Bristol Steel & Iron Works, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 8, 1943

47 N.L.R.B. 1429 (N.L.R.B. 1943)

In the Matter of BRISTOL STEEL & IRON WORKS, INCORPORATED and
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION' OF MACHINISTS, AFFILIATED WITH THE
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR
Case No. R-4896.-Decided March 8,1918
Jurisdiction : steel products manufacturing industry.
Investigation and Certification of Representatives : existence of question : re-
fusal to recognize without certification of the Board; employees on preferen-
tial hiring list held to have sufficient expectancy of reemployment to render
them eligible to vote, excluding those who had accepted permanent employ-
ment elsewhere or had refused proffered reemployment with company; election
necessary.
Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining : all production and maintenance
employees, with specified inclusions and exclusions.
Mr. Leonard R. Hall, of Bristol, Va., for the Company.
Mr. C. C. Cochran and Mr. James F. Leahy, of Bristol, Va., for
the Union.
Miss Melvern R. Krelow, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon -. petitioniduly. filed by International Association of Machin-
ists; affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, herein called
the Union , alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen
concerning the representation of employees of Bristol Steel & Iron
Works, Incorporated ,, Bristol, Virginia , herein called the Company,
the National Labor Relations Board provided for an appropriate
hearing upon due notice before Albert P. Wheatley, Trial Examiner.
Said hearing was held at Bristol , Virginia , on February 15, 1943.
The Company and the Union appeared , participated , and were
afforded full opportunity to be heard , to examine and cross -examine
witnesses , and to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues. The
I Although the formal papers designate the Company as Bristol Steel & Iron Woiks, the
stipulation of the parties concerning commerce refers to the Company as Bristol Steel &
Iron Works, Incorporated
47 N. L. R. B , No. 182.
1429
1430 ' DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Trial Examiner's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudi-
cial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in the `case, the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Bristol Steel & Iron Works,. Incorporated, a Virginia corporation
with its principal office and place of business in Bristol, Virginia, is
engaged in the manufacture, sale, and shipment of fabricated struc-
tural steel. During 1942 the Company purchased rolled carbon steel,,
-the :principal raw material used-in its business, valued at.approxi-
lnately $400,000, all of which was shipped to the-Company -from
points outside the State of Virginia. 'During the same period, 'the
'Company manufactured -finished'-products; valued-at--approximately
$800,000, of which in excess of 90 percent was shipped by the Com-
pany to points outside the State of Virginia.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Association of Machinists, affiliated with the American
Federation of Labor, is a labor, organization, admitting employees of
the Company to membership.
III. THE QLTESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
On or about January 20,1943, the Union informed the Company that
it represented a majority of the Company's employees and requested
recognition as the exclusive bargaining agent•for said employees. The
Company declined to recognize the Union unless and until it is certified
by the Board.
A statement-of the Regional Director, introduced in evidence at the
hearing, indicates that the Union represents a substantial number of
employees in the unit hereinafter found to be appropriate 2
2 The Regional Director reported that the Union submitted 78 authorization cards, all
dated in January 1943, and all bearing apparently genuine signatures Of the 78 cards
presented, 52 bear the names of persons whose names appear on the company's pay roll
for the period ending January 31, 1943. The pay roll lists a total of 86 employees in
the unit. Counsel for the Company objected to the Regional Director's statement on the
grounds that it is hearsay evidence and has no piobative value He argued that the
Company had not been afforded an opportunity to examine the cards to determine their
authenticity. The Trial 'Examiner overruled the objection We have heretofore affirmed
the rulings of the Trial Eximener. and we find the Company's contention to be without
merit. As we have frequently stated, the report of the Regienal Director with respect to
a claim of authorization tor the purposes of repo sentation is taken, not as proof of the
precise number of employees who desire to be represented by a labor organization,, but
rather to protect the Company and the Board from unfounded claims by such organization
and to give reasonable assurance that a substantial number of employees desire to be so
represented. See Matter of Interlake Iron Corporation and Local Union 1657, Steel Workers
Organizing Conemettee, C. I O , 38 N. L. R B 139 ; Matter of Superior Sleep-Rite Corpo-
ration and United Office and Professional Workers of America, Local 24, O. I. 0., 39 N. L.
R. B. 606.
BRISTOL STEEL' & 1IRON - WORKS, INCORPORATED` 1431
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the
representation of employees of the Company , within the meaning of
Section • 9 (o).,and 'Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor=Rela-
tions Act.
IV. TFIE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The parties are in agreement that all production and maintenance
employees of the Company , including truck drivers , and the bolt house
stockroom clerk, should be included in the bargaining unit. They fur-
ther - agree that watchmen , plant guards , and supervisory employees
should be excluded . There is a dispute over the following personnel,
namely, general office, accounting employees , draftsmen , and time-
keepers; the Union would exclude all these categories whereas the
_Company would include them.
Inasmuch as the work of the general office employees is substantially
different from that of the production and maintenance employees, in
accordance with our customary practice , we shall exclude general office
employees from the unit.
In the accounting department there are employed one accountant
and one clerk . The accountant performs customary accounting duties.
The clerk does pay-roll work and maintains social security records
and various other records. The Company also employs one cost ac-
countant who works in an office in the shop . He compiles data and
reports with respect to the cost of individual jobs.
The timekeepers record the time of a production job, and issue time
cards to production employees . We conclude that the duties of the
accountant, cost accountant , clerk, and timekeepers are primarily cler-
ical -in,nature ,.and shall, therefore , exclude them from the unit.
It appears that the technical personnel is comprised principally
of draftsmen . Their duties are to prepare blueprints and other plans
from which finished products are made. They set up procedure for
the various production departments to follow . They shall be excluded
from the unit, inasmuch as they are professional and 'technical
employees.
With respect to the truck drivers and the bolt house stockroom clerk,
whom the parties agree to include , it appears thmit the truck drivers
at present are engaged in production work more than 50 percent of
the time. The stockroom clerk works in the bolt house where bolts
and rivets and a threading machine are stored. He issues the bolts
and rivets and makes any threaded items the Company needs. He
'also re -runs threads on bolts. We are of the opinion that these em-
ployees are engaged in duties similar to those of the production em-
ployees, and accordingly shall include them in the unit.
We find that all production and maintenance employees of the Com-
pany, including truck drivers and the bolt house stockroom clerk, but
1432 DBCISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
excluding watchmen, plant guards, general office employees, account-
ing employees, timekeepers, draftsmen; and supervisory employees,
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 find that the question concerning representation which has arisen
can best 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,
subject to the'limitations and additions set forth in the Direction.
A problem arises, however, as to the eligibility of certain employees
now on a preferential hiring list. On January 30, 1943, the Company
abolished its night shift and after transferring as many men as pos-
sible to the day shift, established a preferential hiring list for the
remaining 23. The Company contends that none of these employees is
eligible to vote, on the grounds that they were only employed by the
Company a short time before they were laid off, and that the majority
if not all have obtained other employment and would not desire to
return to work for the Company. The Union, on the other hand, con-
tends that these employees should be eligible to vote because they have
secured only temporary employment and desire to return to work for
the Company. We are of the opinion that, in general, employees on
the preferential list have a sufficient expectancy of reemployment to
entitle them to vote. However, those on the list who have accepted
permanent employment elsewhere, or who have been offered reemploy-
ment with the Company, but have refused the offer, shall not be eligible
to vote, since the likelihood of their returning to work for the Com-
pany is remote.
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 Relations
Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2, as amended, it is hereby
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representa-
tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Bristol Steel &
Iron Works, Incorporated, Bristol, Virginia, an election by secret bal-
lot 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 Fifth Region, acting in
this matter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and sub-
ject-to Article III, Section 10, of said Rules and Regulations1 and, the
BRISTOL STEEL & IRON WORKS , INCORPORATED 1433
findings set forth in Section V, above, among the employees in the unit
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 in-
cluding 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 , to determine whether or not
they desire to be represented by International Association of Machin-'
ists, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, for the purposes
of collective bargaining.