date
of this Direction, under the direction and supervision of the Regional
Director for the Fourteenth Region , acting in this matter as agent
for the National Labor Relations Board, Rules and Regulations-
Series 3, as amended, among the employees in the unit found appro-
priate 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 those employees 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 or not they
desire to be represented by Federal Labor Union #23860, A. F. of L.,
for the purposes of collective bargaining.
MR. GERARD D. REILLY, dissenting:
For reasons stated in my dissenting opinions in Matter of Packard
Motor Car Company, 61 N. L. R. B. 4, and Matter of Jones ch Lau ih,lin
Steel Corporation, VestaSIiannopin Coal Division., 66 N. L. R. B.
336, 1 am constrained to dissent from the majority opinion in this case.