American Steel Buck Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 28, 1954

110 N.L.R.B. 2156 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

2156 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
conflict with or violate Section 8 ( a) (3) of the Act .3 Furthermore , the record
affirmatively shows that Clark did not require its truckdrivers or applicants for a
truckdriver 's job to be cleared or be approved by Local 208 as a condition of
employment.
The statement in said union -security clause, "If the Union is unable to furnish
employees satisfactory to an Association member, non -union men may be employed
", coupled with the fact that the union -security clause was otherwise valid,
does not of necessity imply that Clark contracted to hire only members of Local
208 to fill truckdriver jobs.
Upon the record as a whole the Trial Examiner will recommend that the com-
plaint in Cases Nos. 21-CA-664 and 21-CB-229 be dismissed in its entirety.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in
the case , the Trial Examiner makes the following.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. J. A. Clark Draying Company, Ltd., Los Angeles, California, is, and at all
times material herein was, engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section
2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
2. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America, and its affiliated Local Unions Nos. 88, 224, 208, 692, 186,
381, 542, 467, 898, 578, 357, 396 and 495, are labor organizations within the
meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
3. Respondent Association, Respondent Unions, and Clark, have not, as alleged
in the complaint, engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
9 41 Masse, a, Inc, et at , 101 NLRB 837
AMERICAN STEEL BucIK CORPORATION and ARCHITECTURAL AND ENGI-
NEERING GUILD, LOCAL 66, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TECHNICAL EN-
GINEERS, AFL. Case No. 2-CA-3719. December 28, 1954
Decision and Order
On September 30, 1954, Trial Examiner Sidney Lindner issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action as set forth in the copy of the Intermedi-
ate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed excep-
tions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief. The Re-
spondent's request for oral argument is hereby denied as the record,
exceptions, and brief, adequately present the issues and position of
the parties.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermedi-
ate Report, the exceptions, the brief, and the entire record in the case,
and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of
the Trial Examiner.
110 NLRB No 265
AMERICAN STEEL BUCK CORPORATION
Order
2157
Upon the entire record in this case and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, American Steel
Buck Corporation, Brooklyn, New York, its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Refusing to bargain with Architectural and Engineering Guild,
Local 66, American Federation of Technical Engineers, AFL, as the
exclusive representative of all technical department employees at the
Respondent's Brooklyn, New York, plant, including designers, drafts-
men, listens , schedulers, hardware coordinators, and the quantity man,
but excluding the chief draftsman, office clerical employees, produc-
tion employees, mechanics, teamsters, guards, and supervisors as de-
fined in the Act.
(b) Interfering in any manner with the efforts of Architectural
Engineering Guild, Local 66, American Federation of Technical Engi-
neers, AFL, to bargain collectively with the Respondent on behalf of
the employees in the aforesaid bargaining unit.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with Architectural and En-
gineering Guild, Local 66, American Federation of Technical Engi-
neers, AFL, as the exclusive representative of all employees in the
bargaining unit described herein with respect to wages, rates of pay,
hours of employment, or other terms and conditions of employment,
and if an understanding is reached, embody such understanding in a
signed agreement.
(b) Post at its Brooklyn, New York, plant, copies of the notice at-
tached hereto as an "Appendix." 1 Copies of said notice, to be fur-
nished by the Regional Director for the Second Region, shall, after
being duly signed by a representative of the Respondent, be posted
by it for a period of sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter in con-
spicuous places, including all places where notices to the employees
are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Re-
spondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or cov-
ered by any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Second Region, in writing,
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order what steps the Re-
spondent has taken to comply herewith.
1 In the event that this Oidei is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of Appeals,
there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order ," the words
"Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order"
2158 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Appendix
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that :
WE WILL bargain collectively upon request with Architectural'
and Engineering Guild, Local 66, American Federation of Tech-
nical Engineers, AFL, as the exclusive bargaining representative.
of all employees in the bargaining unit described below with re-
spect to wages, rates of pay, hours of employment, or other condi-
tions of employment and, if an understanding is reached, embody
such understanding in a signed agreement. The bargaining
unit is:
All technical department employees at our Brooklyn, New
York, plant, including designers, draftsmen, listers, schedul-
ers, warehouse coordinators, and the quantity man, but ex-
cluding the chief draftsmen, office clerical employees, produc-
tion employees, mechanics, teamsters, guards, and supervisors
as defined in the Act.
WE WILL NOT interfere in any manner with the efforts of Archi-
tectural and Engineering Guild, Local 66, American Federation-
of Technical Engineers, AFL, to bargain collectively with us on-
behalf of the employees in the aforesaid bargaining unit.
AMERICAN STEEL BUCK CORPORATION,
Employer.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof'
and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material
Intermediate Report and Recommended Order
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge duly filed by Architectural and Engineering Guild, Local 66,.
American Federation of Technical Engineers, AFL, herein referred to as the Union,
the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board by the Regional Direc-
tor for the Second Region (New York, New York), issued a complaint dated May-
26, 1954, against American Steel Buck Corporation hereinafter called the Re-
spondent, alleging that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair-
labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and (5)
and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended„
61 Stat. 136, 29 U. S. C. Sub. 1, Sec. 141 et seq., hereinafter referred to as the Act_
With respect to the unfair labor practices the complaint alleged in substance that
the Respondent on or about January 19, 1954, and thereafter refused to bargain
collectively with the Union as the exclusive bargaining representative of the Re-
spondent's employees within an appropriate bargaining unit, although a majority
of the employees in such unit, in a secret election conducted under the supervision
AMERICAN STEEL BUCK CORPORATION 2159
of the Board, on August 20, 1953, had designated or selected the Union as their
representative for the purposes of collective bargaining , thereby interfering with,
restraining , and coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights guaranteed
in Section 7 of the Act
The Respondent 's answer duly filed admitted certain allegations of the complaint
but denied the commission of any unfair labor practices . Affirmatively the answer
averred that the Respondent is a member of a trade association known as the Hollow
Metal Door & Buck Association , Inc.; that a purpose of the said association in the
representation of its employer members is to negotiate overall industry contracts
with labor unions , that for a period of more than 10 years prior to the institution
of the instant proceeding the Respondent has been represented in collective bargain-
ing and bargained exclusively through the medium of the said association ; and that
the Union herein having failed in its effort to obtain a majority of the employees
in the member plants of the association for industrywide recognition , then under-
took to organize the plant of the Respondent with full knowledge that Respondent
could not bargain collectively on its own , except in violation of membership ties
with the association.
Pursuant to notice a hearing was held at New York, New York, on August 30,
1954, before a duly designated Trial Examiner . The General Counsel, the Re-
spondent , and the Union were represented at the hearing and all parties were afforded
full opportunity to be heard , to examine , and cross-examine witnesses , and to intro-
duce evidence bearing on the issues . The parties were given the opportunity to
present oral argument before the Trial Examiner and to file briefs , proposed findings
of fact, and conclusions of law. A brief has been received from counsel for the
Respondent and has been duly considered
Upon the entire record in the case , the Trial Examiner makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
American Steel Buck Corporation is a New York corporation with its principal
office and place of business at 410 Morgan Avenue, in the city of New York,
county of Kings, State of New York The Respondent is now and has been con-
tinuously engaged at the said plant in the manufacture , sale, and distribution of
fireproof steel doors, door frames, and steel parts for safes and related products.
During the year ending December 31, 1953, the Respondent in the course and
conduct of its business operations caused to be purchased , transferred , and delivered
to its New York plant, steel and other materials valued in excess of $100,000 of
which approximately 75 percent was transported to the said plant in interstate
commerce from States of the United States other than the State of New York.
During the same year the Respondent caused to be manufactured at its said plant
products valued in excess of $500,000 of which approximately 33 percent was trans-
ported from the said plant in interstate commerce to States of the United States
other than the State of New York . The Respondent admits and it is hereby found
that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Architectural and Engineering Guild, Local 66, American Federation of Technical
Engineers , AFL, is a labor organization admitting to membership employees of the
Respondent.
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
On July 23, 1953, after the usual proceedings , including a complete hearing, the
Board issued a Decision and Direction of Election,' in which it found tHat "all techni-
cal department employees at the Employer 's Brooklyn , New York, plant , including de-
signers, draftsmen , listers, schedulers , hardware coordinators , and the quantity man,
but excluding the chief draftsman , office clerical employees , production employees,
mechanics , teamsters , guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act," constitute a unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section
9 (b) of the Act. An election pursuant to said Direction was held on August 20,
1953. Of the 10 employees who participated therein , 5 cast votes for the Union, 2
cast votes against the Union, with 3 ballots challenged . Under date of September 11,
1953, the Regional Director for the Second Region issued his report on challenges
i Unpublished
2160 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
in which it was recommended that the Board sustain the three challenged ballots and
further recommended that the Union be certified as the exclusive representative of the
employees in the unit theretofore found appropriate by the Board . On December
24, 1953, the Board in an Amended Supplemental Decision , Order, and Certification
of Representatives , 107 NLRB 554 , amended its previous Decision and Direction
of Election for reasons fully explicated in the Amended Decision and in addition
certified that the Union herein was the exclusive representative of all the employees in
the unit previously found appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining with
respect to rates of pay , wages, hours of employment , and other conditions of
employment.
In arriving at its decision the Board considered the following contentions of the
Respondent raised at the hearing on the representation petition - ( 1) The history
of collective bargaining engaged in by the Respondent precludes the Board from
finding a single unit of the Respondent 's employees appropriate and that the Board
should find a multiemployer unit appropriate ; ( 2) that the functional integration
of the various plants, members of the Hollow Metal Door & Buck Association, Inc.,
should lead to a finding that a multiemployer unit is appropriate ; and (3 ) the Union
in the past sought associationwide bargaining but only because it was not success-
ful in obtaining such associationwide bargaining does it now seek a single unit of
the Respondent 's employees . The Board found these contentions without merit,
and in a footnote in its decision stated:
The Employer contends that a single employer unit of technical employees sought
by the petitioner 1Union] is inappropriate because of the Employer 's past par-
ticipation in association wide bargaining for other classifications of employees, as
a member of the Hollow Metal Buck & Door Association . This Association is
composed of 23 firms engaged in the New York Metropolitan Area in the
manufacture of fire proof steel doors and frames. Since 1942, the Association
has represented its members including the employer , in collective bargaining
relations with the United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America, the
International Brotherhood of Teamsters , and the Sheet Metal Workers covering
various types of production and maintenance employees However, there is no
history of collective bargaining concerning the technical employees involved in
this proceeding , or of the technical employees of other members of the Associ-
ation, except that before 1945 the technical employees of one member were
separately represented . We therefore find, contrary to the Employer 's conten-
tion , that the foregoing pattern of multiemployer bargaining does not preclude a
finding that the single employee unit of technical employees sought herein is ap-
propriate . Fibreboard Products , Inc., San Joaquin Division , 102 NLRB 405,
Cf. Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc, 101 NLRB 101.
At the hearing in the instant case the Respondent sought to introduce evidence none
of which was newly discovered and all of which had been considered by the Board
in arriving at its decision in the representation case 2-RC-5760 . I declined to allow
Respondent to present such evidence , whereupon Respondent made offers of proof
which are contained in the transcript of the proceeding . The evidence contained in
the offers of proof was rejected.
It is fundamental that issues litigated in a representation proceeding may not of
right be relitigated in a complaint case wherein it is alleged an employer has refused
to bargain with a union which the Board has duly certified.2
A reading of the record in the representation proceeding shows that it contains
considerable evidence concerning the Respondent 's past participation in association-
wide bargaining for other classification of employees as an Association member, and
in addition the fact that all member plants employ the same general personnel. The
question of multiemployer unit was thus presented to the Board and determined by
it with the results set forth above in its Decision and Direction of Election . Further,
since the Respondent did not present any newly discovered evidence to me, 1 am
bound by the findings already made by the Board and find that "all technical depart-
ment employees at the Respondent's Brooklyn , New York, plant, including designers,
draftsmen , listers, schedulers , hardware coordinators , and the quantity man, but ex-
cluding the chief draftsman , office clerical employees, production employees, me-
chanics, teamsters , guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act" constitute a unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section
9 (b) of the Act. It is further found that on and at all times after August 20, 1953,
2 See Pittshaii gh Plate Glass Co , v N L It B . 313 U S 146 , Alles-Chalmers 31 fg Co,
v N L R B , 1 62 F 2d 435 ( C A 7) , Wilson Athletic Goods 31fg Co v A' L It B 164
F 2d 637 ( C A 7) , N L It B v West Kentucky Coal Co, 152 F 2d 1 98 (C A 6)
AMERICAN STEEL BUCK CORPORATION 2161
the Union was and now is the duly designated bargaining representative of all em-
ployees in the appropriate bargaining unit for the purposes of collective bargaining
with respect to rates of pay , wages, hours of employment , and other conditions of
employment.
At the hearing herein the Respondent amended its answer and the parties then
entered into a stipulation whereby Respondent admitted that it refused , on or about
January 19 , 1954, and at all times thereafter , to bargain collectively with the Union.
The Respondent however maintained its position that its refusal to bargain with the
Union was not violative of the Act contending that the Board unit finding was inap-
propriate . For the reasons expressed above I reject the Respondent 's contention.
Upon the foregoing and the record as a whole it is found that the Respondent on
January 19 , 1954, and at all times thereafter has refused to bargain collectively with
the Union as the exclusive representative of its employees in an appropriate unit
and has thereby interfered with, restrained , and coerced its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above , occurring in con-
nection with the operations of the Respondent described in section I, above, have a
close, intimate , and substantial relation to trade, traffic , and commerce among the
several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce
and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices it will be
recommended that Respondent cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirma-
tive action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act . Since it has been found
that the Respondent has refused to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclu
sive representative of its employees in an appropriate unit it will be recommended
that the Respondent upon request bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive
bargaining representative of all employees in the bargaining unit described herein
with respect to wages, rates of pay, hours of employment , or other conditions of
employment, and if an understanding is reached embody such understanding in a
signed agreement.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact , and upon the entire record in the case,
I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Architectural and Engineering Guild , Local 66, American Federation of Tech-
nical Engineers , AFL, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5)
of the Act.
2. The following employees constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collec-
tive bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act : All technical depart-
ment employees at the Respondent 's New York plant including designers , draftsmen,
listers, schedulers, hardware coordinators , and the quantity man, but excluding the
chief draftsman , office clerical employees, production employees, mechanics, team-
sters, guards , and supervisors as defined in Section 2 (11) of the Act.
3. Architectural and Engineering Guild, Local 66, American Federation of Tech-
nical Engineers , AFL, was on August 20 , 1953, and at all times thereafter has been
the exclusive representative of all employees in the aforesaid unit for the purposes of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act.
4. By refusing on January 19, 1954, and at all times thereafter to bargain collec-
tively with Architectural and Engineering Guild, Local 66, American Federation of
Technical Engineers , AFL, as the exclusive representative of all of its employees in
the aforesaid unit, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8 ( a) (5) of the Act.
5. By said acts the Respondent has interfered with, restrained , and coerced its
employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act and has
engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8 (a) (1) of the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
338207-3 5-vol 110-137