Braeburn Alloy Steel Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 31, 1945

64 N.L.R.B. 632 (N.L.R.B. 1945)

In the Matter of BRAEBURN, ALLOY STEEL CORPORATION and UNITED
STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO
In the Matter of BRAEBURN ALLOY STEEL CORPORATION and UNITED
STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO
Cases Nos. 6-R-1158 and 6-R-1170, respectively.Decided October
31, 1945
Mr. J. Reynolds Smith, of Braeburn, Pa., for the Company.
Mr. Frank J. Donner, of Washington, D. C.; Mr. S. Harold Gross-
man, of Tarentum, Pa.; and Mr. John J. Brownlee, of Pittsburgh, Pa.,
for the Union.
Mr. Angelo J. Fiwmara, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon an amended petition and an original petition separately and
duly filed by United Steelworkers of America, CIO, herein called the
Union, each alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen
concerning the representation of employees of Braeburn Alloy Steel
Corporation, Braeburn, Pennsylvania, herein called the Company,
the National Labor Relations Board consolidated the cases and pro-
vided for an appropriate hearing upon due notice before Allen
Sinsheimer, Jr., Trial Examiner. The hearing was held at Pitts-
burgh, Pennsylvania, on July 12 and 13, 1945. The Company and
the Union appeared and participated. All parties were afforded full
opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and
to introduce evidence bearing on the issues. The Trial Examiner's
rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are
hereby affirmed. All parties were afforded an opportunity to file
briefs with the Board.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following::
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF TIIE COMPANY
Braeburn Alloy Steel Corporation, a Pennsylvania corporation,
is engaged in the manufacture of high speed tool and die steels at its
64 N. L . R. B., No. 107.
632
BRAEBURN ALLOY STEEL CORPORATION 633
only plant located in Braeburn, Pennsylvania. During the year 1944,
the Company produced at its plant approximately 7,500,000 pounds
of steel, more than 75 percent of which was sold and shipped to points
outside the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. During the same period,
in excess of $1,000,000 worth of the raw materials used in the manu-
facturing process originated outside the Commonwealth.
The Company admits that it is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
United Steelworkers of America, affiliated with the Congress of In-
dustrial Organizations, is a labor organization admitting to member-
ship employees of the Company.
III. THE QUESTIONS CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
On April 16, 1945, the Company refused the Union's request for
recognition as the exclusive collective bargaining representative of
cerf ain of its employees, whereupon the Union filed its petitions herein.
At the hearing, the Company indicated that it would not recognize
the Union for the units petitioned for unless the Union is certified by
the Board.'
A statement of a Board agent, introduced into evidence at the
hearing, indicates that the Union represents a substantial number of
,employees in the units hereinafter found appropriate.2
We find that questions affecting commerce have 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.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNITS
The Union seeks to establish three separate units to be constituted
as follows: (1) all technical and professional employees, excluding
supervisory employees; (2) all office and clerical employees, including
I In Case No 6-R-1158, the Union originally petitioned for a unit composed of office,
cleiical, technical, professional, and dining-room employees, and in Case No. 6-R-1170,
it sought a plant protection unit At the heaiing, the Union amended its petition in Case
No 6-R-1158 to exclude the dining-room employees and to allege as appropriate an
office and clerical unit, and a technical and professional unit.
2 The Regional Director reported that in Case No. 6-R-1158, the Union submitted 17
authorization cards ; that 8 were dated in march or April 1945, and 9 were undated ;
that the names appearing on 15 of these cards were listed on a current pay roll con-
taining the names of 26 office and clerical employees, 5 technical or professional employees,
and 2 dining-room employees , and that, of the 15 names on the cards found on the pay roll,
12 were among the office and clerical employees and 3 were among the technical or profes-
sional employees.
The Regional Director further reported that in Case No. 6-R-1170, the Union sub-
mitted 5 authorization cards ; that the names of 4 persons appearing on these cards
were listed on the Company's pay roll which contained the names of 5 employees in the
appropriate unit.
634 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
those employees listed in Appendix A, the chief production clerk, the
assistant chief accountant, the pay-roll supervisor , the chief clerk
in the accounting department , and the stenographer in the treasurer's
office, but excluding employees listed in Appendix B, and supervisory
employees ; and (3 ) all plant protection employees , including the
chief of guards . The Company agrees that the unit of technical and
professional employees is appropriate ; it is in general agreement as to
the appropriateness of the office and clerical unit and the plant pro-
tection unit, except that it would also exclude the chief production
clerk, the assistant chief accountant, the pay-roll supervisor , the chief
clerk in the accounting department , and the stenographer in the
treasurer 's office from the office and clerical unit and the chief of
guards from the plant protection unit.
The chief production clerk , the assistant chief accountant , the pay-
roll supervisor , and the chief clerk in the accounting department: The
Company would exclude each of these employees from the office and
clerical unit on the ground that they are supervisory.
The chief production clerk is in charge of the Company 's planning
department . He devotes about 25 percent of his time in assigning
and overseeing the work of the two other employees in his department,
viz, an assistant and a clerk . The record shows that the chief pro-
duction clerk hired his assistant many years ago, that he recommended
a wage increase for that employee which was granted, and that he
has authority effectively to recommend discharge and disciplinary
action.
The assistant chief accountant heads the cost department. He has
two full-time and two part-time employees working under his super-
vision. His recommendations as to hire and wage adjustments have
been followed in the past. In addition , he has authority to discharge
an employee for dishonesty , and may effectively recommend disci-
plinary action or the discharge of inefficient employees.
The pay-roll supervisor has three full-time and four part-time
employees working under his supervision . He has authority effec-
tively to recommend salary adjustments and the discharging or dis-
ciplining of these employees.
The chief clerk in the accounting department is responsible for the
work performed by three employees who regularly work under her
supervision . She also supervises the work of four employees who
work for her part time . The record shows that she devotes most of
her time to supervision and that she has authority effectively to recom-
mend the hiring , discharging , and disciplining of employees under
her supervision.
We find that the chief production clerk, the assistant chief account-
ant, the pay -roll supervisor , and the chief clerk in the accounting
BRAEBURN ALLOY STEEL CORPORATION 635
department,3 are supervisory employees within the meaning of our
customary definition.4 We shall, therefore, exclude them from the
unit.
The stenographer in the treasurer's office: The Company would ex-
clude Ella Pole, the stenographer in the treasurer's office from the of-
fice and clerical unit as a confidential employee, while the Union would
include her. She spends about 25 percent of her time as an assistant
secretary to the treasurer. In the performance of her duties, she re-
ceives confidential memoranda relating to labor relations, particularly
with reference to changes in wage rates; she also has access to per-
sonnel records containing such confidential information as comments
concerning the work of employees and reports on disciplinary action.
Since it is clear that Ella Pole is in a position to obtain advance knowl-
edge of the Company's position concerning confidential matters per-
taining to labor relations, we shall exclude her from the unit as a
confidential employee.
The chief of guards: The Company would exclude John Scheitle,
the chief guard, from the plant protection unit on the ground that he
is a supervisory employee, while the Union would include him. The
duties of John Scheitle, in addition to those performed by him as a
guard during the day turn,' consist, in the main, of arranging the work
schedules of guards, receiving and filing the written reports of the
guards, investigating any reported matters that warrant such action,
checking time clocks, instructing new guards, and transmitting to the
guards any new orders issued by the assistant general superintendent
who supervises the plant protection department. He has authority to
grant time off to the guards under him, and may lay them off for breach
of duty. In addition, the record shows that his recommendations as
to the hiring of two or three guards and the discharging of one guard
were followed after an investigation by the assistant general super-
intendent. Under all the circumstances, we are satisfied that Scheitle
is a supervisory employee within our customary definition. We shall
exclude him .e
We find, in accordance with the agreement of the parties, that all
technical and professional employees at the Company's Braeburn,
'These include : F. D. Cliambordon , William Menk , Edward McLaughlin , and Ruth
Lord, respectively.
4 The Board customarily defines "supervisory employee" as one with authority to hire,
promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees,
or effectively recommend such action. The Union requested that the Board modify its
definition so as to delete therefrom the phrase "or otherwise effect changes in the status
of employees , or effectively recommend such action " Since it is obvious that the Union's
request seeks to alter the test of "supervisory employee " long established and adhered
to by the Board , it is denied.
5 Guards are employed on three shifts, one guard is on the day turn, two are on the
second turn , and two are on the third turn. They are neither militarized nor deputized.
6 See Matter of Missouri Valley Bridge and Iron Co ., 53 N. L . R. B. 1207.
636 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Pennsylvania, plant, excluding the foreman,' and all supervisory em-
ployees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or other-
wise effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively recommend
such action, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
We further find that all office and clerical employees at the Com-
pany's Braeburn, Pennsylvania, plant, including those listed in Ap-
pendix A, but excluding dining-room employees, employees listed in
Appendix B, the stenographer in the treasurer's office," the chief pro-
duction clerk, the assistant chief accountant, the pay-roll' supervisor,
the chief clerk in the accounting department, and all supervisory em-
ployees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or other-
wise effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively recommend
such action, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
We also find that all plant protection employees at the Company's
Braeburn, Pennsylvania, plant, excluding the chief of guards, and
all supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge,
discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or
effectively recommend such action, constitute a unit appropriate for
the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section
9 (b) of the Act.
V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
We shall direct that the questions concerning representation which
have arisen be resolved by elections by secret ballot among the em-
ployees in each of the appropriate units who were employed during
the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of the Direction of
Elections herein, subject to the limitations and additions set forth in
the Direction.
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
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 Relations
Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3, as amended, it is hereby
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representa-
tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Braeburn Alloy
Steel Corporation, Braeburn, Pennsylvania, separate elections 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 Sixth Region, acting
C. R Klingensmith, assistant metallurgist.
s Ella Pole.
BRAEBURN ALLOY STEEL CORPORATION 637
in this matter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and
subject to Article III, Sections 10 and 11, of said Rules afid Regula-
tions, among the employees in the units found appropriate 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 themselves 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 elec-
tions to determine whether or not they desire to be represented by
United Steelworkers of America, affiliated with the Congress of Indus-
trial Organizations, for the purposes of collective bargaining.
MR. GERARD D. REILLY took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Elections.
APPENDIX A
Max D. McElroy-Expediter in Sales Department
Agnes McCarthy-Order and Filing Clerk in Sales Department
John Zabersky-Production Clerk in Production Order Department
Elizabeth Walker-Production Clerk in Production Order Department
C. B. McFerron-Production Clerk in Production Order Department
Valeda Hruscienski-Typist and clerk in warehouse
Thelma Bayne-Typist and clerk in mill office
Dorothy Lamb-Clerk in accounting department
Elizabeth McMasters-Billing Clerk in Accounting Department
Elsie Shellhammer-PBX Operator and typist
Virginia Shearer-Clerk in Accounting department
Mary Hicks-Clerk in Accounting department
Mary Jane Weaver-Clerk in Accounting department
Anna Raymond-Clerk in Accounting department
Verna Gordon-Clerk in Accounting department
Stella Gawlik-Clerk in Accounting department
Andrew Becker-Janitor in offices
Alexander Sorocha-Accountant
Thelma Lowdermilk-Clerk in treasurer's office
Audrey Blake-Clerk in treasurer's office -
APPENDIX B
T. H. McGraw, Jr.-General Manager of plant
Norman A. Stotz-Vice president in charge of Sales
E. L. Moberg-Assistant General Sales Manager
638 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Helen K. Nixon-Chief Clerk in Sales Office
John A. Nelson-Vice president in charge of Metallurgy
J. F. Connor-Superintendent of Chemical Laboratory
A. J. Fazio-Assistant General Superintendent
Philip Lekinskey-Purchasing Agent
L. J. Claire-Treasurer
C. J. Molt-Chief Accountant
Jane Trout-Executive Secretary to vice president in charge of Sales
and General Manager
Nora Shellhammer-Secretary to the Treasurer and Assistant Pur-
chasing Agent
All employees in the industrial relations department