Harbison-Walker Refractories Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 27, 1962

137 N.L.R.B. 1686 (N.L.R.B. 1962)

1686 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
be carried on, to direct the work force and to conduct its operations in a safe
and effective manner.
Article VII-Hours of Work
2. The standard hours of work are as follows:
Standard Hours
(a) Straight Days ------------------------------- 7:45 a.m. to 4.30 p.m.
45 Minute Lunch
8:00 a.m . to 4:30 p.m.
30 Minute Lunch
7:48 a.m. to 4:18 p.m.
30 Minute Lunch
The Respondent contends that it has a right to make the changes set forth above
without consultation with the Council as a part of its exclusive right to manage its
business. The General Counsel says this change in release time is a change in em-
ployees' working conditions about which the Respondent must bargain. I am con-
vinced that the Respondent' s position is the correct one. The Council has agreed
with the Respondent that the hours of work in respect to the day shift are from
7:48 a.m. to 4:18 p.m. with a 30-minute lunch period. It must have been in the
contemplation of the parties that those in the bargaining unit would work a full
shift. It can hardly be questioned and, indeed, is not questioned here, that the
Respondent was wholly free to improve its clock-out procedures so as to permit it to
get more productive time from its employees. The General Counsel says that the
Respondent must bargain about it. I am convinced that it has done so. The contract
which is in evidence sets forth the hours of work. The Council has agreed in behalf
of those it represents to these workhours. There is no contract right permitting an
employee to leave the checkout point before 4:18 p.m. The right retained by the
Respondent to manage its business necessarily encompasses the right to direct its
work force in such a fashion between the beginning and the end of a shift so as to
get as much productive effort as reasonably may be accomplished. The fact that
for a number of years many employees found it possible, without interference by
the Respondent, to leave their work stations earlier than was necessary did not vest
in them any right to do so. As the manager of the operation the Respondent at all
times had a right to require the employees in the unit to work up until the moment
that would allow sufficient time to check out at 4:18. The Respondent has done no
more here than to exercise that right. It had no obligation to bargain with the
Council in the matter and it did not violate the Act by refusing to do so.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondent is an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act
and is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. The Council is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the
Act and is the exclusive bargaining representative of certain of Respondent's em-
ployees in an appropriate unit.
3. The Respondent has not unlawfully refused to bargain with the Council in
violation of Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act.
RECOMMENDATION
Upon the basis of the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth above, and
upon the entire record in the case, it is hereby recommended that the complaint
herein be dismissed.
Harbison-Walker Refractories Company, Leslie Works and
United Stone and Allied Products Workers of America, AFL-
CIO-CLC, Petitioner . Case No. 5-RC-3'735. July 27, 1962
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Robert A. Gritta, hearing
137 NLRB No. 173.
HARBISON-WALKER REFRACTORIES CO., LESLIE WORKS 1687
officer. The hearing officer 's rulings made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed .
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members
Rodgers and Fanning].
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 organizations involved claim 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 Petitioner seeks a unit limited to the production and main-
tenance employees at the Employer's Leslie, Maryland, plant. Al-
ternatively, it desires to go to an election in any unit which the Board
finds appropriate. The Intervenor, District 50, United Mine Work-
ers of America,' and the Employer contend that the appropriate unit
should consist of the production and maintenance employees of seven
employers employed at 24 plants 2 who are covered by a multiemployer
contract and for whom there has been a long history of collective
bargaining on a multiemployer basis.'
The Employer operates eight plants in the States of Pennsylvania,
North Carolina, Maryland, and Missouri. Five of these plants manu-
facture brick. The remaining three are, in effect, mines. Commencing
in 1945, the Employer and North American Refractories Co. and Gen-
eral Refractories Company banded together for the purpose of multi-
employer bargaining with United Construction Workers, the Peti-
tioner's predecessor. During the period from 1946 to 1947, Haws
Refractories Company, Hiram Swank's Sons, Kaiser Refractories
and Chemical Division, and Kittanning Brick Company joined the
multiemployer group. The contract negotiated in 1945 by the orig-
inal members of the multiemployer group constitutes the basic con-
tract which has been the subject of change every 2 or 3 years.
Central bargaining negotiations take place in Pittsburgh, Penn-
sylvania. The employers' negotiating committee is composed of rep-
resentatives from each of the employers in the group. The Inter-
venor is represented in group negotiations by representatives of the
Intervenor and representatives of various local unions at each plant
'The Intervenor was permitted to intervene on the basis of its contractual interest
2 The employers , in addition to the Employer herein , are* General Refractories Com-
pany , Haws Refractories Company , Hiram Swank 's Sons, Kaiser Refractories and Chem-
cal Division , Kittanning Brick Company , and North American Refractories Co.
3 This contract , covering, inter alia, the Leslie plant , is not asserted as a bar because
the petition was filed more than 2 years after the effective date of this agreement
1688 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of the multiemployer group. While there are no formal papers of
association creating the multiemployer group, and no formal agree-
ment binding the employers accept the results of group bargaining,
and while there is no written document authorizing the Intervenor's
negotiating committee to bargain on behalf of its constituent locals,
the authority of the chairmen of the respective committees to negotiate
on this basis has never been questioned either by the employers or the
Intervenor's constituent locals, and the resultant contracts have never
failed to receive the approval of these employers or locals.' The
multiemployer group and the Intervenor negotiate increases in wages,
basic wage scales, job classifications, job functions which are to be
included in these classifications, intermediate jobs functions which,
because of special considerations, are excepted from the usual job
classifications, pensions, vacations, seniority, cost-of-living adjust-
ments, holidays, insurance benefits, and piece-work rates. The wages,
hours, and other benefits so negotiated are uniform for all employees
at the plants of each employer within the multiemployer group.
Local unions at each of the 24 plants in the multiemployer group
are permitted to negotiate local supplements to the multiemployer
contract. However, the subjects open to such negotiation are limited
to matters pertaining to safety measures and local work rules which
affect only the employees at the given plant. And even these matters
are channeled through the Intervenor's negotiating committee for
presentation to the respective employers.
The foregoing facts, as well as the entire record in this case, reveal
that the employers herein and the Intervenor intended to, and in fact
did, carry on their collective bargaining on a multiemployer basis.
All the principal benefits discussed by the negotiating committee
applied to all employees of the 7 companies at their 24 plants. Nego-
tiations were centralized and a single contract containing all of the
basic terms and conditions of employment, to be applied uniformly
at all plants, resulted. What matters were left open for local nego-
tiation were essentially matters dealing with local problems, and even
these were submitted to the Intervenor's negotiating committee for
bargaining with the individual employer. In view thereof, we find
that the unit sought by the Petitioner is too narrow in scope and that
the appropriate unit should consist of all production and maintenance
employees of the 7 employers at the 24 plants.'
Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petition.
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
' The only instance in which an employer did not accept the agreement negotiated by
the multiemployer negotiating committee and the Intervenor occurred in 1954 when Stowe
Fuller Company, which was a member of the multiemployer group, refused to sign it.
However , the record indicates that Stowe then went out of business.
5 See General Motors Corporation, 120 NLRB 1215.