102 N.L.R.B. 1489 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

American Smelting and Refining Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsFeb 18, 1953

102 N.L.R.B. 1489 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

AMERICAN SMELTING AND REFINING COMPANY Appendix C 1489 Name of enterprise ACM Value of interstate goods handled or interstate services performed Thomas T. Bryant, d/b/a Walter P. Dolle and Company---- $11,398-50 $985,000 (Tr. 14-15). Taft, Stettinus & Hollister---------------------------------- 21,121.00 25, 000 (Tr. 21). Strachan Shipping Company_______________________________ 994.50 150,000 (Tr. 109-110). American Insurance Company------------------------------ 2,817.50 300,000 (Tr. 122). Commonwealth Life Insurance Co-------------------------- 2,658.50 1,226,000 (Tr. 129). Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland---------------- Semet-Solvay Division, Allied Chemical & Dye Corpora- 3,575.00 5,527.50 100,000 100,000 ((Tr. 132). (G. C. Ex 4). tion. The Home Insurance Company----------------------------- 3,850.00 80,000 (Tr. 144-145, 210). Lumbermen's Mutual Casualty Cc------------------------- 2,259.35 88,000 (Tr. 150). Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York------------- 2,040.50 9,350,000 (Tr. 157-158). Reliance Life Insurance Company-------------------------- 5,398.50 2,700,000 (Tr. 161-162). Fox-Reusch & Company, Inc------------------------------- 3,948.00 1, 400,000 (Tr. 172-173). Ellis & Company------------------------------------------- 3,685.00 4,000,000 (Tr. 179-180). 5,000,000 Magnus & Company---------------------------------------- 4,386.00 500,000 (Tr. 181-182). Einhorn & Company--------------------------------------- 935.00 500,000 (Tr. 184). Merrel Lynch, Pierce, Fenner and Beane------------------- 10,400 00 400,000 (Tr. 190). Pohl & Company---------- --------------------------------- 2,887.50 1,500,000 (Tr. 194-195). Walter, Woody & Helmerdmger----------------------------- 4,985.00 2,000,000 (Tr. 197-198). William C. Atwater & Co., Inc----------------------------- 2,192.50 3,000,000 (Tr. 200-201). Carbon Fuel Sales Company------------------------------- 2,062 50 54, 400 (Tr. 206). Island Creek Coal Sales Company-------------------------- 6,671.00 1,250,000 (Tr. 215). Eli Lilly and Company------------------------------------- Charles R. Hadley & Company----------------------------- 1,778.00 1,863.75 500, 000 50,000 (Tr. 219-220). (Tr. 223). Mathieson Chemical Corporation--------------------------- 1,980.00 125,000 (Tr. 227). Logan-Long Company-------------------------------------- 3,740.00 750,000 (Tr. 231). Quaker Oats Company------------------------------------- 3,822.00 3,000,000 (Tr.242). Ronson & Orr Company 1,197.00 500, 000 (Tr. 253).Talon, Inc------------- ------------------------------------ 935 00 80,000 (Tr. 259). Owens-Coming Fiberglass Corporation--------------------- 2,887.50 1,200,000 (Tr. 267). Model Laundry Company---------------------------------- 6,500.00 560,000 (Tr. 276). Wyandotte Chemical Corporation--------------------------- 4,214.00 3,750,000 279-280, 281-(Tr.2) 28 Samuel Hannaford & Sons---------------------------------- 8,277.00 331,800 (Tr. 286). Russell It. Gannon Company------------------------------ 3,461.50 30,000 (Tr. 291-292). Corbly & Kitt Brokerage Company------------------------ 893.75 36,000 (Tr. 318). General Cable Corporation--------------------------------- 2,744.00 300,000 (Tr. 353-354). Dixie King Coal Company--------------------------------- 2,142.25 400,000 (Tr. 469-470). Total------------------------------------------------- 50,440. 60 ------------ ------------------- Adding the rentals received from each of these groups of tenants together we obtain the total of $194,099 40 annual rental received by Respondent from these tenants who are themselves engaged in interstate commerce within the meaning of categories 1, 2, and 4 of the Board's jurisdictional standards. Since this sum far exceeds the required $50,000, jurisdiction over Respondent is established. AMERICAN SMELTING AND REFINING COMPANY, NORTHPORT UNIT and INTERNATIONAL HOD CARRIERS, BUILDING AND COMMON LABORERS, LOCAL UNION No. 238, AFL, PETITIONER AMERICAN SMELTING AND REFINING COMPANY, NORTHPORT UNIT and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS , CHAUFFEURS, WARE- HOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL No. 690, AFL, PETI- TIONER. Cases Nos. 19-RC-1218 and 19-RC-1f24. February 18, 1953 Decision and Direction of Elections Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the Na- tional Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before 102 NLRB No. 155. 1490 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD E. R. Ormsbee, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby af- firmed.,, Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Styles and Peterson]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em- ployees of the Employer .2 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. In Case No. 19-RC-1218, International Hod Carriers, Building and Common Laborers, Local Union No. 238, AFL, herein called the Hod Carriers, requests a unit of all production and maintenance em- ployees at the Employer's mill at Northport, Washington, including carpenters, plumbers, electrical workers, mechanics, welders, mill- wrights, mill men, crusher mill workers, janitors, general laborers, and riggers, but excluding truckdrivers, tire repairmen, truck oilers and greasers, office employees, chemists, engineers, and supervisors. The Hod Carriers is willing to represent the truckdrivers if the Board finds they should be included in the production and maintenance unit. In Case No. 19-RC-1224, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Local No. 690, AFL, herein called the Teamsters, requests that the Board find ap- propriate a unit consisting of all truckdrivers, tire servicemen, parts- men, and truck greasers. The Employer contends that the employees requested by the Teamsters should be included in the production and maintenance unit. The Intervenors agree that the units requested by the Hod Carriers and the Teamsters are appropriate for the pur- poses of collective bargaining, but are willing to accept any unit de- termination made by the Board. The plant involved in the instant i The hearing officer referred to the Board the Employer 's motion to dismiss the petitions on the grounds that : (1) The Unions are acting alone on their own initiative and that evidence is lacking that any of its employees are concerned in the petitions ; and (2) that neither of the units petitioned for is appropriate. The first part of the Employer 's motion to dismiss is apparently based on the fact that there was no proof of a showing of interest. A petitioner's showing of interest is an administrative matter . 0. D. Jennings Co., 86 NLRB 516. Moreover , the Board is administratively satisfied that the showing of interest is sufficient . For the reasons stated in section 4, we find the Employer 's contention as to the appropriate unit to be without merit. Accordingly, the Employer 's motion to dismiss is hereby denied. 2 United Steelworkers of America , CIO, herein referred to as the Steelworkers , and Inter- national Union of Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers, Independent , herein referred to as the Smelter Workers, were permitted to intervene in Case No. 19 -RC-1218, on the basis of a proper showing of interest. AMERICAN SMELTING AND REFINING COMPANY 1491 proceeding is relatively new, and there is no history of collective bar- gaining among its employees. The truckdrivers requested by the Teamsters perform the custom- ary duties of their classification. They load concentrate into the trucks and haul it to a railroad siding 11 miles from the plant. They work under the supervision of the mill superintendent. No other employees do the work of the truckdrivers. The Employer considers the truckdrivers as production and maintenance employees because when their work is slack they may be called upon to help in mainte- nance not only of the trucks, but also of the mill. The Board has frequently held that truckdrivers who spend a major portion of their time driving over the public highways, load- ing and unloading and maintaining vehicles, as here, may constitute a separate bargaining unit .-3 They do not lose their status as a homo- geneous, identifiable group by virtue of the fact that they may spend a smaller portion of their time engaged in other duties 4 Therefore, these truckdrivers may, if they so desire, constitute a separate bar- gaining unit. If they prefer, they may form part of the production and maintenance unit. In these circumstances, we shall make no final unit determination pending the outcome of the elections hereinafter directed. The Teamsters requests that tire servicemen, partsmen, and truck greasers be included in a unit with the Employer's truckdrivers. Be- cause there are no employees presently in these classifications, we make no unit determination at this time with respect thereto 5 We shall direct that separate elections be held among the follow- ing two voting groups : (1) All truckdrivers employed at the Employer's mill at North- port, Washington, excluding all other employees and all supervisors. (2) All production and maintenance employees at the Employer's mill at Northport, Washington, including carpenters, plumbers, elec- trical workers, janitors, general laborers , and riggers , but excluding truckdrivers, office clerical employees, chemists, engineers , profes- sional employees, guards, and supervisors .s If a majority of the employees in each of the voting groups (1) and (2) select the same labor organization, the employees in voting group (1) will be deemed to have indicated their desire to form part of the overall unit, and the Regional Director conducting Courtland Manufacturing Company, 95 NLRB 1292 ; Phillips Oil Company, 94 NLRB 14M; D. B. Thornton Co., 94 NLRB 1188. A General Box Co., 93 NLRB 789; The Schaible Co., 88 NLRB 733; Armour and Com- pany, 86 NLRB 539; Q -F Wholesalers , Inc., 85 NLRB 5&2. Cities Service Refining Corporation, 94 NLRB 1634. e As the record shows that leadmen have authority effectively to recommend the hiring and discharge of employees , and to discipline them, we exclude them as supervisors from the production and maintenance unit. 1492 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the election is instructed to issue a certification of representatives to the labor organization selected by the employees of the, two groups, which the Board in such circumstances finds to be a single unit ap- propriate for the purposes of collective bargaining. If a majority of the employees in voting group (1) selects a labor organization which is not selected by the employees in voting group (2), the employees in voting group (1) will be deemed to have indicated their desire to constitute a separate appropriate unit, and the Regional Director conducting the election is instructed to issue a certification of repre- sentatives to the labor organization selected by the employees in that group, which the Board in such circumstances finds to be a separate unit appropriate for collective-bargaining purposes. If the em- ployees in either or both of the voting groups do not select a labor organization, the Regional Director conducting the election is in- structed to issue a certificate of results of election with respect to such group or groups. [Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication in this volume.] MORRIS SEIDMON, GOLDIE SEIDMON, HARRY HENKIN AND LEONARD SEIDMON, D/B/A SOUTHWESTER Co.' and INTERNATIONAL CHEMICAL WORKERS, AFL, PETITIONER . Case No. 13-RC-,3139. February 18,1953 Decision and Direction of Election Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Irving M. Friedman, 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 Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-mem- ber panel [Members Houston, Styles, and Peterson]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds: 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em- ployees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. I The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing. 102 NLRB No. 152.