Granite City Steel Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 14, 1945

63 N.L.R.B. 898 (N.L.R.B. 1945)

In the Matter of GRANITE CITY STEEL COMPANY and UNITED STEEL-
WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO
Case No. 14-R-19233.-Decided September 14, 1945
Mr. William R. Bascom, of St. Louis, Mo., and Mr. M. D. Conroy,
of Granite City, Ill., for the Company. -
Mr. Walter E. Schilling, of Granite City, Ill., for the CIO.
Mr. Donald H. Frank, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon an amended petition duly filed by United Steelworkers of
America, CIO, herein called the CIO, alleging that a question affecting
commerce had arisen concerning the representation of employees of
Granite City Steel Company, Granite City, Illinois, herein called
the Company, the National Labor Relations Board provided for an
appropriate hearing upon due notice before Joseph Lepie, Trial
Examiner. The hearing was held at St. Louis, Missouri, on July 0,
1945. The Company and the CIO appeared and participated. All
parties were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and
cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the
issues.
At the hearing, the Company moved the dismissal of the petition.
The Trial Examiner referred the motion to the Board. For the rea-
sons stated in Section IV, infra, the 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 oppor-
tunity to file briefs with the Board.
1 The Company attempted to adduce testimony to show that the CIO obligation is incon-
sistent with proper performance of plant-protection duties. The Trial Examiner excluded
this line of testimony Thereafter, the Company made an offer of proof of certain portions
of the pledge taken by CIO members The Trial Examiner rejected the offer of proof.
Because the Trial Examiner himself presented to the witness , an international representa-
tive of the CIO, the question whether the CIO's constitution and bylaws contained any provi-
63 N. L. R. B., No. 140.
898
U1LAIVl1L Ul1I Z)IM1L UUIV1rA1N1 avy -
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Granite City Steel Company is a Delaware corporation engaged in
the manufacture of flat rolled steel at its Granite City, Illinois, plant.
During 1944, the Company used in its manufacturing processes raw
materials valued in excess of $1,000,000, of which approximately 10
percent was shipped to it from points outside the State of Illinois.
During that year, the Company manufactured finished products valued
in excess of $21,000,000, of which approximately 90 percent was shipped
from it to points outside the State of Illinois.
The Company admits that it is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, and we so find.
H. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
United Steelworkers of America, affiliated with the Congress of
Industrial Organizations, is a labor organization admitting to mem-
bership employees of the Company.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Company has refused to grant recognition to the CIO as the
exclusive bargaining representative of the Company's watchmen until
the CIO has been certified by the Board in an appropriate unit.
A statement of a Board agent, introduced into evidence at the hear-
ing, indicates that the CIO represents a substantial number of en1-
ployees 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 Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The CIO seeks a unit of all the Company's watchmen, excluding
the captain who both parties agree is a supervisory employee within
our usual definition. The Company contends that the employee in
sions conflicting with guards ' duties and received a negative answer thereto , we are of
the opinion that the Company's offer of proof should have been accepted . We therefore
reverse the ruling of the Trial Examiner and hereby find the obligation assumed by the
CIO members to be as set forth in the - offer of proof . For reasons stated in Section IV,
infra, however, we are convinced that the Trial Examiner's ruling did not constitute
prejudicial error.
2 The Field Examiner reported that the CIO submitted 15 application for membership
cards , 14 of which bore names of persons appearing on the Company ' s pay roll of June 15,
1945 , which contained the names of 22 employees in the appropriate unit ; and that the 14
cards were dated in April 1945.
662514-46-vol. 63 58
900 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
charge of the night shift of watchmen, called the assistant chief, should
also be excluded. This employee has authority to hire and discharge,
and we shall-therefore exclude him from the unit hereinafter found
appropriate, as a supervisory employee.
It is the Company's position, however, that there can be no appro-
priate unit for these employees because they are closely allied to man-
agement, and because unionization would impair the satisfactory dis-
charge of their duties.3 The Company also asserts that because the
CIO presently represents certain other employees of the Company it
cannot properly represent the watchmen.
The watchmen involved herein perform the duties normally associ-
ated with their position. Some of these employees, designated by the
Company as gate watchmen, check in and out of the plant all employees,
visitors, packages, and vehicles. They inspect the employees' cars in
the yard both day and night, looking for thieves. They watch the time,
clocks to insure that no employee will ring in anyone but himself. The
so-called patrol watchmen guard the plant and the company area,
watching for gambling, drinking, and other infractions of the com-
pany rules, which they report to the gate watchmen, who, in turn,
report to the captain. The patrol watchmen also check the fire stations
and look for evidence of sabotage. From these facts it is clear that the
watchmen are monitorial in their relationship to the other company
employees.
All but 1 of the 22 watchmen are armed; all are uniformed. Al-
though 9 are deputized, an official of the Company testified that this
was done in order that, on the rare occasions when violence is encoun-
tered, some watchmen will be present who have authority to arrest
outside the plant premises. He stated that the choice is based on abil-
ity, and does not affect the duties which the watchmen perform.
We have considered each of the contentions raised by the Company
in numerous previous cases involving similar employees, and we have
found them to be without merit'
A CIO representative testified at the hearing that it is the CIO's
intention to establish a separate local organization to represent these
employees in all phases of collective bargaining. The Company sought
to adduce testimony that in the past the CIO had not kept the clerical
i At the hearing the Company moved that decision in this case be postponed pending the
final decision of N. L. R. B v. Jones it Laughlin Steel Corporation , 146 F (2d) 718 (C C
A. 6), and N. L. R B. v. E C. Atkins, 147 F (2d) 730 (C C. A. 7), in which certiorari
was granted and the cases remanded for further consideration , on June 4, 1945, 65 S. Ct.
1413. We do not acquiesce in the doctrines enunciated in those cases . In our opinion,
the purposes of the Act will best be effectuated by a determination for representatives
forthwith . The motion is hereby denied.
4 Matter of National Lead Company, Titanium Division , 62 N. L R B. 107 ; Matter of
Sealed Power Corporation , 61 N. L R. B. 1639 ; Matter of International Harvester Com-
pany, Milwaukee Works, 61 N. L. R B. 912 , Matter of Bethlehem -Fairfield Shipyard, Inc.,
61 N. L . R. B. 901; Matter of Bethlehem Steel Company , 61 N L R. B . 892 , Matter of
Ito Jim it Haas Company, 60 N. L R. B. 554 ; Matter of Dravo Corporation, 52 N. L R. B. 322.
GRANITE CITY STEEL COMPANY 901
employees, for whom it had been certified in a separate unit, segregated
from the production and maintenance employees whom it represents.
The Trial Examiner excluded this testimony, and we have affirmed his
ruling. We are of the opinion that such evidence is immaterial. How-
ever, we expect that the separation here of the bargaining unit of the
watchmen from the other units of the Company's employees in their
negotiations with the Company and their day-to-day activities will
be one of fact, not merely form, and shall be reflected in all bargaining
between the Company and any duly designated bargaining representa-
tive as well as in negotiations for a separate contract for the watch-
men.5
We find that all the Company's watchmen, but excluding the captain
and assistant chief, and any other supervisory employees with author-
ity to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, o;" otherwise effect changes
in the status of employees, or effectively recommend such action, con-
stitute 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 em-
ployees in the appropriate unit who were employed during the pay-roll
period immediately preceding the date of the Direction of Election
herein, subject to the limitations and additions set forth in the
Direction.
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 Re-
lations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3, as amended, it is
hereby
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representa-
tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Granite City Steel
Company, Granite City, Illinois, 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 Fourteenth Region, acting in this
matter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject
to Article III, Sections 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, including employees who did
5 Matter of Standard Steel Sprang Company, 62 N. L. It. B. 660.
3U6 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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 election, to determine whether or not they desire to be repre-
sented by United Steelworkers of America, CIO, for the purposes of
collective bargaining.
CHAIRMAN HExzoG took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Election.