Blaw-Knox Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 23, 1944

57 N.L.R.B. 1551 (N.L.R.B. 1944)

In the Matter of BLAW-KNOX COMPANY, SPECIAL ORDNANCE DIVISION
and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION of BRIDGE, STRUCTURAL AND ORNA-
MENTAL IRON WORKERS, A. F. OF L.
Case No. 4-R-1446.-Decided August 0, 1944
Messrs. Albert L. Cuff and W. We'ner, of Pittsburgh, Pa.,, and Mr.
John F. Padden, of York, Pa., for the Company.
Mr. Harold Stern, of New York City, Mr. Gay Borrelli, of Phila-
delphia, Pa., and Mr. George She ff ey, for the A. F. L.
Mr. Harold Fritchman, of Harrisburg, Pa., and Mr. John Hartwickr
of York, Pa., for the C. I. O.
Mr. Robert E. Tillman, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a petition duly filed by International Association of Bridge,
Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, A. F. of L`., herein called
the A. F. L.,1 alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen
concerning the representation of employees of Blaw-Knox Company,
Special Ordnance Division, York, Pennsylvania, herein called the
Company, the National Labor Relations Board provided for an appro-
priate hearing upon due notice before Irving Rogosin, Trial Examiner.
Said hearing was held at York, Pennsylvania, on July 18, 1944. The
Company, the A. F. L., and United Steelworkers of America, C. I. O.,
herein called the C. I. O.,,appeared, participated, and were afforded
full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses,
and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues. The'rulings of the
Trial Examiner made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error
.and are hereby affirmed. All parties were afforded opportunity to file
briefs with the Board.2
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
1 The A. F L. waived the charges which it filed against the Company in Case No. 4-C-
1421 and in Case No 4-C-1443, insofar as they might constitute a basis for objecting to
the instant proceeding.
2 The C I 0 requested of the Board an opportunity to present oral argument. The
request is hereby denied
57 N. L. R. B, No 252.
1551
1552 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Blaw-Knox Company, a New Jersey corporation, has its principal
office in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The Company is engaged in the
manufacture of steel specialties, foundry products, and special ord-
nance for the armed forces. It operates six plants in the Pittsburgh
area, two in the State of Ohio, and one at York, Pennsylvania. Only
the latter plant is involved in this proceeding. More than 50 percent
of the raw materials used by the Company is shipped to its plants from
points outside the States in which they are located. More than 95
percent of the Company's business is concerned with the war effort
and entails interstate and export shipments.
The Company admits that it is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental
Iron Workers is a labor organization affiliated with the American Fed-
eration of Labor, admitting to membership employees of the Company.
United Steelworkers of America is a labor organization affiliated
with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, admitting to mem-
bership employees of the Company.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Company did not assume, operation of the York plant until
June 19, 1944, when it leased the plant from the United States Navy,
which had been operating it since January 21, 1944. Prior to January
21, the plant was one of nine owned and operated by York Safe & Lock
Company, herein called the York Company.
On January 21, 1944, and again on April 11 and April 14; 1944, the
A. F. L. sent letters to the York Company requesting recognition as
the collective bargaining representative of the latter's production and
maintenance employees. On April 17, 1944, the A. F. L. filed with
the Board a petition for certification of the York Company's pro-
duction and maintenance employees. On May 19, 1944, the Al F. L.
informed the Company of its claim,3 and on May 22, 1944, filed its
petition in the instant proceeding.
The C. I. O. con-tends that the contract between it and the Company
precludes a present determination of representatives. The Conmpany,
3 It was then known to the A. F. L that the Company was shortly to take over the
operations with which we are here concerned.
BLAW-KNOX COMPANY 1553
however, takes no position on this point. The. contract to which
reference is had, was executed by the Company and the C. LO. on.
June 19, 1944. It, in effect, constitutes largely an adoption of a con-
tract entered into by the York 'Company and the C. I. O. on May 18,
1943, and a supplemental agreement entered into on Nevember 23, 1943.
The 1943 contract provided for a term of 1 year, subject to automatic
renewal in the absence of 30 days' notice prior to the anniversary
date of ' a desire to change or terminate it. Certain provisions 'of the
contract were left open or made subject to change after 90 days from
the effective date thereof. The November supplemental agreement
was intended to complete the original contract. However, the parties
thereto went further and extended the expiration date of the original
contract to May 18, 1945.
We are of the opinion that neither the May 1943 contract and the
November 1943 supplement thereto, nor the June 1944 "adoption"
contract, precludes a present investigation and determination of ' a
bargaining representative. The November supplemental agreement,
by altering the term of the original contract,' clearly constitutes a
premature extension of a contract of reasonable 'duration such as we
have held, if given effect 'as a bar, would constitute an unreasonable
restraint upon the exercise of the right of employees to select a new
bargaining representative." The June 1944 contract,. ,although an
adoption of prior agreements, is, nevertheless, a new contract, since
one of the parties to the original contract has beenrreplaced'by'a new
party, i. e., the Company. Since this new contract was entered into by
the Company with full knowledge of the conflicting* representation
claim of the A. F. L., it is plainly no bar.,' ,
- A statement of a Field Examiner of the Board, introduced, into evi-
dence-at the hearing, as supplemented by a statement of the Trial
Examiner made at the hearing, indicates that the',A.'F.L. represents
a substantial number of employees in the unit alleged to be apr'
propriate.°
Matter of Memphis Furniture Mfg . Co., 51 N. L R B 1447.
See Matter of Albers Milling Company , 38 N L. R • B. 1331, 1334 , and cases cited therein
6 According to the combined statements , the A. F. L submitted 1,020 autk6rjzation- cards
and an affidavit as to membership bearing 39 names. There ` are approximately, 2,423
employees in, the unit alleged to be appiopi late , The C. I 0 relies upon its `contract to
show its interest and further reported that it had a paid-up membership of 2,024 employees
of the Company.
The C. I 0 objects to the fact that a number of the A F . L authorization cards were
obtained while the York Company was the nominal employer , and contents that they cannot
be relied upon as authorizing the A. F. L. to represent the signers when the Company is
now the employer . The primary function of authorization cards is the designation by
employees of a union to act as their agent for collective bargaining purposes . ' The mere
,,substitution of one employer for another employer has no legal effect upon this delegation
of authority . Nor do we consider that it was the intent of the employees to condition their
designation of the A. F. L upon the contingency that the York Company resume operation
of the plant.
601248-45-vol. 57-99
1
4554' DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Company, within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of'the Act-.
We find, in substantial accordance with a stipulation of the parties,
that all production and maintenance employees of the Company's
York plant (originally the Special Ordnance and Armor Plate Plants
and TestingI Range of the York Safe & Lock Company), including
,working foremen,' storekeepers, powerhouse employees, power drive •
test inspectors, truck drivers and helpers, sweepers and cleaners, sta-
tionary firemen, electric truck drivers, storeroom and toolroom' men,
inside expeditors, tool chasers, inspectors, maintenance men, tool mak-
ers, machinists, machine, operators, heat treaters, assembly men, elec-
tric welders, chippers," grinders, and acetylene burners, but excluding
guards, office and clerical employees, salaried employees (except those
`included in the categories above), employees in the foundry depart-
ment, pattern makers, and superintendents, non-working foremen, and
all other supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, dis-
charge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of'em-'
ployees, or effectively recommend such action, constitute a unit ap-'
propriate for the purposes of collective bargaining w'ithin'the meaning
of Section 9' (b) of the Act.9
V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
We shall direct that the question concerning representation which
has arisen be resolved by an election by secret ballot among the em-
ployees in the appropriate unit who were employed during the pay-roll
period immediately preceding the date of our Direction of Election
herein, subject to the limitations and additions set forth therein.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
By virtue of and pursuant to-the power vested in the National Labor
Relations 'Board by Section , 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations
Act, and pursuant to Article III, Section 9,-of National. Labor Rela-
The record Indicates , and we find , that working foremen are not supervisory employees f
within our customary definition. '
8 In the stipulation of the parties as set out is the record, the word "sweepers" appears In
place of "chippers ." However, "sweepers" were specifically included In the first part of the
stipulation, and the-word "chippers" appears In the petition of the A. F. L. and In the
stipulated unit mentioned In' footnote 9, infra. Accordingly , we' find it was the Intent' of
the parties to include "chippers." • s
8 The unit ,' except that it is confined to only one plant, is substantially the same as -thd
stipulated in a consent election held on March 16 , 1943, in which all the plants of York
Company, Including the plant involved herein , were included.
BLAW-KNOX COMPANY 1555
tions Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3, as amended, it is hereby
DI EcTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representa-
tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Blaw-Khox Com-
pany, Special Ordnance Division, York, Pennsylvania, an election
by secret ballot shall' be .conducted as early as possible, but not. later
than thirty (30) days from the date of this 'Direction, under' the
direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Fourth
Region, acting in this matter as agent for the National Labor Rela-
tions Board, and subject to Article III, Sections 10 and 11, of said
Rules and Regulations, among the employees in the ,unit found appro-,
priate in Section IV, above, who were employed during the pay-roll
period immediately preceding the date of this Direction, including
employees who did not work during said pay-roll period because
they were ill or on vacation or temporarily laid off, and including
employees in the armed forces of the United States who present them-
selves in person at the polls, but excluding any who have since quit
or been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or reinstated
prior to the date of the election, to determine whether they desire to be
represented by-Internatignal Association of Bridge, Structural and
Ornamental Iron Workers, A. F. of L., or by United Steelworkers
of America, C. I. 0., for the purposes of collective bargaining,'or by
neither.
CHAIRMAN MILLIS took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Election.