Montgomery Steel Products Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 2, 1951

94 N.L.R.B. 225 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

MONTGOMERY STEEL PRODUCTS CORP. 225
they will be taken to have indicated their desire to constitute a separate
appropriate unit.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted • from publication in this
volume.]
MONTGOMERY STEEL PRODUCTS CORP. and UNITED STEELWORKERS OF
AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER
PENN-OHIO STEEL CORPORATION and UNITED STEELWORKERS OF
AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER . Cases Nos..-RC-1030 and 4-RC-1033.
May;?, 1951
Decision and Direction of Elections
Upon petitions duly filed, a consolidated hearing was held before
Ramey Donovan, hearing 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
these cases to a three-member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members
Murdock and Styles].
Upon the entire record in these cases, the Board finds :
1. The Employers are engaged in commerce within the meaning
of the National Labor Relations Act.]
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent employees
of the Employers.
3. Questions affecting commerce exist concerning the representation
of employees of the Employers within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1)
and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The appropriate unit :
Case No. 4-RC-1033
The parties in this case are in agreement as to the appropriate unit
except that the Petitioner seeks to include about 13 maintenance em-
ployees whom the Employer would exclude.
The Employer conducts its operations in a Naval Industrial Reserve
plant which it leases from the Department of the Navy. The Navy,
however, retains a portion of the plant for its own use and under its
control. The maintenance men whose placement is in dispute are
i Federal Dairy Co., Inc, 91 NLRB 638; Stantslaus Implement and Hardware Company,
Limited, 91 NLRB 618
94 NLRB No. 42.
951S41-52-vol 94-16
226 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employed to keep the Navy's part of the plant in good repair and ready
to operate if needed. Their work consists primarily of cleaning,
painting, and oiling. Though in the hiring process these men are
screened by the Employer's personnel department, the final decision to
hire them is made by the resident engineer, who is a regular employee
of the Navy. The resident engineer, with the help of one foreman,
supervises the naval maintenance men. Occasionally the Employer
requests the resident engineer for the loan of some of the naval main-
tenance men to perform duties in connection with the Employer's
operations. Except when the men are so employed-which is about
10 to 15 percent of the time-the Employer has no jurisdiction or
control over them.
The naval maintenance men are paid by check from the Employer
who, is thereafter reimbursed by the Navy. The wage rates of the
naval maintenance men are similar in some categories to those of the
Employer's regular maintenance men but differ in others. The naval
maintenance group operates at 5 days a week, 8 hours a day, as con-
trasted with the Employer's schedule of 3 shifts a day, 7 days a week.
The record indicates that on an occasion when certain increases in
the form of a bonus system were put into effect for the Employer's
employees, the naval maintenance men did not receive the bonus.
But they did receive a 10-cent an hour increase when a similar increase
was granted to the employees of the Employer. However, this was
not automatic but rather required special authority from the Navy
to the resident engineer to effect the increase.
On the basis of all the above facts we conclude that the naval
maintenance men are employees of the Navy rather than of the Em-
ployer. Accordingly, we shall exclude them from the unit.2
We find the following employees constitute a unit appropriate for
the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section
9 (b) of the Act:
All employees of the Employer at its Birdsboro, Pennsylvania,
plant, excluding naval maintenance men,3 office clerical employees,
`Tuards, professional employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
Case No. 4-RC-1032
In accord with the stipulation of the parties, we find that the fol-
lowing employees constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act:
2 Phillips Chemical Company, 90 NLRB No 76. The naval maintenance men shall be
deemed to be in the unit while they are on loan to the Employer and are doing the work
of employees included in the unit for the purpose of bargaining in relation to such work.
Only those, however, who are detailed by the Navy to the Employer on a regular basis and
for a substantial portion of their time shall be eligible to vote in the election hereinafter
directed.
3 See footnote 2.
E. W. SCRIPPS COMPANY 227
All production and maintenance employees of the Employer at its
Birdsboro, Pennsylvania, plant, excluding office clerical employees,
,guards, professional employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication in this
-volume.]
E. W. SCRIPPS COMPANY and CINCINNATI NEWSPAPER GUILD, LOCAL 9,
AMERICAN NEWSPAPER GUILD, CIO . Case No. 9-CA-285. May 3,
1951
Decision and Order
On January 18, 1951, Trial Examiner George A. Downing issued
his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair
labor practices, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom
and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the
Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter the Respondent
and the Union filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and sup-
porting briefs?
The Board 2 has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
.at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in the
case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner, with the following additions and modi-
fications.3
1. We agree with the Trial Examiner's disposition of the alleged
supervisors, 4 except as to the managing editor of The Kentucky Post.
The Trial Examiner found that this managing editor is a supervisor.
The evidence is not adequate to support this finding. It is agreed that
he is not the equivalent of the managing editor on The Cincinnati
Post, who is concededly a supervisor. So far as the evidence shows,
the managing editor of The Kentucky Post acts as a supervisor only
when the editor of that newspaper is away on vacation or on sick
'The Respondent ' s request for oral argument is hereby denied because the record and
briefs , in our opinion , adequately present the issues and the positions of the parties.
"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 Houston and Reynolds].
3 The Trial Examiner inadvertently found that bargaining negotiations began on Janu-
ary 7, 1950. The record shows , and we find , that the negotiations began on January 27,
1950.
4 The Salt Lake Tribune Publishing Company , 92 NLRB 1411. and cases cited therein ;
Arizona Times , Inc., 85 NLRB 230; A. S. Abell Company , 81 NLRB 82.
94 NLRB No. 55.