Mayer Pollock Steel Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 1, 1964

147 N.L.R.B. 202 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

202 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and the efficiency factor favors neither union, we would assign the
disputed work to the employees represented by the ITU.14
14 In our opinion , St. Louis Typographical Union No. 8 , affiliated with International
Typographical Union, AFL-CIO (Bejae Printing Company ), 141 NLRB 1127 , relied on by
the majority is distinguishable . There, the dispute related to the operation of "Compos-O-
Line," a sequential card camera . However, in rejecting the claim of ITU and awarding
this work to employees represented by the Pressmen 's Union, the Board noted that al-
though in other circumstances , the work performed by "Compos -O-Line" might be per-
formed in "hot-metal ," the employer planned to use it only for special orders which it was
not equipped to handle in the past ; that tbe . ITU contract with the employer did not
cover the disputed work ; and that the skill factor favored neither of the competing unions.
Mayer Pollock Steel Corporation and United Steelworkers of
America, AFL-CIO
Reading Crane and Hoist Company, Petitioner and United Steel-
workers of America, AFL-CIO. Cases Nos. 4-RC-1379 and
4-RM-468. June 1, 1964
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
On October 2, 1963, Reading Crane and Hoist Company (Reading
Crane) filed a petition alleging a representation demand from United
Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO (the Steelworkers), and seek-
ing an election in a unit of its production and maintenance employees.
On November 29, 1951, the Board had certified the Steelworkers as'
the bargaining representative for a unit of production and mainte-
nance employees at Mayer Pollock Steel Corporation (Mayer Pollock
Steel) at Pottstown, Pennsylvania. Thereafter, on November 8, 1963,
the Steelworkers filed a motion to clarify and. amend certification,
to include within the 'unit at Mayer Pollock Steel the production and
maintenance employees at Reading Crane, contending that these em-
ployees constitute an accretion to the existing unit. On November 13,
1963, Reading Crane filed a motion to dismiss and reply to the Steel-
workers' motion, alleging that there is no evidence upon which to
base a finding that the Reading Crane employee group is an accretion
to the Mayer Pollock Steel unit of employees, and that, to the contrary,
the evidence indicates that these employees constitute a separate and
distinct bargaining unit.
Thereafter, on December 26, 1963, the Board ordered a hearing on
the issues raised by both the motion to clarify or amend certification
and the election petition, and authorized the Regional Director to
consolidate the proceedings. Pursuant to the Regional Director's
order of January 13, 1964, a consolidated hearing was held before
Hearing Officer -H. Dawson Penniman on February 4 and 5, 1964.
The Hearing Officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from pre-
judicial error and are hereby affirmed.
147 NLRB No. 24.
MAYER POLLOCK STEEL CORPORATION 203
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act , the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three -member
panel [Members Leedom, Fanning, and Jenkins].
Upon the entire record in this ,case, the Board finds:
1. The Employers herein are engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing of the Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent employees
of the Employer.
3. The Steelworkers contends that Reading Crane is an accretion
to the unit it represents at Mayer Pollock Steel for the following
reasons: ( a) there is common control over both operations ; ( b) there
is continuous interchange of employees ; ( c) the companies produce a
.similar product ; ( d) the plants are located close to each other; and
(e) employees at both plants receive comparable wages and fringe
benefits, and work similar hours.
Reading Crane denies the Steelworkers ' contentions . It asserts that
Mayer Pollock Steel has no control over Reading Crane ; that there
is no interchange of employees ; and that the companies do not produce
a similar product . For these reasons it concludes that its employees
constitute a separate appropriate unit rather than an accretion to the
certified unit at Mayer Pollock Steel. '
Mayer Pollock Steel and Reading Crane are two of several enter-
prises owned by a five-member partnership . Mayer Pollock Steel is
located in Pottstown , Pennsylvania , and its operations include the dis-
mantling of buildings , the scrapyard business , and the steel fabrica-
tion of buildings and bridges . Incidental to its dismantling and fab-
ricating operations are the reconditioning of used overhead cranes
and the furnishing of new "package" cranes.
In May 1962 , the partnership purchased the assets of the Reading
Crane and Hoist Company of Reading, Pennsylvania , a manufacturer
of overhead cranes. Prior to establishing Reading Crane as a full-
,scale operation , it was operated as a pilot project and located in Potts-
town, Pennsylvania , approximately 11/2 miles from Mayer Pollock
Steel. All personnel were hired as needed , with key people being
recruited from among former Reading Crane and Hoist Company em-
ployees. In July 1963 , Reading Crane moved to its permanent loca-
tion, following the purchase of the Crane Company plant at Stowe,
Pennsylvania , approximately 4 miles from Mayer Pollock Steel. In
September 1963, the Steelworkers notified Mayer Pollock Steel that
it was the bargaining representative for the Reading Crane employees
on the basis of its contract with Mayer Pollock Steel.
I The Steelworkers Hoes not deny that it has demanded recognition as the representative
of the Reading Crane employees. It also appears that the Steelworkers. is willing to
participate in a Board-directed election in -a separate unit of the Reading Crane
employees.
204 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Reading Crane is independent of any of the other partnership enter-
prises. Harold Federman, a partner, and Kenneth Givens, the gen-
eral manager, are in charge of its operations. Reading Crane designs
most of the parts used in its construction of overhead cranes; this
makes for an operation very different from that of Mayer Pollock
which is limited to either reconditioning second-hand cranes or assem-
bling "package cranes." There is no interchange of employees or
equipment between it and Mayer Pollock Steel. Lastly, it has com-
pletely separate supervisory personnel and its labor policies are based
on the needs of Reading Crane with no dependence on those of Mayer
Pollock Steel. For the foregoing reasons we find that the Reading
Crane employees are not an accretion to the Mayer Pollock Steel unit
and we shall deny Steelworkers' motion to clarify.
We therefore find that a question affecting commerce. exists concern-
ing the representation of employees of Reading Crane within the
meaning of Section 9(c) (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. We find, in accord with the stipulation of the parties, that the
following unit is appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act :
All production and maintenance employees employed by the Read-
ing Crane and Hoist Company at Stowe, Pennsylvania, excluding
office and clerical employees, guards, professional employees, and su-
pervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text. of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
E. Anthony & Sons, Inc.' and Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers, Local Union No. 59 of the International Brother-
hood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers
of America , Independent , Petitioner . Case No. 1-RC,-7799_
June 1, 1964
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Hearing Officer Thomas M..
Harvey. 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 National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chair-
man McCulloch and Members Fanning and Jenkins].
1 The Employer 's name appears as amended at the hearing.
147 NLRB No. 25.