Crucible Steel Co. of America

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 14, 1945

62 N.L.R.B. 1294 (N.L.R.B. 1945)

In the Matter Of CRUCIBLE STEEL COMPANY OF AMERICA, ATHA WORKS
and UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO
Case No. 2-R-5302.-Decoded July 14, 1945
Reed, Smith, Shaw & McClay, by Mr. Seward H. French, Jr., of Pitts-
burgh, Pa., for the Company.
Rothbard & Talisman, by Mr. Bernard Cherny, of Newark, N J , for
the Union.
Mr. Bernard Goldberg, of counsel to the Board
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a petition duly filed by United Steelworkers of America, CIO,
herein called the Union, alleging that a question affecting commerce had
arisen concerning the representation of employees of Crucible Steel Com-
pany of. America, Atha Works, Harrison, New Jersey, herein called the
Company, the National Labor Relations Board provided for an appropriate
hearing upon due notice before Jerome I. Macht, Trial Examiner Said.
hearing was held at Newark, New Jersey, and New York City on April
12, 17, 18, and 25, 1945. The Company and the Union appeared and par-
ticipated. 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 reserved for the Board a ruling on the Com-
pany's motion to dismiss the petition. For reasons stated hereinafter, the
said motion is hereby denied. 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 :
62 N. L. R. B., No. 175. ,
1294
CRUCIBLE STEEL COMPANY OF AMERICA
FINDINGS OF FACT
O
1295
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Crucible Steel Company is a New Jersey corporation engaged in the
manufacture, sale, and distribution of steel products. It operates several
plants in the eastern part of the United States, including the plant at
Harrison, New Jersey, which is the subject of the present proceeding
During the past year, the Company purchased for use in its manufacturing
operations at the Harrison plant materials valued in excess of $1,000,000,
of which approximately 90 percent originated outside the State of New
Jersey. During the same period, the Company sold finished products from
the Harrison plant valued at more than $1,000,000, of which 90 percent
was shipped to points outside the State.
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 Indus-
trial Organizations, is a labor organization admitting to membership em-
ployees of the Company.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Company has refused to accord recognition to the Union as the
collective bargaining representative of its guards on the ground that the
latter are not employees within the meaning of the Act.
A statement of a Board agent, introduced into evidence at the hearing,
indicates that the Union represents a substantial number of employees in
the unit hereinafter found appropriate.'
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the
representation of employees of the Company, within the meaning of Sec-
tion 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Union seeks a unit of guards , including sergeants , but excluding
lieutenants and the captain . The Company contends that the guards are
not employees within the meaning of the Act but are managerial representa-
tives and therefore should not be a part of any bargaining unit . The Com-
pany also asserts that sergeants are supervisory employees and should not;
in any event , be included in the proposed unit.
The guards are militarized and perform the duties customary to their
1 The Field Examiner reported that the Union submitted 58 application -authorization cards; that
the names on all the cards appeared on the Company 's January 24, 1945, pay roll, containing the
names of 83 employees in the appropriate unit; and that the cards were dated as follows: 2 in Janu-
ary 1944, 1 in December 1944 , 45 in January 1945, and 10 were undated
1296 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
position, they protect plant property, check on persons and vehicles enter-
ing and leaving the plant, and enforce company rules and regulations. In
the fulfillment of the latter duty, the guards are expected to file written
reports of such rule infractions by production and maintenance employee',
as gambling, loafing, sleeping on the job, manufacturing personal articles
on company time, drunkenness, disorderly conduct, and stopping work
prematurely. The written reports, factual and non-recommendatory in
nature, are turned over to supervisory'and executive officials for appropri-
ate disciplinary action.
In support of its argument that the guards are not employees within the
meaning of the Act, the Company contends that the reports by the guards
are an integral part of its disciplinary procedures and that the individuals
making these reports are as much a part of management as are supervisors.
We do not agree. While the duties performed by the guards are no doubt
important from the viewpoint of maintaining discipline in the plant, they
are essentially monitorial rather than supervisory in nature. The guards
detect and report violations but the decision as to disciplinary measures
are made by admitted supervisory personnel without consultation with, or
the recommendation of, the guards. We have previously considered the
status of guards with duties similar to those involved in the instant proceed-
ing and have uniformly held that such guards are employees within the
meaning of the Act and are not managerial representatives.
The Company, in further support of its position, asserts that, since the
Union is at present the collective bargaining representative of the produc-
tion and maintenance employees, membership in the same parent organiza-
tion will create such a conflict in loyalties as to result inevitably in a decline
in the efficiency of guards, regardless of whether the guards are organized
in a separate local or in the same local with production and maintenance
employees as the Union contemplates in the instant case. It relies in this
connection on the evidence in the record of a sharp decline in the number
of reports of rule infractions made by the guards since the start of the
Union's organizational campaign among them in November 1944. The
Union has submitted evidence challenging the imputation which the Com-
pany ascribes to the decline in the number of reports. In our opinion, the
evidence does not warrant the conclusion that either the unionization of
the guards was the causative factor in this decline or that the decline itself
reflects any dereliction of duty on the part of the guards. Moreover, we
have frequently held that there is no incompatibility between union organi-
zation of guards, even by the same union which represents production and
maintenance employees, and their efficient, faithful performance of duty.'
2 Matter of Standard Steel Spr ing Company, 62 N L R B 660, Matter of B F Goodrich Coon-
pany, 62 N L . R. B 206 , Matter of Bethlehem Steel Company , 61 N. L R B 892 , Matter of
Drava Corporation , 52 N. L R. B 322
3 Matter of Standard Steel Company , supra, and cases cited therein.
CRUCIBLE STEEL COMPANY Or AMERICA 1297
In answer to the contention made by employers that the unionization of
guards would result in a reluctance to report rule infractions by production
and maintenance employees, we have stated, as we do here, that the remedy
lies, as in the case of other employees, in the normal disciplinary authority
of the employer and not in a deprivation of the employees' rights under the
Act.' On all the facts, we conclude that the guards are employees within
the meaning of the Act.
In accordance with our policy with respect to militarized guards, we shall
place them in a separate bargaining unit. We note that the Union has indi-
cated that, because of economic reasons, it does not contemplate establishing
a separate local for the guards but instead will amalgamate them with the
production and maintenance employees in the local now representing the
latter but that provision will be made for keeping the two groups separate
and apart. We contemplate that the separation of the bargaining units in
their negotiations with the Company and their clay-to-clay activities will
be one of fact, not merely form, and shall be reflected in all bargaining
between the Company and any duly designated bargaining representative.
The sergeants direct the activities of guards, interview applicants for
guard positions and make recommendations for their appointment or rejec-
tion which are usually followed ; they also participate, together with the
captain and lieutenants, in imposing disciplinary penalties on the guards.
We are of the opinion that the sergeants are supervisory employees within
the Board's customary definition and we shall, therefore, exclude them from
the unit.`
We find that all militarized guards at the Cognpany's Atha Works,
excluding sergeants, lieutenants, captains, and all other supervisory employ-
ees 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 question concerning representation which has
arisen be resolved by an election by secret ballot among the employees in
the appropriate unit who were employed during the pay-roll period immedi-
ately preceding the date of the Direction of Election herein, subject to the
limitations and additions set forth in the Direction.
{ Matter of D;avo Corporation, supra, Matter of Bethlehem Steel Company, supra, Matter of
Chrysler Corporation, 44 N L R B , 881
, Sergeants aie excluded from a similar guard unit at the Syracuse plant of the Company.
1298 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL. LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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 3, as amended, it is hereby
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representatives
for the purposes of collective bargaining with Crucible Steel Company of
America, Atha Works, Harrison, New Jersey, 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 Second Region, acting in this matter as agent
for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject to Article III, Sec-
tions 10 and 11, of said Rules and Regulations, 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, includ-
ing 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-
tion, to determine whether or not they desire to be represented by United
Steelworkers of America, CIO, for the purposes of collective bargaining.
CHAIRMAN HERZOG took no part in the consideration of the above Deci-
sion and Direction of Election.