Pacific States Steel Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 15, 1961

134 N.L.R.B. 1325 (N.L.R.B. 1961)

PACIFIC STATES STEEL CORPORATION 1325
active interest by an employer is having disputed work done by one
group rather than another does not make Sections 10(k) and
8 (b) (4) (D) inoperative 2 In short, the fact that Safeway had sound
economic reasons for assigning the work to Locals 660 and 639 mem-
bers, and wanted the work performed by those employees, does not
make Safeway ineligible for protection under the Act.
Furthermore, in our view, the above-quoted expression by the
Supreme Court complements the well-established principle that, so
far as Sections 10 (k) and 8 (b) (4) (D) are concerned, whether or not
the union, or group, to whom the work has been assigned actively as-
serts a right to the work and opposes the claim of another union or
group, is not material.' It follows that whatever position Locals 660
and 639 may have taken with respect to the work assigned to them
is unimportant.
For the foregoing reasons, we would find, as we did in the original
Decision, that a dispute within the meaning of Sections 8(b) (4) (D)
and 10(k) does exist, and, accordingly, would proceed to determine
that dispute'
2 See , e g., Daniel P. Dooley, Acting Beg. Dir . v. Highway Truckdrivera and Helpers,
Local 107, International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers
of America (Safeway Stores ), 182 F. Supp . 297 (D.C. Del.), the companion Section 10(1)
proceeding, wherein the court enjoined Local 107's conduct Cf. International Long-
shoremen's and Warehousemen's Union, et al. v . Juneau Spruce Corporation , 189 F. 2d
177, 188 (C.A. 9), affd., 342 U S. 237.
a W. J. Hedrick, et al, d /b/a Industrial Painters d Sand Blaster8 , 115 NLRB 964, 968;
Tip Top Roofers, 126 NLRB 1277; Juneau Spruce Corporation , 82 NLRB 650.
* In addition, Member Leedom would point out, as he did in the original decision herein,
that while he joined in the Franklin case, 126 NLRB 1212, in holding that 10(k) was
inapplicable where the picketing union was striking to protect its bargaining status and
secure the reemployment of discharged employees , he regards the instant situation as
distinguishable . Here, the Employer made an administrative change in its method of
operations affecting the drivers, represented by Local 107 pursuant to a contract which
was to expire on December 31, 1959, but only after unsuccessful efforts to arrange a meet-
Ing for the purpose of negotiations , and the Employer coupled the change with an offer to
Local 107, which was rejected , to make every attempt to find comparable work for the
drivers affected. Moreover , as Crawford's statement made clear , Local 107, unlike the
union in the Franklin case, was striking to secure the assignment of the work to its
members , and was interested only incidentally , if at all, in its representative status and
the employment of the displaced drivers. Thus, while Local 107 had theretofore been
the bargaining representative of these drivers , the dispute at the time of the picketing
was, by reason of the change , one involving the assignment of work Cf. Member Leedom's
dissent in American Wire Weavers' Protective Association, AFL-CIO, et al ( The Lindsay
Wire Weaving Company ), 120 NLRB 977, 986.
Pacific States Steel Corporation and United Steelworkers of
America, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 20-R-1093. Decem-
ber 15, 1961
THIRD SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER
On August 31, 1944, following a Board-directed election ,' the Board
certified United Steelworkers of America, District 38, CIO, as the
' Pacific States Steel Corporation, 57 NLRB 1084 and 57 NLRB 1220.
134 NLRB No. 132.
1326 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
collective-bargaining representative of the Employer's production and
maintenance employees. Thereafter, on July 18, 1955, the Board
issued a Second Supplemental Decision and Order 2 clarifying the
certification to include three disputed classifications of employees.
On August 15, 1961, the United Steelworkers of America, AFL-
CIO, herein called the Steelworkers, filed with the Board a motiont
to clarify or amend certification of representatives, asking the Board
to decide whether the certification of the Steelworkers covers the em-
ployees of the recently acquired fabricating division as an accretion
to the production and maintenance unit currently represented by the
Petitioner.' Thereafter, the Employer and Operating Engineers Local
Union No. 3, International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO,.
herein called the Operating Engineers, filed replies to the Petitioner's
request, and Local 790, International Association of Bridge, Structural
and Ornamental Iron Workers, AFL-CIO, herein referred to as Local
790, moved to intervene and filed a memorandum in opposition.
On August 25,1961, the Board remanded the matter to the Regional
Director for the Twentieth Region for the purpose of a hearing to
receive 'evidence on the issues raised by the Petitioner's motion and
the opposition thereto. A hearing was held on September 28, 1961,
before James A. Harley, 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 herein to a three-
member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Rodgers and
Fanning).
Upon the entire record in the case, including the briefs filed by the
parties subsequent to the hearing, the Board finds:
Prior to the dispute herein, the Employer's operation at its Niles,
California, location consisted of the steel division and the American
forge division.
In July 1960, the Employer, by lease and purchase, acquired the
reinforcing bar fabricating operation of the F. A. Klinger Company
in Stockton, California. In January 1961, the Employer shut down
this operation and transferred the machinery and 19 of its 30 employees
to Niles, where it became the fabricating division.
The production and maintenance employees in the steel division are
represented by the Petitioner. Crane operators in the steel division'
and the employees in the American forge division are represented by
2 113 NLRB 222.
2 The Steelworkers specifically indicated that it does not seek an election of representa-
tives for these employees.
4 See Paciho States Steel Corporation , 121 NLRB 641.
PACIFIC STATES STEEL CORPORATION 1327
the Operating Engineers. Local 790 or its, predecessor has repre-
sented the production and maintenance employees of the F. A. Klinger
Company since 1956 and the Employer, in January 1961, agreed to,
be bound by the existing contract between Klinger and Local 790,
and recognized Local 790 as the representative of the employees covered
by that agreement. In August 1961, the Employer entered into a
collective-bargaining agreement with Local 790 covering all the em-
ployees in the fabricating division effective until June 1963.
The fabricating division is temporarily located in a separate bay
at the Niles site, and when present construction is completed it will
continue to be separately located. The sole function of the fabricating
division is the bending and shaping of reinforcing bars, herein called
rebars, to customer specifications. These rebars are produced by the
steel division and account for approximately 30 percent of that di-
vision's production. When rebars are needed, the fabricating division
orders them through the sales department from the steel division, and
they are trucked by the shipping department of the steel division to
the fabricating division. None of the shaping or bending is done in
the steel division or the American forge division.
There is no interchange of employees or equipment between, the
various divisions. The employees of each division start and quit work
at different times. Employees for the steel division are hired directly
by the Employer, while employees in the other divisions are secured
through hiring halls. The various divisions are autonomous in re-
gard to hiring, though the personnel manager oversees all hiring.
Because each division has a separate collective-bargaining contract,
the rates of pay, seniority, vacations, health and welfare and pension
funds differ with each division.
The fabricating division maintains its own shipping department
where finished products are shipped to its customers, and has a sep-
arate estimating department. Clerical work for the fabricating di-
vision is performed by a separate staff in the main office building.
Each division has a separate profit-and-loss statement, and transactions
between the various divisions are treated by-means of debits and cred-
its. Though the entire operation is under the supervision of a works
manager, his responsibility extends primarily to major policy con-
siderations and the supervision of each division is left to the division
production managers.
In view of the fact that the fabricating division has a separate bar-
gaining history, that there is no employee interchange, that it is sep-
arately located, that the operation of the steel division is not dependent
upon its operation, that the work is entirely different, that there is
separate immediate supervision, and that the employees have different
1 328 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
hours, pay, and fringe benefits, we find that the fabricating division
is not a functional part of the production and maintenance unit in the
:steel division, nor an accretion to it.' Accordingly, we deny the Pe-
titioner's motion to amend or clarify its certification.
[The Board denied the motion.]
r See Chrysler Corporation, 129 NLRB 407 ; Barrett Division, Allied Chemical & Dye
Corporation, 120 NLRB 1026 ; Cities Service Refining Corporation , 121 NLRB 1091.
Berman O. Wunsch and William Smith t /a Atlantic Maintenance
Co. and Philadelphia Window Cleaners and Maintenance
Workers' Union, Local 125, AFL-CIO. Case No. 4-CA-2325.
December 18, 1961
DECISION AND ORDER
On September 1, 1961, Trial Examiner Thomas N. Kessel issued
his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding
that the Respondent had engaged in and is engaging in certain un-
fair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist there-
from and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the Interme-
diate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed
timely exceptions to the Intermediate Report, and the Charging
Party filed exceptions and a statement in support thereof.
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 Rodgers, Fanning, and Brown].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the In-
termediate Report, the exceptions, and the entire record in this case,
and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations
of the Trial Examiner, with the following modification as to the
remedy.
THE REMEDY
The Trial Examiner recommended, inter alia, that the Respondent
make whole those employees against whom discrimination has been
found with the exception of Doris Jones, Belle Ford, and Dudley
Riley. As to these individuals, the Trial Examiner found that they
rejected the Respondent's offer of employment at a rate of pay lower
than union scale, and thereby indicated their unwillingness to work.
Contrary to the Trial Examiner, we find that the Respondent's offer
134 NLRB No. 131.