American Rolling Mills Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 7, 1948

76 N.L.R.B. 1209 (N.L.R.B. 1948)

In the Matter of AMERICAN ROLLING MILLS COMPANY, EMPLOYER and
BRICK LAYERS, MASONS AND PLASTERERS INTERNATIONAL UNION,
LOCAL 157, AFL, PETITIONER
Case No. 9-R-2456.-Decided April 7,1948
Mr. Corneles J. Petzhold, of Cincinnati, Ohio, for the Employer.
Mr. William J. Corrigan, of Cleveland, Ohio, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Henderson Estes, of Middletown, Ohio, for the Independent.
Mr. Frank Donner, of Washington, D. C., for the Steelworkers.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Cleveland,
Ohio, on December 16, 17, and 18, 1946, before William O. Murdock,
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are
free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
All parties were afforded opportunity to present oral argument be-
fore the Board in Washington, and to file briefs in support of their
respective positions.
Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations
Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
American Rolling Mills Company, an Ohio corporation, is engaged
in the business of producing iron and steel and manufacturing iron and
steel products. The Employer operates plants in several States in-
cluding its plant consisting of a steel mill and fabrication plant at
Middletown, Ohio, which alone is involved in this proceeding.
The Employer annually uses at its Middletown plant raw materials
valued in excess of $5,000,000, of which approximately 75 percent is
shipped to this plant from points outside the State of Ohio. The
Employer annually ships from this plant manufactured products
76 N. L. R. B., No. 170.
1209
1210 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
valued in excess of $10,000,000, of which approximately 75 percent
is shipped to points outside the State of Ohio.
The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The Petitioner is a labor organization, affiliated with the American
Federation of Labor, claiming to represent employees of the Employer.
United Steelworkers of America, affiliated with the Congress of
Industrial Organizations, herein called the Steelworkers, is a labor
organization, claiming to represent employees of the Employer.
Armco Employees Independent Federation, Inc., herein called the
Independent, is an unaffiliated labor organization, claiming to repre-
sent employees of the Employer.
III. THE ALLEGED APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Petitioner seeks a craft unit of bricklayers and apprentices
employed at the Employer's Middletown, Ohio, steel plant, and en-
gaged throughout the plant in brick construction and repair work on
various equipment, including that used in the production of basic steel.'
The Steelworkers, the Independent, and the Employer oppose as
inappropriate the unit sought by the Petitioner, upon the ground that
such a unit is inconsistent with the Employer's history of collective
bargaining and also with the pattern of collective bargaining in the
steel industry as a whole.2
The record discloses that on June 6, 1944, the Independent was
certified as exclusive bargaining representative for all maintenance
and production employees employed at the Employer's Middletown
plant, following an election conducted pursuant to a Decision and
Direction of Election issued by the Board on March 2, 1944.3 It
further appears that the Independent thereafter bargained for all
maintenance and production employees, including bricklayers. Until
recently, bricklayers have actively participated in collective bargain-
ing and have been represented without apparent dissatisfaction on
I In support of its request for a craft unit , the Petitioner relies upon Section 9 (b) (2)
of the Act, as amended , and contends that the Board is now required by virtue of this
section to grant a separate bargaining unit to craft employees whenever they request sep-
arate representation
a The Steelworkers, in particular , contend that Section 9 (b) (2) relied upon by the
Petitioner is not applicable to the present proceeding , in view of an existing bargaining
agreement between the Employer and the Intervenor antedating the effective date of the
amendments to the Act and allegedly preserved from the effect of such amendments by the
saving provisions of Section 103.
8 55 N. L. It. B. 231.
AMERICAN ROLLING MILLS COMPANY 1211
their part under a 2-year plant-wide contract between the Employer
and the Independent, expiring December 7, 1946. Later, pursuant
to a Board proceeding,4 the Independent was certified on June 5, 1947,
as the bargaining representative for a plant-wide production and
maintenance unit, with an express reservation by the Board of the
question as to whether bricklayers and apprentices should thereafter
be included within that unit.' Notwithstanding the foregoing reser-
vation the Independent and the Employer on August 21, 1947, executed
an over-all collective bargaining agreement which covers the brick-
layers and apprentices.
The Steelworkers contends that the Board is precluded from apply-
ing Section 9 (b) (2) to the present proceeding by reason of the saving
provisions of Section 103 of the amendments to the Act. The Board,
in Matter of National Tube Company," has examined and disposed of
this same contention. In that case, the Board held that for a contract
to be preserved Linder the saving provisions of Section 103, it must have
been executed consistently with Board decisions governing the effect of
such contracts upon the exercise of rights conferred by the Act. Here
the contract of August 21, 1947, between the Employer and the Inde-
pendent was executed with full knowledge of the pendency of the pres-
ent petition. It could not, therefore, constitute a valid contract as to
bricklayers, within the meaning of Section 103, for the reasons indi-
cated in the Board's decision in Matter of National Tube Company.
Moreover, in the present case, the contract relied upon is invalid for the
additional reason that, while it was purportedly executed pursuant to a
recent Board certification by covering bricklayers and apprentices, the
parties exceeded the authority conferred by the certification itself; the
Board expressly reserved for future determination the propriety of
including bricklayers and apprentices within the production and main-
tenance unit. We find, therefore, that Section 103 of the amendments
to the Act has no application to the present proceeding.
There remains for consideration the substantive issue as to the appro-
priateness of the unit sought by the Petitioner, including the possible
effect of Section 9 (b) (2) of the amended Act upon the discretion of
the Board with respect to granting or denying a request for a severance
of craft employees from a preexisting industrial unit. The issue raised
concerning Section 9 (b) (2) has been exhaustively considered in our
473 N L R B 617
In connection with the reservation of the question involving bricklayers and appren-
tices, the Board directed that the bricklayers and apprentices should vote in the election
for the pioduction and maintenance unit , but that their ballots should be segregated and
impounded Pending the Board 's determination in the present proceeding as to whether they
are entitled to a separate election
Case No. 8-R-2476, issued this day, 76 N L. R B. 1199.
1212 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
decision in the National Tube Company case, supra. In accordance
with that decision, and for the reasons stated therein, we find that
Section 9 (b) (2) does not make mandatory the conduct of an election
looking toward the establishment of a craft unit of employees upon the
mere request of their representative for such an election. It leaves the
question of the appropriateness of the craft unit within the discretion
of the Board to be determined upon all the facts in a given case, depriv-
ing the Board only of the power it exercised under the original statute
to base the denial of such a request upon a prior Board determination.
The facts here do not appear distinguishable in any substantial degree
from those in the National Tube Company case. We are of the opinion,
therefore, and find in accordance with our decision in that case, that the
unit of bricklayers and apprentices sought by the Petitioner in this
proceeding is inappropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining.
We shall, accordingly, order that the petition be dismissed.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire
record in the case, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders
that, the petition for investigation and certification of representatives
of employees of American Rolling Mills Company, Middletown, Ohio,
filed by Brick Layers, Masons and Plasterers International Union,
Local 157, AFL, be, and it hereby is, dismissed.