Consolidated Western Steel Corp.Download PDFNational Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsApr 4, 195193 N.L.R.B. 1199 (N.L.R.B. 1951) Copy Citation CONSOLIDATED WESTERN STEEL CORPORATION, ETC. 1199 CONSOLIDATED WESTERN STEEL CORPORATION and ORANGE METAL TRADES COUNCIL, AFL (LOCAL 1457, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS; LOCAL 390, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELEC- TRICAL WORKERS; LOCAL 408 INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF BOIL- ERMAKERS, IRON SHIPBUILDERS, AND HELPERS OF AINIERICA LOCAL 195, UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN AND APPRENTICES OF PLUMBING AND PIPEFITr1NG INDUSTRY OF THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA ; LOCAL 450, INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS; LOCAL 328, BROTHEIn LOOD OF PAINTERS, DECORATORS AND PAPER HANGERS OF AMERICA LOCAL 2007, INTERNATIONAL BROTHER- HOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA; LOCAL 504, UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN AND APPRENTICES Oil TIIE PLUMBING AND PIPEFI1rING INDUSTRY OF TIIE UNITED STATES AND CANADA), PETITIONER. Case No. 39-RC-277. April 4,1951 Decision and Direction of Election Upon four separate petitions duly filed in Cases Nos. 39-RC-274, 277, 278, and 280, a consolidated hearing was held before Clifford W. Potter, hearing officer. During the course of the hearing, the hearing officer permitted the Petitioner in Case No. 39-RC-277 to amend its petition to disclose the names of the eight local labor organizations which constitute its mem- bership, as appears in the caption above. Following this amendment, Local 390, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, the Petitioner in Case No. 39-RC-274, and Lodge 1457, International Association of Machinists, the Petitioner in Case No. 39-RC-280, sought leave to withdraw their separate petitions for craft representa- tion. Also during the hearing, International Longshoremen's Asso- ciation, AFL, the Petitioner in Case No. 39-RC-278, asked leave to withdraw its petition because, and the parties agreed, no question con- cerning representation exists among employees claimed by that labor organization. The hearing officer referred these motions to the Board. The motions are granted. 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 this proceeding to a three-member panel [Members Houston, Rey- nolds, and Styles]. Upon the entire record in this proceeding, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. - 93 NLRB No 210. 1200 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 2. The Petitioner,' and is constituent members, and the Intervenor 2 are labor organizations within the meaning of the Act. 3. The Employer and the Intervenor contend that a supplemental contract executed by them on March 20, 1950, constitutes a bar to this proceeding under the following circumstances : On March 7, 1949, the Employer and the Intervenor, which has represented the Employer's employees since 1941, entered into a new bargaining contract, effective from March 7, 1949, to and including March 7, 1950, and from year to year thereafter unless and until either party gave notice to the other 60 days before the terminal or any anniversary date. Neither of the parties gave notice before the Mill B date, and the contract was therefore automatically renewed for a sec- ond contract year. Thereafter, on January 7, 1950, the instant Petitioner and one of its constituent members filed a petition in Case No. 39-RC-164, seeking representation of employees covered by the renewed contract. On March 10, 1950, the Regional Director dismissed the petition, finding the renewed contract a bar to a determination of representatives at that time. Shortly thereafter, on March 20, 1950, the Employer and the Inter- venor entered into a supplemental contract, incorporating new pro- visions for insurance and pension, which had been a subject of discussion for some time, and extending the term of their contract to March 7, 1952. On December 28, 1950, before the second Mill B date of the renewed contract, the Petitioner filed the petition in the instant case. As noted above, the Employer and the Intervenor urge that the -supplemental contract is a bar to a determination of representatives at this time. Under the Board's premature-extension doctrine, set forth in earlier cases, the supplemental contract of 1950 may not operate to bar the instant petition for representation, which, unlike the earlier petition, was timely filed with reliftion to the automatic renewal date of the renewed contract.3 ' The Employer contends , however, that the Petitioner is essentially a craft organization and lacks jurisdiction to represent employees in the agreed production and maintenance unit We find no merit in this contention willingness of a labor organization to represent employees and the designation of employees in question of such labor organization as bargaining representative are the controlling considerations under the Act. Oklahoma Gas & Electric Company, 86 NLRB 437 2 Shopmen's Local No 630 , International Association of Bridge , Structural and Orna- mental Iron Workers, AFL. 3 Northwest Publishing Company , 71 NLRB 167 , and cases cited therein ; Pillsbury Mills . Inc, 92 NLRB 172; ef. Union Steel Castings Division of Blaw-Knox Company, 88 NLRB 209. We find no merit in the contention of the Employer and the Intervenor . that the substantial benefits accruing to employees under their supplemental contract which were obtained for them only by bargaining with respect to a longer contract period outweigh in importance the immediate exercise of their right to select a new bargaining representa- tive at this time if they so desire . The rationale on which the premature-extension doctiine rests is set forth in the cases cited WHITINSVILLE SPINNING RING COMPANY 1201 We find that a question affecting commerce exists concerning the representation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. All employees at the Employer's Orange, Texas, plant, excluding office clerks, salesmen, engineers, draftsmen, over-the-road truck drivers, guards, watchmen, executives, superintendents, and super- visors, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this volume. WH1TINSVILLE SPINNING RING COMPANY and UNITED STEELWORKERS of AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER. Case No. 1-RC-2006. April 4,1951 Decision and Certification of Representatives On January 30, 1951, pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election, an election by secret ballot was conducted among the employees in the stipulated unit under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the First Region. Upon the completion of the election, the Regional Director issued and duly served a tally of ballots upon the parties concerned. The tally shows that the vote was distributed as follows : Number of eligible voters ----- --------------------------------- 82 Void ballots -------------------------------------------------- 0 Votes cast for Petitioner --------------------------------------- 39 Votes cast against Petitioner ----------------------------------- 38 Valid votes counted ------------------------------------------- 77 Challenged ballots --------- ------------------------------------ 1 Valid votes counted plus challenged ballots -- ------------------- 78 As the challenged ballot was determinative of the results of the election, the Regional Director, in accordance with Section 102.61 of the Rules and Regulations of the Board, made an investigation into the matter, and, on February 7, 1951, filed a report on challenges. In his report the Regional Director recommended that the challenged ballot be considered a void ballot, and that the tally of ballots be revised accordingly. On February 15, 1951, the Employer filed ex- ceptions to the Regional Director's report. Upon the basis of the entire record in this case, the Board makes the following findings of fact : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The Petitioner claims to represent certain employees of the Em- ployer. 93 NLRB No. 209. 943732-51-77 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation