Decatur Iron & Steel Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 30, 1939

17 N.L.R.B. 1073 (N.L.R.B. 1939)

In the Matter of DECATUR IRON & STEEL Co. and STEEL WORKERS
ORGANIZING COMMITTEE ON BEHALF OF AMALGAMATED ASSOCIATION
OF IRON, STEEL AND TIN WORKERS OF NORTH AMERICA
Case No. C-1286.-Decided November 30, 1939.
Iron and Steel Industry-Compromise Agreement: between respondent and
Regional Director, Union not a party thereto; charges of 8 (1) and 8 (3) to be
withdrawn in return for respondent's agreement to reinstate employee involved
upon application and to post notices of compliance ; refusal of Union and
complaining employee to consent to agreement resulted in it not being carried
out; respondent remains willing to comply with terms thereof; no evidence of
unfair labor practices subsequent to date of; given effect in order to effectuate
policies of the Act-Complaint : dismissed.
Mr: A-le&ander E..Wilson and Mr. Warren Woods, for=the Board.
Mr. John H. Peach, Mr. John. A. Caddell, and Mr. Charles H.
Eyster, all of Decatur, Ala., for the respondent.
Mr. Noel R. Beddow, of Birmingham, Ala., for the Union.
Mr. Leonard Lindquist, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon charges duly filed by Steel Workers Organizing Committee,
herein called the Union, on behalf of Amalgamated Association of
Iron,-. 'Steel' and Tin -Workers of -North America, .the, National, Labor
Relations Board, herein called the Board, by Charles N. Feidelson,
Regional Director for the Tenth Region_ (Atlanta, Georgia), issued
a complaint dated January 4, 1939, against Decatur Iron & Steel Co.,
herein called the respondent, alleging that the respondent had en-
gaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce, within the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) and Section 2
(6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein
called the Act.
The complaint alleged in substance that the respondent discharged
and refused to reinstate Walter Millican because he had joined and
assisted the-Union, and that by such discharge, and by other acts,
17 N. L. R. B., No. 107.
1073
1074 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the respondent, interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees
in the exercise of their rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.
Copies of the complaint, accompanied by notice of hearing, were
duly served upon the respondent and the Union. On January 9, 1939,
the respondent filed an answer denying that it had engaged in or was
engaging in the alleged unfair labor practices.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at Decatur, Alabama, on
January 23, 24, 25, and 26, 1939, before Charles E. Persons, the Trial
Examiner duly designated by the Board. Upon order of the Trial
Examiner, the hearing was reopened and further hearing held on
March 31, 1939. The Board and the respondent were represented
by counsel, and the Union by its executive director; all participated
in the hearing. 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 commencement of the hearing, the
respondent moved to strike paragraphs 4 and 7 of the complaint on
the -groundthat the allegations contained -therein were not based
upon any charges filed by the Union, and that the allegations were so
general that they did not give respondent any notice or information
upon which to base its defense. These motions were denied by the
Trial Examiner. At the close of the Board's- case, counsel for the
Board moved that the pleadings be conformed to the proof. This
motion was granted by the Trial Examiner. Over the objections
of counsel for the Board, the Trial Examiner received in evidence
certain exhibits and testimony offered by the respondent as proof
that a settlement of the unfair labor practice charges had been
concluded between it and the Regional Director before the com-
plaint' was issued. During the course of the hearing, the Trial
Examiner ruled on various motions and on objections to the admis-
sion of evidence in addition to those mentioned above. The Board
has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that
no prejudicial errors were committed. The rulings are hereby
affirmed.
On April 10, 1939, the respondent filed a brief which the Board
has considered. On May 12, 1939, the Trial Examiner filed an
Intermediate Report, copies of which were duly served upon all
parties, finding that the respondent had engaged in, and was
engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the
meaning of Section 8 (1) and (3) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the
Act, and recommending .that the respondent cease and desist from
such unfair labor practices and reinstate Millican with back pay.
The respondent thereafter filed exceptions to the Intermediate Re-
port, and a brief in support thereof.
DECATUR IRON & STEEL COMPANY 1075
Pursuant to notice duly, served on the parties, -a . hearing > for. the
purpose of oral argument was held before the Board October 12,
1939, at Washington, D. C. The respondent appeared by counsel
and participated in the hearing. No representative appeared for
the Union. In view of our disposition of the respondent's exceptions
relating to the alleged settlement of the unfair labor practice charges,
we find it unnecessary to consider the respondent's remaining
exceptions.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
Decatur Iron & Steel Co., an Alabama corporation , with its plant
and office located at Decatur, Alabama , is engaged in the production
of structural steel , ornamental metal , and prison equipment. It is
licensed to do business in Mississippi, Tennessee , and Louisiana.
The principal raw materials used by the respondent are steel bars,
shapes, plates, and sheets , approximately 30 per cent of which are
obtained from sources outside the State of Alabama. The value of
the products sold annually is $552,000 , and approximately 90 per cent
of. these products are shipped to destinations outside the State of
Alabama. At the time of the hearing , the respondent employed
approximately 142 workers.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Steel Workers Organizing Committee is a labor organization affili-
ated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations , admitting to
membership all employees engaged in the manufacturing processes
of the respondent other than supervisory employees . Amalgamated
Association of Iron, Steel and Tin Workers of North America,
represented by Steel Workers Organizing Committee , is a labor
organization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations.
III. THE AGREEMENT COMPROMISING THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
On July 25, 1938, the Regional Director, by written communication,
advised the respondent that he was in receipt of a charge filed by the
Union, alleging that on or about July 15, 1938, the respondent had
discharged Walter Millican because of his membership in the Union.
The respondent, in a letter to the Regional Director dated August 2,
1938, denied that it had engaged in the alleged unfair labor practice,
but concluded the letter by stating :
1076 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
* * * If you do not agree with us in this conclusion we
would, in order, to avoid the expense of a hearing, be willing
to take him back and give him work when it is available * * *
At the suggestion of the Regional Director, representatives of the
respondent met with him on October 5, 1938, at which time he repre-
sented that if the respondent would reemploy Millican and post
notices of compliance on forms which he agreed to furnish, the un-
fair labor practice charges would be dismissed. The Regional Di-
rector did not include back pay in the terms of this proposal for a
settlement, nor did he suggest that any compromise agreement con-
cluded between him and the respondent would be subject to the fur-
ther approval of the Union. At the end of the conference, he sug-
gested that the respondent's officials talk it over and inform him of
their decision. On the next day, the respondent telegraphed : "We
have concluded to accept your suggestion." On October 7, 1938, the
respondent sent the Regional Director the following letter :
We * * * agree as follows :
1. That we will put Walter W. Millican to work, without loss
of seniority, on the job formerly filled by him with our Company
upon application made by him, the employment to be under the
same terms and conditions as others are employed.
2. We will post on the bulletin board in our shop an expression
of our intention to comply with provisions of the National Labor
Relations Act.
It is our understanding that the charge against the Company
will be dismissed and not re-opened.
There is no evidence that the Regional Director objected to the
respondent's understanding of the terms of the agreement as ex-
pressed in the above letter. Subsequently, the Regional Director
referred the agreement to the Union and on its refusal to approve
the' settlement unless back pay was also awarded, he began negotia-
tions anew with the respondent in an attempt to reach a compromise
on the back-pay question. The respondent, however, claimed that a
final settlement had been concluded as a result of the October 5, 1938,
conference, and relying on its understanding of the terms thereof, it
refused to compromise further on the issue of back pay. Negotia-
tions thereafter terminated, and the Regional Director failed to fur-
nish the respondent with the notices for posting. Millican applied
for reinstatement a few days before the complaint was issued and at
that time refused to fill out an application as required by the re-
spondent's rules, although he was assured that such application
would not affect his seniority status. As a result, the respondent did
DECATUR IRON & STEEL COMPANY 1077
not reinstate Millican, and he has not applied for reemployment since
that date.
It is apparent from the foregoing, and we find, that as a result
of the representations made by the Regional Director at the confer-
ence of October 5, 1938, the respondent entered into a compromise
agreement with him for the settlement of the unfair labor practice
charges. The respondent defined what it understood to be the terms
of that agreement in its letter to the Regional Director of October
7, 1938, which was referred to above. There is no evidence that
the Regional Director objected to the respondent's understanding of
the agreement as expressed in that letter, and we accept the terms
specified therein as a correct statement of the understanding reached
between the two parties.
Although the Regional Director may have intended that the agree-
ment be subject to the further approval of the Union, there is no
evidence that the respondent had notice of such intention at the time
it accepted the offer for a settlement. The Regional Director's fail-
ure to supply the respondent with the notices of compliance which
he had agreed to furnish resulted in the notices not being posted in
keeping with the understanding reached between the parties. Ac-
cording to the agreement, Millican was to be reinstated "upon
application made by him." Millican applied for reinstatement, but
as noted above, he refused to fill out an application blank as required
by the respondent's rules; hence he was not put back to work. In
view of the fact that Millican was assured of reinstatement without
loss of seniority upon his filling out the application; we find that
the respondent did not substantially vary the terms of the agreement
by conditioning its reemployment of Millican in this manner. There
is no evidence that the respondent engaged in any unfair labor prac-
tices subsequent to the date of the agreement.
At the oral argument before the Board, counsel for the respondent
requested that the agreement be carried out, and represented that the
respondent remained willing to fulfill its obligations thereunder. As
we have heretofore stated, a settlement of an unfair labor practice
charge even though participated in by the Board' s agents does not
preclude the Board from proceeding to a determination of such
charge. Nevertheless, effective administration of the Act requires
that the Board's agents have the respect and confidence of parties
with whom they negotiate. Repudiation by the Board of agree-
ments entered into in good faith and in reliance upon the representa-
tions of its agents would necessarily impair such respect and confi-
dence. In the case before us, we believe that the policies of the Act
will best be effectuated by giving effect to the agreement made be-
1078 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tween the respondent and the. Regional Director.' The complaint,
therefore, will be dismissed.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of . fact and upon the
entire record in the case, the Board makes the,following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The operations of Decatur Iron & Steel Co. constitute a con-
tinuous flow of trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States,
within the meaning of Section 2 (6) of the Act.
2. Steel Workers Organizing Committee and Amalgamated Asso-
ciation of Iron, Steel and Tin Workers of North America are labor
organizations within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law,
and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations
Act, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the
complaint be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
1 Cf. Matter of Shenandoah -Dives Mining Company and International Union of Mine, Mill
d Smelter Workers, Local No. 26, 11 N. L. R. B. 885; Matter of Godchaux Sugars, Inc. and
Sugar Mill Workers' Union, Locals No. 21177 and No. 2188 Affiliated with the American Fed-
eration of Labor, 12 N. L. R. B . 568; Matter of Hope Webbing Company and Textile Work-
ers Organizing Committee of the C. I. 0., Local 14 , 14 N. L. R. B. 55.