Crucible Steel Castings Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 10, 1950

90 N.L.R.B. 1843 (N.L.R.B. 1950)

In the Matter of CRUCIBLE STEEL CASTINGS COMPANY, EMPLOYER and
INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT & AGRICUL-
TURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA (CIO), PETITIONER
Case No. 8-RC-795.-Decided August 10, 1950
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Philip Fusco, hearing officer.
The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
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 Petitioner and International Molders R Foundry Workers
Union of North America, Local No. 218, herein called the Intervenor,
are labor organizations claiming to represent employees of the
Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9
(c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The appropriate unit :
The Petitioner requests a unit consisting of all the Employer's pro-
duction and maintenance employees excluding office and clerical em-
ployees, professional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in
the Act. The Employer and Intervenor do not contest the composition
of this unit but contend that the only appropriate unit is a multiple-
employer unit including employees of the 11 members of the Foundry
Employers' Negotiating Committee pf Cleveland, Ohio, herein called
the Committee.
Since 1943, the Committee, of whom the Employer, a foundry opera-
tor, is a member, has entered into successive collective bargaining
contracts with the Intervenor on behalf of all 11 employer-members,
covering all employees of these employers who are members of the
Intervenor.
The latest contract, signed in May 1947, states :
The Committee recognizes the International Molders and
Foundry Workers' Union of North America as the exclusive
90 NLRB No. 244.
1843
1844 DECISIONS ' OF NATIONA^ LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
representative for the purposes of collective bargaining in matters
pertaining to wages, hours, and working conditions for all mem-.
bers of the Union who are foundry employees of the respective
companies named. above. These members are designated "em-
ployees" hereinafter in this contract.
The latest contract, as in the case of previous contracts, requires gen-
erally that all employees included within its terms, as a condition of
employment, must become and remain members in good standing of the
Intervenor.' This union-security provision has been enforced.
Prior to 1943, and for a period of about 50 years, the Intervenor
bargained on a multiple-employer basis for units limited to molders,
coremakers, and apprentices. Before 1941 all agreements were oral;
since that time the parties have entered into formal written agree-
ments. The record establishes, however, that this bargaining like
the broader bargaining since 1943, has for the most part been on a
members-only basis.
The Petitioner recognizes the usual Board policy of not severing
single-employer units in the face of a sustained bargaining history on
a multiple-employer basis.2 However, the Petitioner argues that the
bargaining history in this case should not be deemed controlling be-
cause it has been on a members-only basis.' We find merit in the
Petitioner's argument.
That the history of multiple-employer bargaining in this case has
been on a members-only basis is established from the facts set forth
above. Although the Board has sometimes accepted'a members-only
contract as indicative of the feasibility of the scope of the unit,' tra-
ditionally the Board has refused to give controlling weight to such a.
bargaining history, for such history does not afford the kind of rep-
resentation nor establish such a bargaining unit as the Act contem-
plates.5 In particular, it has been our policy not to permit such
history to preclude the establishment of a unit such as the one involved
herein, which is inherently appropriate.6 It is true that in the instant
case the existence of contract proJJisions requiring employees to become
I The contract in question is not urged in bar , and we therefore . do not determine
whether this provision is lawful under the provisions of the amended Act.
2 Associated Shoe Industries of Southeastern Massachusetts , Iuc., et al., 81 NLRB 224.
3 The Petitioner also claims that the unit it requests is substantially different from that
for which the Intervenor has been bargaining and also argues that the union-security
clause in the contract, which has been illegal for the past year, renders ineffective all past
bargaining history. In view of our direction of an election in this case , we find it unnec-
essary to determine the merits of these contentions.'
4 Tennessee Coal, Iron and Railroad Company, 39 NLRB 617, cited by our dissenting
colleague.
6 See Kansas Power'and Ligrt Company , 64 NLRB 915, 918.
6 Richfield Oil Corporation , 59 NLRB 1554, distinguishing . Tennessee Coal, Iron and
Railroad Company, supra.
CRUCIBLE STEEL CAS,TING'S COMPANY 1845
members of the Intervenor may have had the practical result of
achieving representation for all employees involved. However, we do
not regard that fact as sufficient to compensate for. the absence of
exclusive recognition.7 Under all the circumstances, therefore, we
conclude that the bargaining history involved herein is not controlling.
A controlling bargaining history is a prerequisite to a finding that
only a multiple-employer unit is appropriate. This is so despite the
fact that the employers, as here, otherwise indicate their intention to
be bound by group rather than individual action in collective bar-
gaining.8 We therefore conclude that a realistic appraisal of the
facts together with Board precedents requires a finding that the
single-employer unit sought by the Petitioner is appropriate.
.
Accordingly, we find that the following employees of the Employer
herein constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act : All
production and maintenance employees including truck drivers, jani-
tors, yardmen, expediters in production manager's office and pattern
chasers, but excluding all office and clerical employees, chemists,
metallurgists , engineering trainees, clericals in pattern storage, pat-
tern makers, clerks in. production manager's office, foremen and
assistant foremen; watchmen-janitors, guards, professional employees,
and supervisors as defined in the Act.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION 9
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
purposes of collective bargaining with the Employer, an election by
secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than
30 days from the date of this Direction, under the direction and
supervision of the Regional Director for the Region in which this
case was heard, and subject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62 of National
Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, among the employees
in the unit found appropriate in paragraph numbered 4, above, who
were employed during the payroll period immediately preceding the
date of this Direction of Election, including employees who did not
work during said payroll period because they were ill or on vacation
or temporarily laid off, but excluding those employees who have since
' Contrary to the view apparently taken by our dissenting colleague , the case of The
Narragansett Electric Company , 64 NLRB 1492 , which he cites . is not at variance with
the position here taken . In that case , the agreement contained , in addition to a provision
requiring all permanent employees to be members of the Brotherhood , a further provision
that the "Brotherhood is hereby recognized as the exclusive representative of all the
employees in each department of the Company."
L. C. Beauchamp , 87 NLRB 23 ; Fehr Baking Company , 89 ULRB 1401.
9Either participant in the election directed herein may , upon its prompt -request to, and
approval thereof by , the .Regional Director, have its name removed from the ballot.
1846 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL -LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
quit or been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or re-
instated prior to the date. of the election, and also excluding em-
ployees on strike who are not entitled to reinstatement, to determine
whether they desire to be represented, for purposes of collective
bargaining by International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft &
Agricultural Implement Workers of America (CIO), by Interna-
tional Molders & Foundry Workers Union of North America, Local
No. 218, or by neither.
CHAIRMAN HERZOG and MEMBER STYLES took no part in the con-
sideration of the above Decision and Direction of Election.
MEMBER MURDOCK, dissenting:
I would dismiss the petition in this case, on the ground that the long
history of collective bargaining between the Intervenor and the Com-
mittee 10 has established an appropriate multiple-employer unit. It
is true that the written contracts, ' at least since 1946 have contained
a recognition clause which, literally construed, restricts the "unit"
to members of the Intervenor. But when this clause is read in its en-
entirety, and in conjunction with the union-security provisions, quoted
below 11 the latest contract defined with sufficient clarity a bargaining
unit 12 for. which the Intervenor is recognized as the exclusive repre-
sentative. There is no doubt in my mind that this contract is intended
to cover all employees-not merely those who happen to be members
of the, Intervenor-within certain foundry classifications. In fact,
the contract contains a requirement, wholly incompatible with a true
ro The record shows that this bargaining has covered ' the Employer 's molders, core-
makers, and apprentices since 1913 . Nonjourneymen foundry employees of this Employer
and other members of the Committee have been covered by the negotiations since 1943.
" The three paragraphs in question are as follows :
The Committee recognizes the International Molders' and Foundry Workers' Union
of North America as exclusive representative for the purpose of collective bargaining
in matters pertaining to hours, wages and working conditions for all members of the
Union who are foundry employees in the respective companies named above. These
members are designated "employees" hereinafter in this Contract . Foremen, watch-
men, those engaged in supervisory and clerical capacities , workers in machine, pattern,
and forge shops , maintenance men not members of the Union , and men belonging to
other labor organizations are not included in this Contract.
All employees included in this Agreement as a condition of employment must, during
the life of this Contract , remain members in good standing of the International
Molders' and Foundry Workers ' Union of North America.
Molders and coremakers must be members of the Union before hiring . Miscellaneous
employees, not members - of the Union , need not become members until thirty (30)
days after they are employed . The Union agrees to accept them into membership
upon payment of the customary initiation fees and tender of dues. The Union fur-
ther agrees to accept any qualified workman for membership.
"Consisting of 'all foundry employees of all the employers in the Committee group,
excepting only certain craft groups which are represented by other unions. The record
indicates that for convenience , the parties described these excluded crafts in their contracts
as "men belonging to other labor organizations."
CRUCIBLE STEEL CASTINGS COMPANY 1847
"members-only" scheme of representation, that all molders and core-
makers must be members of the Intervenor as a condition of employ-
ment. And "miscellaneous employees, not members of the Union"
(emphasis supplied) are evidently required under the terms of the
contract to join the Intervenor after 30 days of employment. To give
literal effect to the so-called "members-only" recognition provision
in the face of these union-security requirements seems to me completely
unrealistic 13 I therefore believe that we should accord no less
weight to the bargaining history in the case than as if there had been
a series of conventionally phrased exclusive contracts. Of course, the
union-security provisions in the most recent contract between the
Intervenor and the Committee are now apparently illegal, but that
circumstance surely does not affect the unit issue.
This Employer's molders and coremakers have been represented on
a multiple-employer basis for nearly 40 years; the miscellaneous
foundry employees have been covered by the same contracts for the
past 7 years. Even if I were to concede that these contracts have not,
in fact, been exclusive contracts, I would still maintain that the long
course of multiple-employer negotiation proves that any bargaining
unit for the Employer's' foundry workers should be Committee-wide
in scope.Y4 I believe that the majority's determination in this case
discounts an impressive record of stable collective bargaining relation-
ships, on the basis of an erroneous and hypertechnical appraisal of
the material facts.
73 See Narragansett Electric Company, 64 NLRB 1492.
14 See Tennessee Coal, Iron and Railroad Company, 39 NLRB 617 , 624. In that leading
case, which involved the issue of craft severance in a basic steel plant , the Board gave
great weight to a history of "members -only" bargaining in determining that an industrial
unit had been established and should be preserved.