Birdsboro Armorcast, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 21, 1952

101 N.L.R.B. 22 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

22 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the choice of Respondent's employees, prior to April of 1951, such was not the
case in April and thereafter. It is found that there was no duty to bargain with
Local 2924 under these conditions.
The undersigned will therefore recommend that the complaint be dismissed.,
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact , and upon the entire record
in the case, the undersigned makes the following:
CONCLUsIONs OF LAW
1. The operations of Respondent , Blue Mountain Mills and Dayville Lumber
Company, affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the
Act.
2. Local Union No. 2545 and Local Union No. 2924, United Brotherhood of
Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL, are labor organizations within the
meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
3. Respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning
of Section 8 (a) (1) and (5) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication in this volume.]
4 In the final analysis , although it is not dispositive of the present issue, it must be noted
that it is improbable that Dayville will resume operations . Thus, both Local 2545 and the
business operation involved would be out of existence.
BIRDSBORO ARMORCAST, INC.' and INTERNATIONAL MOLDERS AND
FOUNDRY WORKERS UNION or NORTH AMERICA, AFL, PETITIONER.
Case No. 4-RC-1668. October 21,1952
Decision and Order
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Harold Kowal, hear-
ing 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-
member 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 organizations involved claim to represent certain
employes of the Employer.
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the represen-
tation of employes of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9
(c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, for the following
reasons:
1 The employer's name appears as amended at the hearing.
101 NLRB No. 8.
BIRDSBORO ARMORCAST, INC. 23
The Petitioner seeks an over-all unit at the Employer's Armorcast
plant .2 Both the Intervenor and the Employer maintain that the
existing multiplant unit is appropriate.
In 1944, following a Board election,3 Birdsboro Steel Foundry and
Machine Company, herein called Birdsboro, entered into an agree-
ment with the Intervenor covering its plant in Reading and its two
plants and pattern shop in Birdsboro, Pennsylvania. One of these
Birdsboro plants, which produced steel castings during World War
II, was closed in 1947, and therefore was omitted from the subsequent
multiplant agreements between Birdsboro and the Intervenor. This
plant was later operated by Penn-Ohio Steel Corporation in the pro-
duction of ingots.
In 1951 Birdsboro, manufacturing steel castings and steel mill
equipment, obtained a defense subcontract for the manufacture of
armor castings. For accounting and tax purposes, it created the Em-
ployer, a wholly owned subsidiary, herein called Armorcast, and
assigned the subcontract to it. Shortly thereafter Birdsboro obtained
repossession of the World War II plant from Penn-Ohio Steel Cor-
poration for use by Armorcast. On March 15, 1952, the Intervenor,
Birdsboro, and Armorcast entered into a supplemental agreement ex-
tending the existing multiplant agreement between Birdsboro and
the Intervenor to the employees of Armorcast. At that time prepara-
tory work for the Armorcast operation, including the training of
personnel for Armorcast, was being done at Birdsboro's main plant.
On April 29 Armorcast operations began, and on July 7, when the
current multiplant contract was executed, a total of approximately
335 production and maintenance employees were at Armorcast and
1,200 at Birdsboro. Approximately 50 percent of Armorcast em-
ployees was transferred from Birdsboro, including all skilled and
supervisory personnel.
The main Birdsboro operation is 500 yards from the Armorcast
plant and 9 miles from the Birdsboro machine shop in Reading. The
"The Employer and United Steelworkers of America, CIO, herein called the Intervenor,
assert their existing contract as a bar to this proceeding . The Petitioner maintains that
the existing contract is a premature extension of the original contract and therefore can-
not serve as a bar . The original contract was executed on March 15, 1952 , to "remain in
effect until July 18, 1952, and thereafter until either party shall serve 60 days' notice of
its desire to terminate such agreement.- On July 7 , 1952, the contracting parties executed
a new agreement with expiration date of January 7, 1954. The Petitioner's request for
recognition was made on July 15 and its petition filed on July 22 , 1952. Clearly the orig-
inal contract provided for termination at the will of either party upon 60 days' notice
given on or after July 18, 1952 . Moreover, the record fails to disclose that notice was
given by either party at any time material herein. Accordingly , as the new contract
prematurely extended the term of the original contract , and as the Petitioner 's claim and
petition were timely within respect to the expiration date of the original contract, the
new contract cannot bar this proceeding.
In view of the foregoing, we find it unnecessary to pass upon the Petitioner 's further
contention that the July 7 contract was executed in the face of an unrepresentative com-
plement of employees.
8 Birdsboro Steel Foundry and Machine Company, 54 NLRB 247.
24 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Birdsboro pattern shop adjoins the Armorcast plant and the office
building servicing both operations is close by . Although each plant
has its own superintendent , Armorcast and Birdsboro have common
officers, directors , works manager, purchasing agent , and personnel
manager. Separate accounting , personnel , and payroll records are
maintained for Armorcast as well as an employment office , though
interplant referrals of job applicants are frequent.
At present Armorcast produces a "fla'sk" or preliminary casting.
Eventually Armorcast will utilize foundry operations and job classi-
fications substantially similar to those at Birdsboro . Because tank
castings require a different chemical content and heat treat process
than ordinary steel castings , however, Armorcast will also have in its
employ betatron operators and heat treat furnace operators. All
patternmaking for Armorcast as well as major repairs to patterns are
performed at Birdsboro and there is regular interchange of spare
parts and machine maintenance personnel . Production plans call for
part of the processing of tank turrets and hulls at Birdsboro and a
regular interplant flow of raw materials and partly processed prod-
ucts. Armorcast employees receive the same vacation , group insur-
ance, profit sharing, and other benefits, and enjoy the same wage
schedules and working conditions as Birdsboro employees. Em-
ployees transferred from Birdsboro retain seniority on their previous
jobs and newly hired Armorcast employees acquire multiplant
seniority.
The mere existence of a new plant does not constitute evidence of
a self -contained and separate operation such as would warrant a self-
determination election on the issue of inclusion in a broader unit. As
noted , the operations of the Armorcast plant are essentially integrated
with those of the Birdsboro plants, the end products differing only
in shape and chemical Content .4 With minor exceptions , job classi-
fications and functions are the same , as well as hours, wages , and work-
ing conditions . Direction of multiplant functions and labor relations
policy is centralized in the hands of the same officials , Armorcast
employees are drawn from Birdsboro , and there is regular inter-
change of emp'Toes -miler multiplant seniority . Under Armorcast
production plans , further integration of operations will result when
Birdsboro partly processes turret and hull castings . Moreover, there
is a history of bargaining on a multiplant basis including the Armor-
cast plant.
* The hearing officer referred to the Board the Employer 's offer to prove through the
testimony of an Army officer in charge of industrial relations in the area in which the
plants in question are located , that Birdsboro and Armorcast were selected for the produc-
tion of armor castings because of integration of the plants' functions . As the determina-
tion of integrated plant operations relative to appropriate unit questions under the Act
is the function of the Board, other views on integration , while of interest, are not material.
The offer of proof is accordingly rejected.
UNDERWOOD CORPORATION 25
In view of the foregoing factors, particularly the integration of
plant functions and the history of bargaining on a multiplant basis,
we find that Armorcast is an extension of the Birdsboro operations
and that, therefore, a unit restricted to the Armorcast plant is not
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (b) of the Act .5 Accordingly, we shall dismiss the
petition.6
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed in this case be, and it
hereby is, dismissed.
i Hawthorne -Mellody Farms Dairy of Wisconsin , Inc., 99 NLRB 212 ; cf. Delta Tank
Manufacturing Company, Incorporated ( Shell Division ), 100 NLRB 364.
0 The Petitioner expressly declined to represent the employees on a multiplant basis.
UNDERWOOD CORPORATION, PETITIONER and LOCAL UNION No. 24092,
OFFICE MACHINE REPAIRMEN , A. F. OF L.
UNDERWOOD CORPORATION and VINCENT J. HALM, ET AL ., PETITIONER
and LOCAL UNION No. 24092, OFFICE MACHINE REPAIRMEN,
A. F. OF L. Cases Nos. 18-RM-112 and 18-RD-74. October 21,
1952
Decision, Order, and Direction of Election
Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before
Harry Irwig, 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 National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
these cases to a three-member panel [Members Houston, Styles, and
Peterson].
Upon the entire record in these cases, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The Petitioner in Case No. 18-RD-74, employees of the Em-
ployer, assert that the Union, a labor organization which was certified
in February 1947 as the bargaining representative of certain em-
ployees of the Employer, is no longer the bargaining representative
of these employees, as defined in Section 9 (a) of the Act.
1 The hearing officer referred to the Board the Petitioners ' motions to amend their re-
spective petitions to include alternative unit descriptions and the Union's motion to dismiss
the Employer 's petition . The Petitioners ' motions to amend their petitions are hereby
granted . For the reasons stated in paragraph 4, infra, the Union 's motion to dismiss is
hereby denied.
101 NLRB No. 4.