Crucible Steel Co. of America

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 26, 1946

66 N.L.R.B. 1157 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

In the Matter of CRUCIBLE STEEL COMPANY OF AMERICA (ATHA
WORSE) and UNITED STEEL WORKERS OF AMERICA, C. I. O.
Case No. g2-C-5983.----Decided March 26,1916
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On January 18, 1946, the Trial Examinees issued their Intermediate
Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the respondent
had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices
and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report
attached hereto. Thereafter, the respondent filed exceptions to the
Intermediate Report and a supporting brief. No request for oral
argument before the Board at Washington, D. C., was made by any
of the parties and none was held.
The Board has reviewed the Trial Examiners' rulings made at the
hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the respondent's brief and exceptions and the entire
record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and
recommendations of the Trial Examiners.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that the respondent, Crucible Steel Company
of America (Atha Works), Harrison, New Jersey, and its officers,
agents, successors, and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with United Steel Workers
of America, C. I. 0., as the exclusive representative of all employees
in the Timekeeping Department of the Accounting Works Division
at the respondent's Atha Works, Harrison, New Jersey, including
working supervisors, but excluding the timekeeping department
supervisor, the assistant regional supervisors, and all other employees
66 N. L. R. B., No. 141.
1157
1158 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise
effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively recommend
such action;
(b) In any manner interfering with the efforts of United Steel
Workers of America, C. I. 0., to bargain collectively with it.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Upon request bargain collectively with United Steel Workers
of America, C. I. 0., as the exclusive representative of all its em-
ployees in the aforesaid appropriate unit, in respect to rates of pay,
wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment;
(b) Post at its Atha plant at Harrison, New Jersey, copies of the
notice attached to the Intermediate Report, marked "Apendix A." I
Copies of said notice to be furnished by the Regional Director for the
Second Region, shall, after being duly signed by the respondent's
representative, be posted by the respondent immediately upon receipt
thereof and maintained by it for sixty (60) consecutive days there-
after in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to em-
ployees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by
the respondent to insure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material;
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Second Region in writing,
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the
respondent has taken to comply herewith.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Mr. Jerome I. Macht, for the Board.
Reed, Smith, Shaw & McClay, by Mr. Seward H. French , Jr., of Pittsburgh,
Pa., and Mr. W. L. Christon, of New York, N. Y., for the respondent.
Rothbard , Harris & Oxfeld, by Mr. Emil Oxfeld, of New York, N. Y., for the
Union.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a charge duly filed by United Steel Workers of America, C. I. 0., herein
called the Union ,' the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board,
by its Regional Director for the Second Region (New York, New York), issued
its complaint dated December 10, 1945, against Crucible Steel Company of
America (Atha Works), herein called the respondent , alleging that the respond-
ent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and ( 5) and Section 2 (6) and (7)
of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. Copies
of the complaint accompanied by notice of hearing thereon were duly served
upon the respondent and the Union.
i Said notice, however, shall be, and it hereby is, amended by striking from the first
paragraph thereof the words "Recommendations of a Trial Examiner" and substituting
in lieu thereof the words "A Decision and Order."
CRUCIBLE STEEL COMPANY OF AMERICA 1159
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleged in sub-
stance that the respondent on or about July 30, 1945, and at all times thereafter
refused to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive bargaining
representative of the respondent's employees within an appropriate bargaining
unit, although a majority of the employees in such unit, in an election con-
ducted under the supervision of the Board on July 6, 1945, had designated and
selected the Union as their representative for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining, thereby interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in
the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act. The respondent
thereafter filed its answer in which it admitted that it had on or about July
30, 1945, and at all times thereafter refused to bargain collectively with the
Union as the exclusive representative of the employees in the unit described
in the complaint, although a majority of the employees in said unit had desig-
nated and selected the Union as their representative for the purposes of collec-
tive bargaining. The respondent denied, however, that such unit was appro-
priate for the purposes of collective bargaining, or that the designation of the
Union resulted in its being the representative of the employees in such unit for
the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of the Act. The
respondent further denied that it had engaged in any unfair labor practices
within the meaning of the Act.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on January 7, 1946, at New York
City before the undersigned, the Trial Examiners duly designated by the
Chief Trial Examiner. The Board, the respondent, and the Union were rep-
resented at the hearing by counsel. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine
and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues
was afforded all parties. At the close of the Board's case, motion of counsel
for the Board to conform the pleadings to the proof was granted without
objection. At the close of the hearing, the respondent and the Board argued
orally before the undersigned and the respondent subsequently filed a brief.
Upon the entire record in the case, and from their observation of the single
witness at the hearing, the undersigned make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Crucible Steel Company of America, a New Jersey corporation, operates
plants at Midland, Pittsburgh, and McKees Rock, Pennsylvania, Syracuse,
New York, and Harrison and Jersey City, New Jersey. This proceeding relates
solely to the Harrison plant, called the Atha Works. During the year ending
November 30, 1945, respondent used raw materials at its Atha Works plant
valued in excess of one million dollars, of which approximately 90 percent was
shipped from points outside the State of New Jersey. During that same period,
approximately 90 percent of the products manufactured at the Atha Works
plant, valued in excess of one million dollars, was shipped to points outside
the State of New Jersey.
At the hearing the respondent conceded that it was engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the Act and was subject to the jurisdiction of the Board
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
United Steel Workers of America, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial
Organizations, is a labor organization admitting to membership employees of
the respondent.
1160 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The refusal to bargain
1. The appropriate unit and representation by the Union of a majority therein
On June 7, 1945, the Board issued a Decision and Direction of Election in
Case No. 2-R-5453' finding that all employees in the Timekeeping Department
of the Accounting Works Division of the respondent's Atha Works, Harrison,
New Jersey, including working supervisors, but excluding the timekeeping
department supervisor, the assistant regional supervisors, and all other
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.
On July 6, 1945, pursuant to said Direction of Election, an election by secret
ballot was conducted under the supervision of the Regional Director for the
Second Region .2 On July 17, 1945, the Board certified the Union as the exclu-
sive representative, for the purposes of collective bargaining, of the employees
in the unit hereinabove described.
The respondent contends, as it did at the representation proceeding, that
the unit as found by the Board was not an appropriate unit, but that the
only appropriate unit should consist of all clerical employees in the accounting
works division, including timekeepers. This contention was considered by
the Board in the previous representation proceeding and was resolved against
the views of the respondent. No new evidence was presented at this hearing
which would bear upon this issue. Accordingly, we see no reason to examine
this contention or the evidence in the representation proceeding de novo,' and
we find, in accordance with the Board's previous determination, that all
employees in the Timekeeping Department of the Accounting Works Division
at the respondent's Atha Works, Harrison, New Jersey, including working
supervisors, but excluding the timekeeping department supervisor, the assistant
regional supervisors, and all other 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. The undersigned further find that on and at all times after July 6, 1945,
the Union was the duly designated bargaining representative of a majority of
the employees in the aforesaid bargaining unit and that, pursuant to the
provisions of Section 9 (a) of the Act, the Union was on July 6, 1945, and
at all times thereafter has been the exclusive representative of all employees
in the aforesaid unit for the purposes of collective bargaining with respect to
rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment
2. The refusal to bargain
-On July 19, 1045, the Union wrote to the respondent requesting a meeting
"for the purpose of discussing Wages, Hours, and Working Conditions to cover
1 62 N L. R B 186.
2 The tally of ballots showed that of approximately 68 eligible voters, 47 cast valid
votes, of which 43 were for the Union and 4 against
8 Matter of Swift i Co, 63 N. L. R B. 718
CRUCIBLE STEEL COMPANY OF AMERICA 1161
the Timekeepers at the Atha plant." The respondent replied on July 30, 1945,
stating that it believed the Board's decision in the representation proceeding
was "wholly wrong and inconsistent * * * with the intent, purpose, and
spirit of the National Labor Relations Act." The letter further stated as
follows : "It is our intention, therefore, to contest the decision of the Board,
and this Company will not recognize your Union for the purpose of collective
bargaining with respect to the Timekeepers at the Atha plant, unless directed
to do so by the court of last resort."
At the hearing the respondent admitted its refusal to bargain with the
Union. contending that it was not obligated to do so since the Board decision
in the representation proceeding was erroneous. It is clear that the respond-
ent's conduct constituted a refusal to bargain and the undersigned so find.
At the hearing, the respondent introduced evidence to the effect that after
August 14, 1945, popularly known as V-J Day, the operations of the respondent
at its Atha Works declined, resulting in considerable contraction in the compo-
sition of the appropriate unit. It is clear, however, that the respondent's
refusal to bargain took place prior to this contraction and was in no way
based upon this contraction either as a present or prospective consideration.
Accordingly, we do not discuss its possible legal effect here, but will defer such
discussion to the section on remedy.
The undersigned find that the respondent on July 30, 1945, and at all times
thereafter, has refused to bargain collectively with the Union as the exclusive
representative of its employees in an appropriate unit and has thereby inter-
fered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The undersigned find that the activities of the respondent set forth in Section
III, above, occurring in connection with the operations of the respondent
described in Section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation
to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tend to lead to
labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of
commerce
V. THE REMEDY
Since it has been found that the respondent has engaged in unfair labor
practices it will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act.
As stated above, the respondent at the hearing introduced evidence to the
effect that curtailment of operations since V-J Day had resulted in a sharp
contraction of the appropriate unit. The evidence showed that there were 68
employees in the appropriate unit at the time of the election before the Board
and that it was expected that this number would be reduced to 4' as of
January 11, 1946.' It was the position of the respondent that this contraction
4 The testimony of the respondent's witness was that there would be 31 employees
within the appropriate unit as of that date. He explained that he meant by this that
one employee would work on timekeeping part time and part time on an addressograph
machine. He stated, however, that this employee would be considered in the timekeeping
department She should therefore be included within the appropriate unit as found by
the Board in the representation proceeding.
' At the time of the hearing there were eight employees in the unit . The respondent's
witness could only speculate as to whether or not the operations of the plant might
further decrease after January, or whether they might increase after that date.
1162 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
in some way presented an entirely different situation from that present at the
time of the election and that in consequence the case should be reopened and
a new election held. We find no merit in this contention. There is no evidence
here that the duties of the employees have in any way changed or that any
factors have developed which should require a different finding as to the appro-
priate unit.
Further, assuming for purposes of argument, that this record contained evi-
dence as to a loss of majority by the Union as a result of the contraction of
operations, since such loss would have occurred after the refusal to bargain,
such evidence would not alter our conclusion here. But here there is no
evidence showing that the Union has lost its majority within the appropriate
unit. We do not deem that a mere contraction of the unit raises a presumption
of a loss of majority. If such a presumption were drawn or if there were
an actual showing of loss of majority, it would, moreover, require speculation
as to the causes for the loss of the majority. Indeed, it may be that the
picture today would be entirely changed if the respondent had met and bar-
gained with the Union and conceivably come to some agreement as to the
procedure for the laying off of employees within the appropriate unit or as
to the establishment of a preferential list for reemployment for these employees
laid off. All of these questions are speculative and impossible of determination
at this stage. Accordingly, we see no reason to depart from the standard
practice of the Board, as sustained by the Supreme Court of the United States,
to order the respondent to bargain collectively where it has found that the
respondent has refused to bargain with the Union representing a majority
at the time the unfair labor practice was committed' We will accordingly
recommend that the respondent upon request bargain collectively with the
Union as the exclusive representative of Its employees in the appropriate unit
as found.
Because of the basis of the respondent's refusal to bargain, as indicated in
the facts found, and because of the absence of any evidence that danger of
other unfair labor practices is to be anticipated from the respondent's conduct
in the past, we shall not recommend that the respondent cease and desist
from the commission of any other unfair labor practices. Nevertheless, in
order to effectuate the policies of the Act, we shall recommend that the respond-
ent cease and desist from the unfair labor practices found and from in any
manner interfering with the efforts of the Union to bargain collectively with it.,
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record in
the case, the undersigned make the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. United Steel Workers of America, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial
Organizations, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5)
of the Act.
2. All employees in the Timekeeping Department of the Accounting Works
Division at the respondent's Atha Works, Harrison, New Jersey, including
working supervisors, but excluding the timekeeping department supervisor,
the assistant regional supervisors, and all other employees with authority to
hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status
• Matter of Franks Bros. Company , 44 N. L. R. B. 898 , aff'd 321 U. S. 702.
7 See N. L. R. B. v. Empress Pablashing Company. 312 U. S. 426; May Department
Stores Co. v. N. I,. B. B., 326 U. S. 376,
CRUCIBLE STEEL COMPANY OF AMERICA 1163
of employees, or effectively recommend such action, constitute a unit appro-
priate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section
9 (b) of the Act.
3. United Steel Workers of America, C. I. 0., was on July 6, 1945, and at
all times thereafter has been the exclusive representative of all employees in
the aforesaid unit for the purposes of collective bargaining, within the meaning
of Section 9 (a) of the Act.
4. By refusing on July 30. 1945, and at all times thereafter to bargain
collectively with United Steel Workers of America, C. I. 0., as the exclusive
representative of all its employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit, respondent
has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning
of Section 8 (5) of the Act.
5. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exer-
cise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the respondent has
engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of
Section 8 (1) of the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law and upon
the entire record in the case, the undersigned recommend that the respondent,
Crucible Steel Company of America, Atha Works, Harrison, New Jersey, and
its officers, agents, and assigns shall:
1. Cease and desist from-
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with United Steel Workers of America,
C. I. 0., as the exclusive representative of all employees in the Timekeeping
Department of the Accounting Works Division at the respondent's Atha Works,
Harrison, New Jersey, including working supervisors, but excluding the time-
keeping department supervisor, the assistant regional supervisors, and all other
employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise
effect changes in the status of employees , or effectively recommend such action ;
(b) In any manner interfering with the efforts of United Steel Workers of
America, C. I. 0, to bargain collectively with it.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the undersigned find will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Upon request bargain collectively with United Steel Workers of America,
C. I. 0., as the exclusive representative of all its employees in the aforesaid
appropriate unit;
(b) Post at its Atha plant at Harrison, New Jersey, copies of the notice
attached to the Intermediate Report herein, marked "Appendix A." Copies
of said notice to be furnished by the Regional Director for the Second Region,
shall, after being duly signed by the respondent's representative, be posted by
the respondent immediately upon receipt thereof and maintained by it for
sixty (60) consecutive days thereafter in conspicuous places, including all
places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps
shall be taken by the respondent to insure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material ;
(c) File with the Regional Director for the Second Region on or before
ten (10) days from the date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report, a
report in writing setting forth in detail the manner and form in which the
respondent has complied with the foregoing recommendations.
1164 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
It is further recommended that unless on or before ten (10) days from the
receipt of this Intermediate Report the respondent notifies said Regional Direc-
tor in writing that he has complied with the foregoing recommendations, the
National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring the respondent to take
the action aforesaid
As provided in Section 33 of Article 11 of the Rules and Regulations of
the National Labor Relations Board, Series 3, as amended, effective November
27, 1945, any party or counsel for the Board may within fifteen (15) days
from the date of the entry of the order transferring the case to the Board.
pursuant to Section 32 of Article II of said Rules and Regulations file with
the Board, Rochambeau Building, Washington 25, D. C, an original and four
copies of a statement in writing setting forth such exceptions to the Inter-
mediate Report or to any other part of the record or proceeding (including
rulings upon all motions or objections) as he relies upon, together with the
original and four copies of a briet in support thereof . Immediately upon the
filing of such statement of exceptions and/or brief, the party or counsel for
the Board filing the same shall serve a 'copy thereof upon each of the other
parties and shall file a copy with the Regional Director. As further provided
in said Section 33, should any party desire permission to argue orally before
the Board, request therefor must be made in writing within ten (10) days
from the date of the order transferring the case to the Board.
J. R. HEMINGWAI,
DAVID REIN,
Trial Framiners.
Dated January 18, 1946
APPENDIX A
NOTICE To ALL EMII'IOVEES PURSUANT TO THE RECe A i A(ENDATIONS OF
TRIAL EXAMINERS
of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies
of the National Labor Relations Act, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL NOT in any manner interfere with the efforts of United Steel
Workers of America, C. 1. 0., to bargain collectively with us
WE WILL BARGAIN colle+tively upon request with the above-named
union as the exclusive representative of all employees in the bargaining
unit described herein with respect to rates of pay, hours of employment
or other conditions of employment, and if an understanding is reached,
embody such understanding in a signed agreement. The bargaining unit is:
All employees in the Timekeeping Department of the Accounting Works
Division at the Atha Works (Harrison, New Jersey ), including working
supervisors, but excluding the timekeeping department supervisor, the
assistant regional supervisors and all other employees with authority to
hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the
status of employees, or effectively recommend such action.
CRUCIBT.E STEEL CO. OF AJIERICA,
Employer.
Dated. . .. By . ........ ..........................
(I:epresentative ) ( Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof, and must
pot he altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.