General Steel Castings Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 8, 1954

110 N.L.R.B. 1253 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

GENERAL STEEL CASTINGS CORPORATION 1253
purchasers, under the Jonesboro "indirect outflow" standard, I note
that the majority have failed to make such declaration. The public
should be informed of the interpretation which my colleagues will
apply to this important phrase in the new jurisdictional standards.
GENERAL STEEL CASTINGS CORPORATION and UNITED STEELWORKERS
OF AMERICA, CIO, ACTING ON BEHALF OF LOCAL 2323. Case
No. 4-RC-2502. December 8,1954
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 William Draper Lewis, Jr.,
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 labor organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees 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 Employer is engaged in the manufacture of steel castings
at its Eddystone, Pennsylvania, plant. The Petitioner seeks to add
the Employer's magnaflux and betatron operators to the production
and maintenance unit it now represents at this plant. The Employer
opposes the Petitioner's request that these employees be granted a
self-determination election, contending that these employees should
not be included in a production and maintenance unit 2 If, however,
the Board does not agree with its position, the Employer contends
that an election should be directed only in a unit of magnaflux oper-
ators. In the event, however, that the Board finds that both groups
of employees may be included in the production and maintenance unit,
the Employer asserts that separate elections should be directed for
each group of employees.
In 1942, the Petitioner was certified as bargaining representative
for the Employer's production and maintenance employees. In-
spectors were excluded from the bargaining unit by agreement of the
2 At the hearing , the petition was amended to show the name of the Petitioner as it
appears in the caption.
2 The Employer did not state its basis for opposing the Petitioner 's unit request other
than to assert that the requested employees should be excluded from a production and
maintenance unit.
110 NLRB No. 197.
1254 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
parties.3 After the Board certification, the Petitioner won a consent
election in a unit of casting inspectors. The current contract between
the Employer and the Petitioner includes the casting inspectors in
the bargaining unit.
Prior to 1947, magnetic testing was done by the inspection depart-
ment under the chief inspector, and radiography was done in a fenced-
off area in the Employer's production machine shop.4 This area was
fenced off because radium was used as a source of energy for radio-
graphing large castings. The same employees did both the magnetic
testing and the radiography. In 1947, when the Employer purchased
the proper equipment for magnetic testing, it was placed in the metal-
lurgical department. The magnaflux operations are done out on the
floor of the plant among the production workers. In 1951, a betatron
was installed for radiographing Government work.' It was housed
in a separate building to protect employees from the dangerous radia-
tion. Since that time, personnel has been hired to do only magnetic
testing. All of the Employer's betatron operators can do both-kinds
of work, but only a few of the magnaflux operators are qualified to
operate the betatron machine.
At the time of the hearing the Employer had about 9 magnaflux
operators and about 6 betatron operators. Approximately eight of
these employees transferred to these jobs from other departments in
the plant. They are hourly rated employees, and all are classified as
radiographers. They are part of the Employer's metallurgical de-
partment, and work under the separate supervision of a foreman who
is responsible to the plant metallurgist.' The magnaflux operators
make tests to determine whether there are any surface defects in the
castings, whereas the betatron operators make tests to determine
whether there are any internal defects. The procedure used in the
betatron operation is very similar to that of the ordinary X-ray. The
operation of the betatron machine itself is purely mechanical, and an
employee can learn to operate the machine in a comparatively short
time. There is nothing in the record to indicate that the magnaflux
and betatron operators are technical employees.' They are the only
hourly rated inspection employees who are not included in the
production and maintenance -unit.
8 General Steel Castings Corporation, 41 NLRB 350, 352
4 The terms magnetic testing operations and magnaflux operations are used interchange-
ably in the record.
5 Very little of the work now done in the betatron building is for the Government
Most of it is for the Employer's commercial work.
sAlso working in the metallurgical department are routine chemists , metallurgists, and
physical testers, all of whom are quality control personnel The process inspectors in
the foundry and the casting inspectors in the inspection department are also quality con-
trol personnel.
There is no contention made that the employees sought by the Petitioner are profes-
sional, technical , or supervisory employees , or that they are indistinguishable from the
other quality control employees at the plant.
G. C. McBRIDE COMPANY 1255
It is clear from the record, and we find, that the magnaflux and
betatron operators have a close community of interest with the Em-
ployer's production and maintenance employees, and that they may
be appropriately added to the existing unit represented by the Peti-
tioner. Contrary to the. Employer's contention, we do not perceive
any valid reason why two separate elections should be directed for
these employees who are not sought separately, but as part of an
existing production and maintenance unit. Accordingly, we shall
direct an election in the following voting group : All magnaflux and
betatron operators at the Employer's Eddystone, Pennsylvania, plant,
excluding all supervisors.
If a majority of.the employees in the foregoing voting group vote
for the Petitioner, they will be taken to have indicated their desire
to be included in the existing unit of employees at the Employer's
Eddystone plant presently represented by the Petitioner, and the
Regional Director conducting the election is instructed to issue a
certification of the results of election to that effect.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
G . C. MCBRIDE COMPANY and WILSON I. SHERROD, PETITIONER ' and
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD of TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WARE-
HOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL No . 583, AFL. Case
No. 16-RD-120. December 8,1954
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 William H. Renkel,
Jr., hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing
are free from prejudical error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in quarrying and crushing of rock in
the State of Texas. During the 12-month period ending May 31,
1954, the Employer purchased $170,000 worth of materials in the State
of Texas and $28,000 worth of materials out of the State. During
the same period, the Employer's sales amounted to $419,259. Of
these sales, $220,000, or 53 percent, were made to the southern division
of the Santa Fe Railway System in the State of Texas. The sales.
consisted of crushed rock or stone, used for track ballast and road
riprap. In addition, the Employer made sales of $135,000, or 32 per-
cent, to the Texas Highway Department and highway contractors;
$29,000, or 7 percent, to individual cities and counties; and $32,000,
1 The name of the Petitioner appears as amended at the hearing,
110 NLRB No. 198.