Bethlehem Pacific Coast Steel Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 14, 1952

99 N.L.R.B. 115 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

BETHLEHEM PACIFIC COAST STEEL CORPORATION 115
BETHLEHEM PACIFIC COAST STEEL CORPORATION and INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF BOILERMAKERS , IRON SHIPBUILDERS AND HELPERS
OF AMERICA, LOCAL No. 541, AFL, PETITIONER . Case No. 19-RU-
933. May 14,1952
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 A. C. Roll, hearing officer.
The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from preju-
dicial 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- member
panel [Members Houston, Murdock, and Styles].
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.
3. to question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
•tiali df employees of the. Employer within the meaning of Section 9
(c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner and the "International Association of Bridge,
Structural, and Ornamental Iron Workers, Shopmen's Local Union
No,, 506, AFL, herein called the Iron, Workers, each seeks to represent
a unit of production and maintenance employees at the Employer's
Seattle works, Seattle, Washington. The United Steel Workers of
America, CIO, herein called the Steel Workers, and the Employer
oppose the petition, contending that the unit requested is inappro-
priate and that the only appropriate unit is one consisting of produc-
tion and maintenance employees of all, the works and plants of the
Employer.'
The Employer, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Bethlehem Steel
Company, owns and operates a basic steel plant and a fabricating
works in each of the Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Seattle areas.
The Seattle works, whose employees the Petitioner and the Iron
Workers seek to represent, began operating in June 1950, at a loca-
tion about 7 miles from the Seattle plant. Employing about 225 em-
ployees, the Seattle works fabricates structural steel, taking most of
its basic steel from the Seattle plant, which amounts to about 10 per-
, The Steelworkers ' motion to dismiss the petition on this ground is hereby denied for
reasons given below.
99 NLRB No. 21.
116 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
cent of the latter's output. The Employer also has an erection division
in the Seattle area, which, as the name implies, erects structures re-
quiring fabricated steel.
There is no interchange of employees between the Seattle works
and other installations of the Employer, and there have been few
transfers of employees from or to the Seattle works since its employee
complement was first recruited. Supervision at the steel works is
separate from that at the other operations of the Employer, except
-that-as is typical in each area where the Employer operates-the
Seattle plant manager is subordinate to the Seattle works manager.
However, the industrial relations representative, who heads his de-
partment at the Seattle plant, reports directly, as does his counterpart
at the Seattle works, to the manager of industrial relations in San
Francisco. Over-all policy, particularly as to labor relations, is het
by the San Francisco office. Copies of all grievances are forwarded
to the San Francisco office, and the manager of industrial relations
there has regularly been consulted at the first of a five-step grievance
procedure which existed under the recently expired contract.
In August 1950, following a consent election, the Board certified the
Steel Workers as bargaining agent for a unit of the production and
maintenance employees at the Seattle works. A Steel Worker's bar-
gaining committee of Seattle works employees presented a proposed
contract. The Employer's representatives, consisting of the manage-
ment representatives of the Seattle plant and Seattle works, submitted
as a counterproposal their master contract with the Steel Workers cov-
ering all the Employer's other operations. This counterproposal was
voted down on November 2, 19507 by the temporary Steel Worker's Lo-
cal consisting of Seattle works employees only. However, on October
v0, 1950, 2 days before the employees voted on this contract and with-
out their knowledge, the Employer's manager of industrial relations at
San Francisco and the Steel Workers extended the master contract to
the Seattle works. There is impressive evidence of subsequent dissatis-
faction of these employees with the bargain made for them 2 but
apparently they accepted its terms as settling their conditions of
employment for the duration of the contract.
Upon the record as a whole, and considering particularly the sepa-
rate supervision at the Seattle works, the lack of employee interchange
with any other of the Employer's operations, and the inconclusiveness
of the bargaining history,3 we are satisfied that the production and
2 During that November a majority of the employees in the unit boycotted a Board
union -authorization election because they "didn't want to get involved . . . on a Coastwise
basis." Letters and petitions to this effect were sent by employees to the Board offices.
8 A history of collective bargaining, not predicated upon a prior Board certification, is
mot controlling. See J. C. Penney Company, 86 NLRB 920, York Motor Express Company,
82 NLRB 801. Here, the history of collective bargaining on a conrpany-wicle basis was
inconsistent with the Board certification of the Steel workers as the bargaining repre-
sentative of the Seattle works employees in a separate unit.
WHITING CORPORATION 117
maintenance employees at the Seattle works enjoy a sufficient com-
munity of interest, apart from the employees of the Employer at its
other various operations, to warrant their placement in a separate
bargaining unit, if they so desire. As the record also contains suffi-
cient evidence to justify inclusion of these employees in the existing
company-wide bargaining unit, we shall make no final unit deter-
mination now, but shall await the results of the self-determination
election hereinafter directed. If a majority of these employees select
the Petitioner or the Iron Workers, they will be taken to have indicated
their desire to constitute a separate bargaining unit, and the Regional
Director conducting the election directed herein is instructed to issue
a certification of representatives to the Petitioner or the Iron Workers,
whichever may be selected, for the unit described below, which the
Board, under such circumstances, finds to be appropriate for purposes
of collective bargaining. In the event a majority votes for the Steel
Workers, the Board finds the existing unit to be appropriate and the
Regional Director will issue a certification of results of election to
such effect.
The following employees of the Employer may constitute' a unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (b) of the Act: The production and maintenance em-
ployees at the Employer's Seattle works, Seattle, Washington, exclud-
ing draftsmen, office and clerical employees, full-time first-aid and
safety employees, watchmen, and guards, professional employees, and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
WHITING CORPORATION , SPENCER AND MORRIS DIVISION and INTER-
NATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF BOILERMAKERS , IRON SHIPBUILDERS &
HELPERS OF AMERICA, FOR AND ON BEHALF OF SUBORDINATE LODGE No.
92, AFL, PETITIONER . Case No. 01-RC-1353. May 14,1952
Second Supplemental Decision and Order
On October 18, 1950, pursuant to the Board's unpublished Decision
and Direction of Election herein dated October 2, 1950, an election
by secret ballot was conducted among the employees in the appropriate
unit. The tally of ballots issued after the election showed that of 35
ballots cast, 17 were for, and 16 were against, the Petitioner, and 2
,,were challenged.'
1 An intervening union, International Association of Bridge, Structural and Orna-
mental Iron Workers, Local 509, AFL, was on the ballot, but received no votes.
90 NLRB No. 26.
215233-53 9