Mid-States Steel and Wire Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 2, 1951

94 N.L.R.B. 199 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

MID-STATES STEEL AND WIRE COMPANY 199
are of the opinion that the millwrights together with the carpenters
constitute an appropriate unit. Accordingly we shall dismiss the
petition.
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed herein be, and it hereby
is, dismissed.
MID-STATES STEEL AND WIRE COMPANY and INDUSTRIAL UNION OF
MARINE AND SHIPBUILDING WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 32, CIO,
PETITIONER . Case No. 10-RC-1188. May 2, 1951
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 Clarence D. Musser,
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are
free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
The hearing officer referred to the Board for ruling the Employer's
motion to adjourn the hearing to Crawfordsville, Indiana, for the tak-
ing of further evidence. As such further evidence adverted to by
the Employer would not alter our determination herein, the motion is
denied. The Employer's motion to dismiss the petition on the ground
that the unit sought by the Petitioner is inappropriate is denied for
the reasons set forth hereinafter.
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 [Chairman Herzog and Members Murdock and Styles].
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 Petitioner seeks a unit composed of all production and main-
tenance employees at the Employer's Jacksonville, Florida, plant, in-
cluding the stock clerk, over-the-road truck driver, and two watchmen,
but excluding the foremen, assistant foremen, executive, professional
and clerical employees, guards, and supervisors as defined by the Act.
The Employer agrees with the composition of the unit, but contends
' See Stanislaus Implement and Hardware Company, Limited , 91 NLRB 6f8.
94 NLRB No. 47.
200 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that any unit established should also include the employees of its
Crawfordsville, Indiana, plant.
The Employer, an Indiana corporation, operates two plants, one at
Crawfordsville, Indiana, the other at Jacksonville, Florida, and is
engaged in the manufacture of bale-ties, nails, wire products, and other
steel items. Both plants manufacture substantially the same type
product using the same production processes. The Jacksonville plant
was established to better serve the Employer's customers in the south-
eastern area of the United States and is under the sole management
of an employee formerly attached to the Crawfordsville, Indiana,
plant. All purchases of raw materials for both plants are made by the
Employer from the Crawfordsville plant and all sales for the Com-
pany are made through salesmen operating from the Crawfordsville
plant and are payable there.
The Employer's policies concerning wages, hours, and working con-
ditions are formulated at the Crawfordsville plant and are applicable
to both plants without any distinction. The manager of the Jackson-
ville plant testified that he has no authority to enter into collective
bargaining agreements. Pensions, health insurance, profit sharing,
hospitalization, and seniority plans instituted by the Employer are in
effect in both plants. No loss in any of these benefits is incurred by a
transfer from one plant to another. All employee records in reference
to these plans are maintained at the Crawfordsville, Indiana, plant.
Payroll records for the foremen and office force of the Jacksonville
plant are maintained at Crawfordsville from where these employees
are paid.
While these factors support the Employer's contention that a two-
plant unit would be appropriate, they are not so compelling as to pre-
clude us from holding that no other unit is proper. There is present
here a combination of other factors which we consider sufficient to
support a finding that a single-plant unit confined to Jacksonville,
Florida, is appropriate.2 Thus, the two plants are located approxi-
mately 1,000 miles apart and draw their labor supply from different
geographical areas. There is practically no interchange of employees
and there is no company policy in regard to the transfer of employees.3
The Jacksonville plant performs a complete production operation and
is tinder the immediate and complete supervision of the local plant
2 See Burroughs Adding Machine Company, 81 NLRB 1239 ; Singer Sewing Machine
Company, 87 NLRB 460 ; Burrus Timber Products , Inc, 87 NLRB 1561 ; Schick Service,
Inc, 88 NLRB 1378; Socony-Vacuum Oil Company , Incorporated , 89 NLRB 602; Chad-
bourn Hosiery Mills, Inc ., 89 NLRB 1256; Seaboard Packing Company , 91 NLRB 361;
Harms Hosiery Co, Inc., 91 NLRB 330; Southland Manufacturing Company, 91 NLRB No.
38, M. Snower & Co , 92 NLRB No. 41; Stow and Davis Furniture Co., 92 NLRB 80.
2 The last transfer of a nonsupervisory employee from Jacksonville, Florida, to Craw.
fordsville , Indiana, and vice versa took place in 1949. Since that date there have been no
transfers.
BLUE RIBBON CREAMERY 201
manager who has unlimited authority in regard to the hire and dis-
charge of employees at the Jacksonville plant. While general labor
policies are initiated and formulated at the Crawfordsville plant, the
local manager of the Jacksonville plant has authority to adjust these
policies to local conditions, determine wages of individual employees,
and fix the hours of employment of the various shifts at the Jackson-
ville plant. All the nonsupervisory and nonoffice employees are paid
at the Jacksonville plant and their payroll records are maintained
there. In addition to these factors, there is no history of collective
bargaining on a two-plant basis 4 and no labor organization is seeking
certification on that basis.5
In view of all these circumstances we find that the unit sought by
the Petitioner confined to the Jacksonville, Florida, plant is • appro-
priate.
We find, therefore, that a unit composed of all production and main-
tenance employees at the Employer's Jacksonville, Florida, plant in-
cluding the stock clerk, over-the-road truck driver, and two watchmen,s
but excluding the foremen, assistant foremen, executive, professional
and clerical employees, guards, and supervisors as defined by the Act
is an appropriate unit for collective bargaining purposes within the
meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
4 There is evidence that prior to the establishment of the Jacksonville, Florida, plant,
the employees of the Crawfordsville, Indiana, plant were represented by the United
Steelworkers, CIO, but at the time of the establishment of the Jacksonville plant the
latter union had ceased representing the employees of the Crawfordsville plant.
5 Although the extent of the Petitioner's organization becomes thus partly involved the
Board is not precluded from taking this factor into consideration where, as here, it is
not given controlling weight. Stow and Davis Furniture Co., cited supra.
6 The manager of the Jacksonville plant testified that the two watchmen devote approxi-
mately 50 percent of their time to monitorial duties and the remaining 50 percent to
production activities. These watchmen are not uniformed, deputized, or armed. Since
they do not devote more than 50 percent of their time to monitorial duties, we shall include
them in the unit. Wiley Mfg., Inc., 92 NLRB 40.
BLUE RIBBON CREAMERY and UNITED GAS, COKE & CHEMICAL WORKERS
OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER. Case No. 15-RC-477. May 2, 1951
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 Robert B. Stark, hear-
ing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are
free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
94 NLRB. No. 44.