Newman-Crosby Steel Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 23, 1947

73 N.L.R.B. 513 (N.L.R.B. 1947)

In the Matter of NEWMAN-CROSBY STEEL CORPORATION, EMPLOYER
and NEWMAN-CROSBY STEEL WORKERS UNION, PETITIONER
Case No. 1-R-3452.Decided April 23,1947
Greenough, Lyman d^ Cross, by Mr. Owen Reid, of Providence, R. I.,
for the Employer.
Crowe & Hetherington, by Mr. Thomas Hetherington, of Provi-
dence, R. I., for the Petitioner.
Grant and Angoff, by Mr. Harold B. Roitman, of Boston, Mass., for
the Intervenor.
Mr. Edmund J. Flynn, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Provi-
dence, Rhode Island, on January 24, 1947, before Sam G. Zack, hear-
ing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. In its brief, the Inter-
venor moved to dismiss the petition. For reasons hereinafter stated,
the motion is hereby denied.
Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations
Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. TIIE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Newman-Crosby Steel Corporation is engaged in the manufacture
and sale of steel products at its rolling mill in Pawtucket, Rhode
Island. During the 12-month period preceding the hearing, the Em-
ployer purchased raw materials valued in excess of $50,000, of which
90 percent was shipped from points outside the State of Rhode Island.
During the same period the products sold by the Employer exceeded
$100,000 in value, of which 90 percent was shipped to points outside
the State.
The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
73 N. L. R B., No. 104
513
514 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The Petitioner is an unaffiliated labor organization claiming to
represent employees of the Employer.'
United Steelworkers of America, herein called the Intervenor, is a
labor organization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organi-
zations, claiming to represent employees of the Employer.
III. THE QUESTIONS CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
Pursuant to a consent election conducted under Board auspices on
June 15, 1944, the Intervenor was designated as the bargaining agent
of the Employer's employees. On August 21, 1944, the Intervenor and
the Employer signed a collective bargaining contract which provided
that it was to remain in effect for 1 year, and from year to year there-
after in the absence of written notice to modify or terminate given
by either party 45 days before any anniversary date. The contract
was automatically renewed in 1945, but not in 1946, for the Intervenor
on June 18, 1946, gave timely notice to reopen and modify the agree-
ment. Thereafter, negotiations for a new contract were undertaken
but were not successfully concluded by the time the old contract
expired on August 21, 1946. As a result of an impasse in the negotia-
tions , a strike was called by the Intervenor on August 26, 1946, for
the purpose of enforcing its bargain-demands. The strike completely
shut down the Employer's operations. On October 28, 1946, after
further conferences, the parties agreed on all provisions for a new
contract, excepting a provision as to "paid holidays," and they also
agreed at that time to incorporate these terms in a signed agreement
when they would reach an agreement in settlement of the strike. The
record further shows that the parties agreed that the final determina-
tion of the issue of "paid holidays" should not be included in the
agreement of October 28, 1946, but should be incorporated in the
strike settlement agreement.
On November 4, 1946, the Petitioner filed the petition herein, and
on November 7, 1946, the Employer was apprised, by receipt of the
Petitioner's letter dated October 29, 1946, of the Petitioner's request
for recognition as bargaining agent. The Employer did not acknowl-
edge receipt of the letter and continued negotiations with the Inter-
venor. As a result of the negotiations conducted between October 28
and November 12, 1946, the Employer and Intervenor resolved the
"paid holidays" issue and concluded terms for the resumption of opera-
1 We find no merit in the Intervenor ' s contention that the Petitioner is not a labor organ-
ization within the meaning of Section 2 (a) of the Act. The record shows that the Peti-
tioner was incorporated under the laws of the State of Rhode Island in 1944, and that it
has officers and a constitution Its certificate of incorporation and constitution both
disclose that the Petitioner was founed for the purpose of collective bargaining with the
Employer See Matter of Public Service Corporation of New Jer4ey , 72 IN L R 11 224
NEWMAN-CROSBY STEEL CORPORATION 515
tions; on the latter date the agreement of October 28 and the strike
settlement agreement were signed. Shortly thereafter the employees
returned to their jobs.
The Intervenor contends that negotiations for a new agreement hav-
ing been completed, although not yet reduced to a signed document
before the filing of the petition on November 4, 1946, the unsigned
draft agreement of October 28, 1946, precludes an election in this case.
The Employer takes no position on the matter. We do not agree
with the Intervenor's contention, for it is clear that when the petition
was filed there was no effective agreement in existence and the contract
was not signed until November 12, 1946. Under the well-established
doctrine of the Eicor case 2 a collective bargaining agreement which
has not yet been signed cannot constitute a bar to a determination of
representatives. Nor are we persuaded that this rule is inapplicable
because the petition was filed and the negotiations were conducted
during the existence of a strike. Accordingly, we find that the peti-
tion herein was seasonably filed and that the inchoate agreement of
October 28, 1946, which was executed on November 12, 1946, does not
constitute a bar to a present determination of representatives.3
In its brief the Intervenor also moved to dismiss the petition on the
grounds that the Petitioner did not make a sufficient showing of repre-
sentative interest among the Employer's employees. We have been
administratively satisfied, however, that the Petitioner's showing of
interest is adequate .4
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Employer, within the meaning
.of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
In accordance with a stipulation of the parties, Ave find that all the
Employer's production and maintenance employees, including watch-
men, firemen, and truckmen, but excluding executives, foremen, assist-
ant foremen (including the chief inspector and shipper), clerical em-
ployees, hospital nurses, metallurgists, students, part-time workers,
and all other supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote,
discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of em-
ployees, or effectively recommend such action, constitute a unit appro-
priate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
2 Matter of Eicor, Inc,'46 N. L R B 1035.
8See Matter of Public Service Corporation of New Jeisey, 72 N L. R B 224, Matter
of Gardner-Denver Company, 65 N. L R. B 1224, 1226; and Matter of The Whitcomb
Locomotive Company, 60 N L R B 1160, 1162
4 Matter of 0 D. Jennings & Company , 68 N. L . R B 516.
516 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIRECTION OF ELECTION 5
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
purposes of collective bargaining with Newman-Crosby Steel Corpo-
ration, Pawtucket, Rhode Island, 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 First Region, acting in this matter as agent
for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject to Sections 203.55
and 203.56, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regula-
tions-Series 4, 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 employ-
ees who did 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 those employees 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 they desire to be rep-
resented by Newman-Crosby Steel Workers Union, or by United Steel-
workers of America, C. I. 0., for the purposes of collective bargaining,
or by neither.
MR. JOHN M. HOUSTON took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Election..
5 Any participant in the election directed herein may , upon its prompt request to and,
approval thereof by the Regional Director , have its name removed from the ballot.