Phelps Dodge Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 23, 1945

60 N.L.R.B. 1431 (N.L.R.B. 1945)

In the Matter-of PHELPS DODGE CORPORATION and MILL AND SMELTER
WORKERS UNION No. 22893, AFL
In the Matter Of PHELPS DODGE CORPORATION and BROTHERHOOD OF
RAILWAY CARMEN LODGE No. 432, AFL
In the Matter Of PHELPS DODGE CORPORATION and BRICKLAYERS,
MASONS, AND PLASTERERS INTERNATIONAL UNION OF AMERICA, LOCAL
No. 3, of ARIZONA, AFL
In the Matter Of PHELPS DODGE CORPORATION and UNITED ASSOCIATION
OF JOURNEYMEN PLUMBERS, AND STEAM FITTERS OF THE UNITED
STATES AND CANADA, LOCAL 679, AFL
In the Matter Of PHELPS DODGE CORPORATION and INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS AND HELPERS OF AMERICA,
LOCAL No. 310, AFL
In the Matter of PHELPS DODGE CORPORATION and INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF BLACKSMITHS, DROP FORGERS AND HELPERS, LOCAL
UNION No. 621, AFL
In the Matter of. PHELPS DODGE CORPORATION and UNITED BROTHER-
HOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL UNION No. 221,
AFL
In the Matter Of PHELPS DODGE CORPORATION and INTERNATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, LODGE 1132, AFL
In the Matter of PHELPS DODGE CORPORATION and INTERNATIONAL
UNION OF OPERATING E NGINEERS , LOCAL 428, AFL
In the Matter of PHELPS DODGE CORPORATION and INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF BOILERMAKERS , IRON SHIP BUILDERS , AND HELPERS
OF AMERICA, LOCAL No. 506, AFL -
In the Matter Of PHELPS DODGE CORPORATION and MINE, MILL AND
SMELTER WORKERS UNION No. 22852, AFL
In the Matter Of PHELPS DODGE CORPORATION and INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL UNION No. B-1254,
AFL
Cases Nos. 01-R-2407 through 21-R-2418 , respectively .Decided
March 0,3, 1945
80 N. L . R. B., No. 249.
1431
1432 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Mr. Maurice J. Nicoson, for the Board.
Mr. Frank Ryley, of Phoenix,,Ariz., Mr. C. R. Kuzell, of Douglas,
Ariz., and Mr. G. C. Davis, of Morenci, Ariz., for the Company.
Mr. Arthur Garrett, of Los Angeles, -Calif., Mr. Paul M. Peterson,
of Phoenix, Ariz., and Mr. Pablo Avalos, of Miami, Ariz., for the AFL.
Mr. E. R. White, of Los Angeles, Calif., for the IAM.
Mr. Alfred Shackelford, of Phoenix, Ariz., for the IBEW.
Mr. John Murray, of Santa Monica, Calif., for the Carpenters.
Mr. W. D. Taylor, of Chicago, Ill., for the Metal Trades Department,
American Federation of Labor.
Mr. Charles Coffee, of Phoenix, Ariz., for the Arizona State Federa-
tion of Labor.
. Mr. John C. Fitzgerald, of Los Angeles, Calif., and Mr. W. A. Gray,
of Phoenix, Ariz., for the Operating Engineers.
Mr. Cotton Murray, of Phoenix, Ariz., for the Boilermakers.
Mr. Charles A. Cooper, of Albuquerque, N. Mex., for the Plumbers.
Mr. George W. Kuykendall, of Los Angeles, Calif., for the Black-
smiths.
Mr. Orville Larson, of Globe, Ariz., Mr. Arthur Ashby, of Morenci,
Ariz., Mr. Verne Curtis, of Silver City, N. Mex., Mr. Henry K. Holt, of
Morenci, Ariz., and Mr. Willard Y. Morris, of Denver, Colo., for the
C. I. ,O.
Mr. A. Sunwner Lawrence, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon petitions duly filed by Mill and Smelter Workers Union No.
22893, AFL, herein called Federal Union 22893; by Brotherhood of
Railway Carmeni Lodge No. 432, AFL, herein called the Carmen; by
Bricklayers, Masons and Plasterers International Union of America,
Local No. 3, of Arizona, AFL, herein called the Bricklayers; by United
Association of Journeymen.Plumbers and Steam Fitters of the United
States and Canada, Local 679, AFL, herein called the Plumbers; by
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs and Helpers
of America, Local No. 310, AFL, herein called the Teamsters; by In-
ternational Brotherhood of Blacksmiths, Drop Forgers and Helpers,
Local Union No. 621, AFL, herein called the Blacksmiths; by Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local Union
No. 221, AFL, herein called the Carpenters; by International Asso-
PHELPS DODGE CORPORATION 1433
ciation of Machinists, Lodge 1132, AFL, herein called the Machinists;
by International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 428, AFL, '
herein called the Operating Engineers; by International Brother-
hood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders and Helpers of America,
Local No., 506, AFL, herein called the Boilermakers; by Mine, Mill
and Smelter Workers Union No. 22852, AFL, herein called Federal
Union 228529; and by International Brotherhood of. Electrical Work-
ers, Local Union No. B-1254, herein called the Electrical Workers,
alleging that questions affecting commerce had arisen concerning the
representation of employees of Phelps Dodge Corporation, Morenci,
Arizona, herein called the Company, the National Labor Relations
Board provided for an appropriate consolidated hearing upon due
notice before Earl S. Bellman, Trial Examiner. Said hearing was
held at Phoenix, Arizona, between October 17 and 28, 1944. The
Company, all petitioning unions,' and International Union of Mine,
Mill and Smelter Workers, Local 616, CIO, herein called the CIO,
appeared, participated, and were afforded full opportunity to be heard,
to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and t6 introduce evidence
bearing on the issues. The Trial Examiner's rulings made at the
hearing'are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. The
CIO's motion to dismiss is denied for reasons hereinafter stated. All
parties were afforded an opportunity to present oral argument and
to file briefs with the Board.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS or FACT
1. TILE BUSINESS OF T11E COMPANY
Phelps Dodge Corporation is a New York corporation engaged
in the ruining, milling, and smelting of copper in Arizona, New Mex-
ico, and Mexico. The instant proceeding is concerned solely with the
operations of the Company's Morenci branch at Morenci, Arizona,
where the Company employs approximately 1,812 employees and is
engaged in the business of mining, milling, and smelting copper ore,
including the operation of an open pit copper mine, together with a
smelter for the reduction of the ore taken therefrom. During the
year 1943,' approximately 10,000,000 tons of ore were mined by the
Company at the Morenci branch of the `Company, all of which was
shipped to points outside the State of Arizona, after going through,
a smelting process.
' At the hearing, the Carmen moved to withdraw its petition from the present proceed-
ings. We hereby grant the motion and shall, accordingly, direct that the petition be
dismissed.
1434 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Company admits that, its operations at the Morenci branch;
affect commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations
Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Mill and Smelter Workers Union No.. -92893; Brotherhood of Rail-
way Carmen, Lodge No. 432; Bricklayers, Masons and Plasterers In-
ternational Union' of America, Local No. 3, of Arizona; International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs and Helpers of America, Lo-
cal No. 310, United Association of Journeymen Plumbers and Steam
Fitters of the United States and Canada, Local 679; International
Brotherhood of Blacksmiths, Drop Forgers and Helpers, Local Union
No. 621; United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America,
Local Union No. 221; International Association of Machinists, Lodge
1132; International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 428; Inter-
national Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, and Help-
ers of America, Local No. 506; Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers
Union No.'22852; and International Brotherhood of Electrical Work-
ers, Local No. B-1254 are labor organizations affiliated with the Amer-
ican Federation of Labor, admitting to membership employees of the
Company, and are sometimes collectively called herein the AFL
unions.
International Union of Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers Local 616,
is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Or-
ganizations , admitting to membership employees of the Company.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
-On June 19, 1944, a majority of the AFL unions herein concerned
filed petitions for investigation and certification of representatives,
claiming crafts units among the Company's employees at its Morenci
branch. The Company, which had been negotiating a contract with
the CIO following a certification issued by the Board on May 1, 1943,
declined to recognize any of the AFL unions in any of the claimed
units, pending a determination by the Board. - The CIO contends that
the petitions should be dismissed upon the ground that the units sought
are inappropriate and also upon the ground that tkree of the peti-
tioning unions have not,made any showing of interest in the units.
claimed by them to be appropriate.2 However, since the latter con-
tention affects only the proceedings-in which such organizations are
2 As ground for its motion to dismiss , the CIO urges the doctrine announced by the
Board in Matter of Allis- Chalmers Manufacturing Company, 50 N. L. R B. 306, as a bar
to the present proceedings . However, we are of the- opinion that the facts in the instant
proceedings are readily distinguishable from those in the Allis - Chalmers case See
Matter of Regina Corporation , 57 N. L. R B. 4 , Matter of Great Lakes Carbon Corporation,.
57 N. L. It. B. 17; Matter of American Car t Foundry Company ( Chicago Plant), 60
N. L It. B 735.
PHELPS DODGE CORPORATION 1435
petitioners ,3 we find that this circumstance does not constitute a bar
to the proceedings as a whole.
A statement of -a Field Examiner of the Board , introduced into evi-
dence at the hearing, indicates that the Bricklayers , the Teamsters,
the Blacksmiths , the Carpenters , the Machinists , the Operating Engi-
neers, the Boilermakers, and the Electrical Workers, each represents
a substantial number of employees , within the unit each claims to be
appropriate.'
We find that questions affecting commerce have arisen concerning
the representation of employees ' of the Company , within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and ( 7) of the Act. -
11'. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT; THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
- A. Contentions of the parties
Each of the AFL unions, with the exception of Federal Local 22893,
and Federal Local 22852, seeks a bargaining unit composed of skilled
employees throughout the Company's Morenci operations, engaged
in occupations bringing them within the craft jurisdiction of such
unions., Federal Local 22893 and Federal Local 22852 seek residual
mine and smelter units of employees not included in the units sought
by the other AFL -unions. The Company proposed the creation of
approximately 25 units based partly upon craft distinctions and partly
upon the element of common supervision within the Company's de-
partmental organization. The CIO, on the other hand, denies the ap-
propriateness of the units sought by the Company and the AFL unions
'The right of such organizations to participate in the elections hereinafter directed is
considered in Section IV herein
4 The report of the Field Examiner as supplemented by that of the Trial Examiner shows
that the Machinists submitted 249 cards , of which 89 bore names found on the pay roll
within the claimed appropriate unit containing 251 employees ; that the Operating Engi-
neers submitted 544 cards , of which 110 bore names found on the pay roll in the claimed
appropriate unit containing 187 employees ; that the Carpenters submitted 72 cards, of
which 39 bore names found on the pay roll in the claimed appropriate unit containing 48
employees , that the Blacksmiths submitted 18 cards, of which 12 bore names found on
the pay roll in the claimed appropriate unit containing 17 employees ; that the Teamsters
submitted 27 cards , of which 15 bore names found on the pay roll in the claimed appro-
priate unit containing 87 employees ; that the Bricklayers submitted 13 cards , 9 of which
bore names found on the pay roll in the claimed appropriate unit containing 9 employees ;
that Federal Union 22893 submitted 291 cards , of which 65 bore names found on the pay
roll in the claimed appropriate unit containing 336 employees ; that the Boilermakers sub-
mitted 162 cards, of which 40 bore names found on the pay roll in the claimed appropriate
unit containing 63 employees ; that the Electrical workers submitted 153 cards , of which
85 bore names found on the pay roll in the claimed appropriate unit containing 117 em-
ployees, that the Carmen submitted no cards evidencing representation in the claimed
appropriate unit containing 22 employees , that the Plumbers submitted no cards evi-
dencing representation in the claimed appropriate unit containing 37 employees ; that Fed-
eral Union 22852 ' submitted certain cards of which 7 bore names found on the pay roll
in the claimed appropriate unit of 282 employees . The Field Examiner further reported
evidence of substantial representation submitted by the CIO with respect to each of the
units claimed appropriate by the AFL unions.
1436 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and insists that an industrial unit is appropriate embracing all pro-
duction and maintenance employees throughout the Morenci opera-
tions, with certain exceptions. In support of its position, the CIO
relies upon an earlier decision of the Board wherein the Board found
appropriate a single uiiit covering all Ooduction and maintenance
employees with specified exclusions, in the mining, milling, and smelt-
ing operations at the Morenci branch herein concerned.5 The precise
issue in the present instance is whether,, on the basis of the present
record and reappraisal of the Company's bargaining history, the craft
units sought by the individual AFL unions may now be found appro-
priate for the purposes of collective bargaining.
In the prior proceeding involving the Morenci plant, it appeared
that the AFL unions, acting through a common representative, the
Metal Trades Department of the American Federation of Labor, had
entered into a single collective bargaining agreement with the Com-
pany covering the entire operations of the Morenci branch. As a
result thereof, the Board found in opposition to the claims to separate
craft units advanced by the AFL unions, that the contract was entered
into upon a plant-wide basis and, as such, in the light of bargaining
history was determinative of the type of unit appropriate for the
employees involved herein.
An examination of the Company's bargaining history as disclosed
both in the present record and in prior Board decisions involving
operations of the Company similar to those concerned in the present
proceedings, reveals that in 1937 the Company was confronted for the
first time at its United Verde branch with the problem of dealing with
craft labor organizations seeking to bargain collectively. On this oc-
casion, the Company opposed the contentions of the craft organiza-
tions and contended that there should be two division-wide units
embracing all employees at the mine and smelter divisions, respec-
tively, of the United Verde branch. Thereafter, notwithstanding a
decision of the Board to the contrary,, the Company continued to urge
its unit contentions in proceedings brought against the Company by
"reason of the latter's refusal to bargain collectively with the craft
unions certifiedby the Board as the result of elections held among the
Company's employees at the United Verde branch.? Subsequently
thereto, the Company, while acceding to the decision of the Board
with respect to the appropriateness of craft units, inaugurated a
policy, accepted by the craft labor organizations, of bargaining with
See Matter of Phelps Dodge Corporation , 48 N. L R. B 489
° See Matter of Phelps Dodge Corporation , United Verde Branch, 6 N . L. R. B 624
' See Matter of Phelps Dodge Corporation, United Verde Branch, 15 N. L.-R. B. 732 ;
N. L. R B. v . Phelps Dodge Corporation, C C A 2 ( Consent decree enforcing Board Order
entered October 24, 1940)
PHELPS DODGE CORPORATION 1437
such organizations through a common bargaining representative, i. e.,
the Metal Trades Council of the AFL .8
Pursuant to such policy, the Company on March 23, 1941, entered
into a single uniform agreement with the craft labor organizations
certified by the Board for the various craft units at the Company's
United Verde branch. During the same year, following the Board's
certification of craft unions at the Company's Copper Queen branch,
Smelter Division,9 the recognition thus granted to the craft organ-
izations at the United Verde branch was extended to the remaining
three branches of the Company in this area, including the Morenci
branch. On November 11, 1941, the Company and the craft labor
organizations jointly with the Metal Trades Department, executed -
substantially the same type of agreements 10 at each of the four
branches covering all divisions of the Company's mining operations
in this area, with one exception."
All of the above agreements, other than that negotiated at Morenci,
were signed by both the Metal Trades Department and the craft
unions; at Morenci the Metal Trades, Department alone signed on
behalf of its constituent craft unions. However, this discrepancy
in the execution of the Morenci agreement does not warrant an in-
ference that the separate interests of the craft organizations were not
recognized by the parties to such agreement. Indeed, it would ap-
pear that the contrary is clearly indicated, both by the language of
the agreement itself and also by the conduct of the parties during
the negotiations preceding the execution thereof. So far as the lan-
guage of the a ;reement is concerned, the preamble refers specifically
to the "Metal Trades Department as representing individually and
collectively the craft organizations affiliated with the Metal Trades
Department." The preamble further provides that "the following
are the organizations which are parties to this agreement and are
affiliated with the Morenci Trades Council" (followed by a list of the
craft organizations herein concerned). As regards the conduct of
While the craft organizations bargained through a common representative , we are of
the opinion that no inference may be drawn therefrom , either that the negotiations were
conducted upon the basis of a plant -wide unit or upon the basis of craft units , since such
bargaining is equally consistent ' with bargaining upon either basis
0 See Matter of Phelps Dodge Corporation , Copper Queen Branch, Smelter Division, 36
N L 'R B 657
10 While the agreements at the United Verde and the Copper Queen branches , unlike the
agreements negotiated at Morenci and New Cornelia without benefit of prior Board certifi-
cations, describe the units therein with more particularity by reference to the certifications
prenously issued by the Board , there is no essential difference between the terms of such
agreements, all of which are apparently based upon the Company ' s obvious desire for
uniformity in its bargaining relations throughout its operations.
"The only portion of the Company ' s operations not covered by the November 11, 1941,
agreements was the Mines Division of the Copper Queen branch , which division, however.
was later covered by a similar agreement executed on July 17 , 1942 , following certification
by the Board of various craft unions for this division of the Copper Queen branch. See
Matter of Phelps Dodge Corporation , 42 N. L. R B 288. -
1438 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the parties during the course of negotiations, the record discloses that,
while the Metal Trades Council acted as the common bargaining
representative of the AFL unions, such representation was based upon
separate letters of authorization signed by local officers of the various
craft organizations, authorizing the Metal Trades Council to act as
their bargaining representative for the purposes of bargaining col-
lectively with the Company, which letters of authorization had been
requested by the Company prior to the commencement of negotiations
with the Metal Trades Council. Moreover, that the discrepancy above
noted warrants little significance becomes more clearly apparent by
the fact that in July of 1942, prior to notice of the CIO's claim to
representation, an amendment to the Morenci agreement was exe-
cuted providing for individual signatures by the local representatives
of the various craft organizations 'in addition to the signature of the
Metal Trades Department, thus bringing the Morenci agreement into
harmony with the remaining three branches of the Company.
With respect to the contention of the CIO that agreements of this
character of necessity establish an industrial bargaining history, the
Board has had occasion to consider this contention in a ease arising
subsequent to the Board's decision involving the Morenct branch and
concerning employees of the Company's Copper Queen branch, Mines
-Division 12 In that case, the issue for determination was the effect
upon the interests of the various craft labor organizations. of single
uniform agreements executed on November 11, 1942, and October 23,
1943, respectively, and covering under provisions similar to those in
the uniform agreements previously mentioned, all the employees in-
cluded within the several units claimed by such craft organizations.
The Board,-adverting to the contention hereinabove noted, rejected
the same in the following language :
The UMW offered no evidence in support of its contention for
an all-inclusive unit. It appears that the various previously cer-
tified AFL unions and the AFL local here involved, annually
have entered into a single contract with the Company covering
all of the employees included in the several appropriate units.
The UMW contends that this fact alone establishes an industrial
bargaining history. We cannot agree. The provisions in the
contracts and the testimony at the hearing indicate that although
the craft unions negotiated jointly when contracts were executed,
these contracts carefully preserved the respective interests of the
various craft groups and the Company has considered its bar-
gaining relations to be multi-craft in character.
12 See Matter of Phelps Dodge Corporation, Copper Queen Branch (Mines Division), 54
NLRB.1293.
G
PHELPS DODGE CORPORATION 1439
A comparison of the contracts referred to in the decision aforesaid,
with the contract negotiated at Morenci reveals no differences which
we deem substantial. While, as previously indicated, the Metal
Trades Department alone signed the Morenci agreement on behalf
of the craft labor organizations prior to the amendment of July 1942,
it would appear that under the Morenci agreement the respective
interests of the various craft organizations similarly have been pre-
served and that the Company has likewise considered its bargaining
relations at the Morenci branch to be multi-craft in character.13 The
preservation of such craft interests is indicated not only by the lan-
guage of the contract itself and the separate letters of authorization
hereinabove mentioned, but also by the fact that in the handling of
grievances the grievance committee of the Metal Trades Council was
customarily attended by a spokesman for the craft union representing
the individual employees concerned. Similarly, the recognition by
the Company of the multi-craft character of its bargaining relations
at the Morenci branch, is disclosed by the fact that the Company cus-
tomarily enforced the closed-shop provision in the agreement upon
notice from an individual craft union that an employee within its
jurisdiction was no longer a member in good standing with such
union.
While in our previous decision involving the Company's Morenci
branch we found that the history of collective bargaining was deter-
minative of the type of unit appropriate for the employees herein con-
cerned, the record on which we based our decision presented a history
of collective bargaining which, because of its incompleteness, was am-
biguous in character. Upon the present record and the further facts
now before us, we believe that such ambiguity and uncertainty as
existed in the former case with respect to the purpose of the parties in
adopting the type of bargaining relied upon by the Board as establish-
ing an industrial bargaining history, have been resolved. In view of
the foregoing evidence indicating that the respective interests of the
various craft unions have been maintained, both during the course of
negotiations and subsequent thereto by the express provisions of the
;contract and in the administration thereof, we are of the opinion that
the fact that the AFL unions entered into a single contract with the
,Company covering all employees in the claimed appropriate units, was
not in itself such a derogation from craft lines as to constitute a history
of collective bargaining inconsistent with the recognition of craft units
13 No Inference In derogation of the recognized craft Interests may, as urged in the
dissenting opinion, be drawn from the fact that in the Morenci agreement the mechanical
wage scale is based on company classifications rather than upon the usual craft distinc-
tions, since similar mechanical wage scales appear in the agreements at all the other
branches of the Company where it is undisputed that collective bargaining has been con-
ducted in accordance with craft principles.
C
1440 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
as requested by the AFL unions in the prior proceeding.- In express-
ing this conclusion, we are not unaware of the different result reached
in such prior proceeding. In this regard, it may be noted that the
decision was made at a time when the policy of the Board with respect
to the appropriateness of craft units in the copper mining industry had
not been as clearly developed as it was later to appear in subsequent
Board decisions wherein the Board, upon issue raised, invariably rec-
ognized the appropriateness of craft units by ordering self -determina-
tive elections with respect to the various craft'groups involved.15 In
view of the foregoing, we find that the history-of collective bargaining
did not, as the Board found in its prior decision, conclusively establish
the propriety of a plant-wide unit at the Morenci operations 16 ' and
that the craft employees should have been permitted an opportunity
to express their representation desires in separate Board elections
directed for the various craft groups.17
With respect to the subsequent period marked by the appearance of
the CIO among the employees of the Compaiiy at its Morenci branch,
it is evident that membership in the AFL unions continued despite the
fact that the CIO was certified by the Board as the collective bargain-
ing representative of all its production and maintenance employees
at the Morenci branch. While the AFL unions have by necessity
14 See footnote 12, supra See also Matter of Shell Chemical Company, 4 N L R. B 259.
16 At the time of the former Morenci decision, the Board's policy with respect to craft
units in the copper mining industry was undergoing revision as indicated by the fact that
on May 19, 1943, subsequent to the Morenci decision, the Board duected self-determinative
elections for craft groups employed in copper mining operations, thereby reversing an
earlier decision involving the same Company and substantially the same group of craft
unions whose petitions had previously been dismissed as seeking inappropriate units See
Matter of Kenneeott Copper Company (Utah Copper Company), 49 N. L. R. B. 901.-'This
policy was again reflected by the Board in subsequent decisions involving the copper
industry. See Matter of Kennecott Copper Company (Nevada Mines Division), 51 N. L.
R B 1140 ; Matter of Castle Dome Copper Co Inc, 52 N L R B 135.
10 The position taken in the dissenting opinion that certain pencil notations made by
the Company's representative during the course of negotiations establish an intention to
bargain upon a basis inconsistent with the recognition of craft units, is without logical
support So far as the notations by the Company's representative are concerned, we are
of the opinion that the pencil memorandum which refers to all "production and main-
tenance employees," is equally consistent with an intention to define the scope of the
proposed bargaining agreement as covering all of the craft groups which, taken as a whole,
comprise all of the Company's "production and maintenance employees "
17 In the minority opinion much stress is laid upon the fact that in an earlier proceeding
which resulted in this Board directing separate elections in Morenci in two craft units
of railroad employees (40 N L. R B 180), both the Company and the A F L opposed
the units sought by the Railroad Brotherhoods on the ground that the A F of L contract
for the Morenci operations was plant-wide Even assuming that this Board can consider
aspects of that case, which, because of differences in parties and issues, would normally
be inadmissible under the rules of eiidence, this circumstance is not conclusive of the
present issue The Board in that case rejected the contention that the A F. of L contract
covered all the operations of the plant, directing elections in separate craft units in
accordance with the request of the petitioners. Implicit in this decision, was the view
that the A F. of L. contract covered the aggregation of the occupations represented by
the constituent crafts of the Metal Trades Council Therefore conceding inconsistency
on the pat of the A. F L , it would be equally inconsistent for this Board now to give
its contract a scope which in the railroad ease it refused to recognize.
PHELPS DODGE CORPORATION 1441
acquiesced in the status of the CIO as the exclusive bargaining repre-
sentative following its certification by the Board, the record does not
indicate that such acquiescence has destroyed the identity of the AFL
unions as labor organizations among the Company's Morenci em-
ployees, but on the contrary, demonstrates that the AFL unions remain
both active and recognizable craft organizations among the Com-
pany's employees. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that the his-
tory of collective bargaining at the Morenci branch of the Company
subsequent to the appearance of the CIO, is not inconsistent with the
recognition of separate craft units as appropriate for the purposes
of collective bargaining.18 Our opinion in this respect is further sup-
ported by the fact that the evolution of collective bargaining in the
copper mining industry has resulted in the recognition of the appro-
priateness of craft Iinits, not only at all of the other operations of the
Company within the same broad geographical area but at all the open
pit operations of any appreciable size within the, copper mining indus-
try, which operations differ in substantial respects from underground
mining operations.-
Absent a determinative history of collective bargaining and depend-
ent in part upon the desires of the employees themselves, the Board
has customarily held that employees such as these in the groups sought
herein by the AFL unions may constitute appropriate bargaining
units.L" On the other hand, in the interest of maintaining stability
relative to conditions surrounding collective bargaining, the Board
has been reluctant to disturb a plant-wide bargaining unit where the
history of collective bargaining has demonstrated the effectiveness
of such a unit; "1 and it gives great weight to its prior determination
of the appropriate unit made after a full hearing in which all interested
parties participated. However, having reexamined our prior deci-
sion, we are now of the opinion, as indicated above, that the AFL
unions have not by their actions, either during the period covered by
the uniform agreement with the Company, or the subsequent period
in which the CIO has been the exclusive bargaining representative
18 The point urged in the dissenting opinion that the survival of defeated labor organi-
zations is _a common phenomenon and does not require new unit determinations by the
Board , is irrelevant to the opinion expressed above since such fact is not considered for
the pun pose of establishing the need for a new unit determination , but simply as tending
to indicate that the prior bargaining history presents no serious obstacle to the estab-
lishment of craft units in the present proceeding.
20 See Matter of Kennecott Copper Company ( Nevada Consolidated Mines), 40 N L
R. B. 986 ; Matter of Kennecott Copper Company ( Utah Copper Company ), 49 N L. R B
901 ; Matter of Kennecott Copper Company ( Nevada Consolidated Manes ), 51 N. L R. B
1140
20 See Matter of Kennecott Copper Company ( Nevada Consolidated Mines), 40 N L R. B-
986
21 See Matter of American Can Company, 13 N L. R B. 1252 ; Matter of Lima Locomotive
Works, Incorporated, 58 N. L. R B . 160; Matter of Doehle Die Casting Company, 58
N. L R B 166
628563-45-vol 60--92
1442 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of the Company 's Morenci employees, forfeited any right that they
may have had to bargain separately for the employees within their
respective craft jurisdictions . Furthermore , in view of the evidence
in the record covering the nature of the negotiations and contractual
relations between the Company, the CIO and the AFL unions, we are
not persuaded that the history of collective bargaining has conclu-
sively demonstrated that effective bargaining has been achieved and
maintained on the basis of a plant -wide unit or that the circumstances
in the case are such that our prior unit determination compels the
dismissal of the present proceedings.22
From the foregoing , it appears that the employees in the units pro-
posed by the craft organizations might properly constitute separate
bargaining units or might be merged in the single plant-wide unit
urged by the CIO. In this situation , we shall permit the scope of the
bargaining unit or units to be determined , in part, by the results of
separate elections which we shall hereinafter direct.
B. The voting units
There remains for consideration the specific composition of the vot-
ing units. As previously noted, the various crafts, with the exception
of the Operating Engineers, seek craft units coextensive with the
Company's Morenci operations. The Operating Engineers, however,
seeks two separate units of a semi-industrial type, covering employees
of the mine and smelter, respectively. While the character of the
units sought by the Operating Engineers is not strictly in accordance
with craft principles, we are of the opinion that the type of unit here
requested is consistent with that of similar units of engineering em-
ployees found appropriate in the copper mining industry.23 On the
other hand, we shall combine in one voting group the employees
claimed by the Operating Engineers both at the mine and the smelter.
As indicated above, the Plumbers have presented no evidence, and
Federal Locals 22893 and 22852 have presented but little evidence of
interest among the employees whom they claim to represent.' Accord-
ingly, pursuant to our usual practice,24 we shall not accord the Plumb-
ers a place on the ballot,and shall dismiss the petitions filed by all
three labor organizations. However, in view of the substantial rep-
resentation shown by the CIO with respect to the groups claimed by
such organizations, we shall direct an election in a residual group
comprising all employees claimed by the three AFL Unions herein-
above mentioned. Since it appears that the Federal locals have some
"See Matter of General Electric Company ( Lynn River Works and Everett Plant),
58 N L. R. B. 57; Matter of Davi8 t Farber Machine Company, 59 N. L. R. B 1328.
23 See Matter of Kennecott Copper Corporation, 50 N. L . R. B. 842; 55 N. L. R. B. 929.
24 See Matter of Chicago Flexible Shaft Company , CO N. L R. B. 848.
PHELPS DODGE CORPORATION 1443
evidence of representation in such residual group, we shall accord
thein a joint place on the ballot in the election hereinafter directed.25
- Upon the basis of the entire record and in accordance with the f ore-
going findings of fact, we shall order elections among the employees
of the Company at its Morenci branch within each of the groups listed
below. There are excluded from each of such voting groups, all cler-
ical, technical, and supervisory employees with authority to hire, pro-
mote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status
of employees or effectively recommend such action. The respective
voting groups shall be as follows :
1. All employees in the Repair Refractory Department, Smelter
Division, in the classification of brickmason;
2. All employees throughout the Morenci operations in the classi-
fications of truck driver, truck driver A, truck driver B, truck driver C,
drilling and blasting supply truck helper, mine supply service man,
repair supply truck helper, warehouseman, warehouse receiving clerk,
and warehouse laborer;
3. All employees in the Drill Sharpener and Hammer Repairing
Department, Open Pit Mining Division, in the classifications of black-
smith 1st class, churn drill bit sharpener, churn drill bit repairmen,
drill steel converter, air drill bit temperman, hot miller operator, churn
drill bit temperman, churn drill bit sharpener helper; employees in
the Boiler and Welding Shop Department, Open Pit Mining Division,
in the classification of blacksmith 1st class; employees in the Black-
smith Work Department of the Mechanical Division, in the classifica-
tions of heavy fire blacksmith, blacksmith special, blacksmith or
mechanic 1st class, blacksmith or mechanic 2nd class, apprentice black-
smith, mechanic helper 1st class, mechanic helper 2nd class, mechanic
helper 3rd class; and employees in the Underground Repair Depart-
anent, Leaching and Precipitation Division, in the classification of
repair mechanic C.
4. All employees in the Woodwork and Painting Operation, Me-
chanical Division, in the classifications of mechanic or painter special,
mechanic or painter 1st class, mechanic or painter 2nd class, mechanic
or carpenter special, mechanic or carpenter 1st class, mechanic or car-
penter 2nd class, repair mechanic B, carpenter helper-1st class, car-
penter helper 2nd class, carpenter helper 3rd class, carpenter special,
carpenter 1st class, carpenter 2nd class, repair carpenter B, and work-
ing gang boss.
5. All employees in the Churn Drilling Department, Open Pit Min-
ing Division, in the classifications of churn drill repairman, churn
drill repair helper A, churn drill repair helper B; employees in the
26 In the event that the Federal locals do not desire to appear on the ballot jointly, we
shall entertain a motion by one or both organizations , either to withdraw from the ballot
or for leave to appear thereon as separate labor organizations.
1444 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Drill Sharpening and Hammer Repairing Department, Open Pit
Mining Division, in the classifications of repair mechanic A, and jack-
hammer repairman; employees in the Power Shovel Loading Depart-
ment, Open Pit Mining Division, in the classifications of mechanic
1st class, repair mechanic A, repair mechanic B, repair mechanic C,
helper 2nd class, helper 3rd class; employees in the Locomotive Re-
pairing Department, Open Pit Mining Division, in the classifications
of mechanic special, mechanic 1st class, repair mechanic A, repair
mechanic B, repair mechanic C, mechanic helper 2nd class, mechanic
helper 3rd class; employees in the Truck Repairing Department, Open
Pit Mining Division, in the classifications of mechanic special, lubri-
cating mechanic 1st class, tire repairman 1st class, mechanic 1st class,
mechanic 2nd class, repair mechanic A; repair mechanic B, repair
mechanic C, mechanic helper 2nd class, tire repair helper, mechanic
helper 3rd class; employees in the Bulldozer Repairing Department,
Open Pit Mining Division, in the classifications of mechanic special,
mechanic 1st class, mechanic 2nd class, repair mechanic A, repair me-
chanic B, repair mechanic C, mechanic helper 2nd class, mechanic
helper 3rd class; employees in the Dump Car Repairing Department,
Open Pit Mining Division, in the classifications of mechanic special,
mechanic 1st class, repair mechanic A, repair mechanic B, repair me-
chanic C, mechanic helper 2nd class, mechanic helper 3rd class; employ-
ees in the Machine Shop Department, Open Pit Mining Division, in the
classifications of mechanic special, mechanic 1st class, repair mechanic
A, repair mechanic B, mechanic helper 1st class, mechanic helper 2nd
class, mechanic helper 3rd class; employees in Supply Service and
Other Departments, Open Pit Mining Division, in the classification of
mechanic helper 2nd class; employees in the Crushing Department,
Preparation of Ore Operation, Ore Dressing Division, in the classi-
fications of repair mechanic A, repair mechanic B, crane operator,
mechanic helper 1st class, mechanic helper 2nd class, mechanic helper
3rd class; employees in the Repairs Department, Concentrating Oper-
ation, Ore Dressing Division, in the classifications of repair mechanic
A, repair mechanic B, mill crane operator, mechanic helper 1st class,.
mechanic helper 2nd class, mechanic helper 3rd class; employees in
the Maintenance Department, Tailings Disposal Operation, Ore Dress-
ing Division, in the classifications of repair mechanic A, repair me-
chanic B, repair mechanic C, mechanic helper 1st class, mechanic helper
2nd class, mechanic helper 3rd class; employees in Repair Mechanical
Department, Repair of Smelter Equipment Operation, Smelter Divi-
sion, in the classifications of repair mechanic A, repair mechanic B,
repair Mechanic C, repair helper 1st class, repair helper 2nd class, re-
pair helper 3rd class; employees in Machine Work Department, Metal
Working Operation, Mechanical Division, in the classifications of me-
PHELPS DODGE CORPORATION _ 1445
chanic special , mechanic 1st class , mechanic 2nd class, apprentice ma-
chinist, mechanic helper 1st class , mechanic helper 2nd class , mechanic
helper 3rd class; employees in the Automobile Work Department,
Metal Working Operation , Mechanical Division , in the classifications
of mechanic 1st class, mechanic 2nd class, repair mechanic B, appren-
tice automobile mechanic, mechanic helper 1st class , mechanic helper
2nd class , mechanic helper 3rd class; employees in Repairs and Miscel-
laneous Service Department ; Metal Working Operation , Mechanical
Division , in the classifications of mechanic 2nd class , repair mechanic
A, repair mechanic B, mechanic helper 1st class, mechanic helper 2nd
class, mechanic helper 3rd class ; employees in the Steam Power Plant
Department , Production of Power Operation , Mechanical Division, in
the classifications of mechanic 1st class , mechanic 2nd class , mechanic
helper 1st class , mechanic helper 2nd class ; employees in the Diesel
Power Plant Department , Production of Power Operation , Mechani-
cal Division , in the classification of Diesel Repairman; and employees
in the Precipitation Department , Precipitation Operation , Leaching
and Precipitation Division , in the Classification of mechanic helper 2nd
class;
6. All employees in the Churn Drilling Department , Open Pit Min-
ing Division , in the classifications of churn drill operator , churn drill
helper; employees in the Supplies Handling Department , Open Pit
Mining Division , in the classification of bit locomotive operator; em-
ployees in the Power Shovel Loading Department , Open Pit Mining
Division , in the classifications of electric shovel operator , electric shovel
oiler, pitman, 11/2 yard shovel operator , 1 yard shovel operator , Diesel
shovel oiler ; ,employees in the Bulldozer Department , Open Pit Mining
Division , in the classifications of bulldozer operator , and bulldozer
helper; employees in the Maintenance of Way Department , Open Pit
Mining Division , in the classifications of brown hoist operator, track
shifter operator ; employees in the Crushing Department , Ore Dressing
Division , in the classifications of crusher operator , tripper car operator,
crusher helper ; employees in the Operating Department , Concentrat-
ing Operation , Ore Dressing Division , in the classifications of flotation
operator , reagent operator , ball mill operator , regrind mill operator,
thickener operator , Marcy mill oiler, operator helper; employees in the
Handling Concentrates Department, Ore Dressing Division, in the
classifications of filter operator , filter helper ; employees in the Supplies
and Reagents Department, Ore Dressing Division , in the classification
of Lime Plant Operator; employees in the Operating Department,
Tailings Disposal Operation , Ore Dressing Division , in the classifica-
tion of tailing darn pumpman; employees in the Maintenance Depart-
ment, Tailings Disposal Operation , Ore Dressing Division , in the clas-
sifications of bulldozer operator , bulldozer helper, 1 yard shovel opera-
1446 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tor, Diesel shovel- oiler; employees in the Preparation Department,
Receiving and Preparing Materials Operations, Smelter Division, in
the classifications of crushing plant operator, crusher operator, re-
claimer operator; employees in the Reverberatory Department, Pro-
duction of Matte Operation, Smelter Division, in the classifications of
furnaceman, helper A, helper B, slag motorman, slag switchman; em-
ployees in the Converter Department, Smelter Division, in the classi-
fications of Traxcavator operator, crane chaser, skimmer, Garr gun
operator; employees in the Refining Department, Smelter Division, in
the classifications of inspector, craneman, trucker, refiner; employees
in the Repairs and Miscellaneous Service Department, Mechanical Di-
vision, in the classification of pumpman-Clifton station; employees
in the Transportation Department, Mechanical Division, in the classi-
fications of moto-crane operator, mechanic helper 1st class; employees
in the Steam Power Plant Department, Production of Power Opera-
tion, Mechanical Division, in the classifications of P. H. Fireman,
blower and compressor man, P. H. pumpman; employees in the Diesel
Power Plant Department, Production of Power Operation, Mechanical
Division, in the classification of Diesel Power Plant engineer; em-
ployees in the Underground Maintenance Department, Leaching and
Precipitation Division, in the classification of pump attendant; and
employees in the Precipitation Department, Leaching and Precipita-
tion Division, in the classification of 1 yard shovel operator;
7. All employees in the Truck Repairing Department, Open Pit
Mining Division, in the'classifications of welder 1st class, welder 2nd
class; employees-in the Bulldozer Repairing Department, Open Pit
Mining Division, in the classification of welder 1st class; employees
in the Dump Car Repairing Department, Open Pit Mining Division,
in the classifications of welder 1st class, welder special; employees in
Boiler and Welder Shop Department, Open Pit Mining Division, in
the classifications of boilermaker special, welder special, welder 1st
class, boilermaker 1st class, welder 2nd class, boilermaker 2nd class,
repair mechanic A, repair mechanic B, repair mechanic C; mechanic
helper 2nd class, mechanic helper 3rd class; employees in the Boiler
Work Department, Mechanical Division, in the classifications of me-
chanic gang boss, layer-out, boilermaker special, boilermaker 1st class
or mechanic 1st class, boilermaker 2nd class or mechanic 2nd class;
apprentice, mechanic helper 1st class, mechanic helper 2nd class, me-
chanic helper 3rd class ; employees in the Sheet Metal Work Depart-
ment, Mechanical Division, in the classifications of mechanic gang boss,
layer-out, mechanic special, mechanic 1st class or tinsmith 1st class,
mechanic 2nd class or tinsmith 2nd class, apprentice, mechanic helper
2nd class, mechanic helper 3rd class; employees in the Welding De-
partment, Mechanical Division, in the classifications of mechanic 1st
-PHELPS DODGE CORPORATION 1447
class or welder 1st class, mechanic 2nd class or welder 2nd class, ap-
prentice welder, mechanic helper 1st class, mechanic helper 2nd class,
mechanic helper 3rd class; and employees in the Steam Power Plant
Department, Mechanical Division, in the classification of welder 1st
class ;
8. All employees in the Converter Department, Smelter Division in
the classification of craneman; 26 employees in the Electric Shop De-
partment,' Mechanical Division, in the classifications of armature
winder, electrician 1st class or mechanic 1st class, electrician helper 1st
class, armature winder helper 2nd class, electrician helper 3rd class,
and janitor; employees in the Electric Field Department, Mechanical
Division, in the classifications of working gang boss, electrician special
or mechanic special, electrician 1st class or mechanic 1st class, elec-
trician 2nd class or mechanic 2nd" class, electrician helper 1st class,
electrician helper 2nd class, electrician helper 3rd class; employees in
the Electric Trolley Department, Mechanical Division, in the classifi-
cations of working gang boss, electrician or mechanic 1st class,
electrician or mechanic 2nd class, repair mechanic B or electric repair-
man, electrician helper 1st class; employees in the Electric Line De-
partment, Mechanical Division, in the classifications of electrician or
mechanic special, electrician or mechanic 1st class„ electrician or me-
chanic 2nd class, repair mechanic B or electric repairman, electrician
helper 2nd class; employees in the Steam Power Plant, Mechanical'
Division, in the classification of second engineer or turbine man;
9. All employees in the Pipe Laying Department, breaking ground
operation, Open Pit Mining Division in the classification of pipe-
fitter 1st class; all employees in the Pipe Working Department, Me-
chanical Division, in the classifications of pipefitter 2nd class or me-
chanic 2nd class, apprentice pipefitter, mechanic helper 2nd class,
mechanic helper 3rd class; all employees in the Crushing Department,
Ore, Dress] ilg'Divi`sion, in the classification of laborer; employees in
the Operating Department, Concentrating Operations, Ore Dressing
Division, in the classifications of sampler and laborer; employees in
the Handling Concentrates Department, Ore Dressing Division, in
the classifications of sample bucker, sampler, and laborer; employees
in the Supplies and Reagents Department, Ore Dressing Division,
in the classification of laborer; employees in the Operating Depart-
ment, Tailings Disposal Operation, Ore Dressing Division, in the
"While such cranemen operate overhead electric cranes in the converter aisle of the
smelter and are of a type which have been found to constitute a sufficiently distinct and
homogeneous group to warrant permitting them a choice of separate representation apart
from residual production and maintenance employees (See Matter of Phelps Dodge Corp.,
United Verde Branch, 56 N. L. R B 1560), we are of the opinion that , under the present
circumstances , the policy of the Act will be best effectuated by including these operators
of electrical equipment within the larger group of electrical employees
1448 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
classifications of dump boss , tailings dam operator , tailings dani
helper , and laborer ; employees in the Maintenance Department, Tail-
ings Disposal Operation , Ore Dressing Division , in the classifica-
tion of laborer; 'employees in the Preparation Department , Smelter
Division , in the classifications of sampler operator , tripperman, bed
operator or tripperman , and laborer ; employees in the Reverberatory
Department , Smelter Division , in the classification of laborer; em-
ployees in the Converter Department , Smelter Division , in the clas
sifications of drillman , puncher, and laborer ; employees in the Re-
fining Department , Smelter Division , in the classifications of trimmer,
copper pourer , mouldinan , tongnran, spoonman , and laborer; em-
ployees in the Repair Mechanical Department, Smelter Division, in
the classification of laborer; employees in the Repair Slurry Depart-
ment, Smelter Division, in the classifications of slurry gun operator,
mason's helper, slurry helper, and laborer; employees in the Miscel-
laneous Department , Smelter Division , in the classifications of flue
dust operator , pug mill operator , flue cleaner or tube lancer , mud mill
operator , boiler washer, janitor , janitress , laborer , and plant test
helper; employees in the Machine Works Department, the Boiler
Works Department , and Sheet Metal Works Department , Mechani-
cal Division, in the classification of laborer in all grades; employees
in the Repairs and Miscellaneous Service Department, Mechanical
Division , in the classifications of jackhammer man, powderman, wall
builder, change room janitor, and laborer in all grades; employees
in House Repair Department , Tailings, Trestles Forms Department,
and Reduction Works Shop Department, Mechanical Division, in the
classification of laborer D; employees in the Maintenance Department
of Industrial Rail Transportation Operation, Mechanical Division,
in the classifications of assistant track boss helper, truck burner, track
spiker, and track laborer; employees in the Steam Power Plant De-
partment , Mechanical Division , in the classifications of janitor and
laborer; and employees in the Surface and Miscellaneous Division,
in the classifications of Clifton caretaker, laborer, sanitation laborer,
repair mechanic B, wall builder , pipeman helper , stableman , janitor,
bucking room boss, and sample bucker; all employees in the Churn
Drilling Department, Open Pit Mining Division, in the' classifica-
tions of churn drill casing straightener, mine shop laborer; all em-
ployees in the Air Drilling and Blasting Department, Open Pit
Mining Division , in the classifications of powderman , secondary
powderman helper, machine drillman , powder housekeeper (field
magazine), air drill machine helper, jackhammer man, bull gang
helper, and laborer B; employees in the Primary Blasting Depart-
ment, Open Pit Mining Division , in the classifications of powder sub-
-foreman, powderman , powder housekeeper , primary powderman
PHELPS DODGE CORPORATION 1449
.helper; employees in the Pipe Laying Department, Open Pit Mining
Division, in the classifications- of mine pipeman, mine pipe helper,
and laborer; employees in the Supplies Handling Department, Open
Pit Mining Division, in the classifications of trailmaker, laborer; em-
ployees in the Drill Sharpening and Hammer Repairing Depart-
ment, Open Pit Mining Division, in the classifications of mine shop
laborer, and mine shop janitor; employees in the Power Shovel
Loading Department, Open Pit Mining Division, in the classifica-
tion of bull gang helper; employees in the Maintenance of Way
Department, Open Pit Mining Division, in the classifications of track
shifter operator, track gang boss helper, assistant track boss helper,
bull gang helper, track timekeeper, switch oiler, track burner, laborer,
track spikes, and track laborer; employees in the Waste Disposal
Department, Open Pit Mining Division, in the classifications of dump
boss, waste chnpman, dumpman helper; employees in the Sampling
Department, Open Pit Mining Division, in the classifications of head
mine sampler, and churn drill sampler; employees in the General
Department, Open Pit Mining Division, in the classifications of safety
equipment supplyman, safety equipment maintenance man, office and
change room janitor; employees in the Locomotive Repairing De-
partinent, Open Pit Mining Division, in the classifications of mine
shop laborer, mine shop janitor; employees in the Truck Repairing
Department, Open Pit Mining Division, in the classifications of mine
shop laborer, mine shop janitor, employees in the Bulldozer Repair-
ing Department, Open Pit Mining Division, in the classifications of
mine shop laborer, mine shop janitor; employees in the Dump Car
Repairing Department, Open Pit Mining Division, in the classifica-
tions of car repair welder, mine shop laborer; employees in the Ma-
chine Shop Department, Open Pit Mining Division, in the classifica-
tions of mine shop laborer, mine shop janitor; employees in the Boiler
Welding Shop Department, Open Pit Mining Division, in the clas-
sifications of mine shop laborer, mine shop janitor; employees in the
Supply Service and Other Departments, Open Pit Mining Division,
in the classifications of car repair helper, and mine shop laborer.
As stated above, there will be no final determination of the-appro-
priate unit or units pending the results of the election. The groups
that choose the AFL Unions as their bargaining representative will
constitute separate and distinct appropriate units. Those groups
choosing the CIO will together constitute a single appropriate unit.
We shall direct that the employees of the Company eligible to vote
in the elections shall be those who were employed during the pay-roll
period immediately preceding the date of the Direction of Elections
herein, subject to such limitations and additions as are set forth in
the Direction.
1450 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National
Labor Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, and pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3, as amended, it is
hereby -
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representa-
tives for he purposes of collective bargaining with Phelps Dodge
Corporation, Morenci, Arizona, separate elections by secret ballot
shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than sixty (60)
days from the date of this Direction, under the Direction and super-
vision of the Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region, acting
in this matter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board and
subject to Article III, Sections 10 and 11, of said Rules and Regula-
tions, among those employees who fall within the groups indicated
below and who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately
preceding the date of this Direction, including employees who did
not work during said pay-roll period because they were ill or on vaca-
tion 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 any who have since quit or been discharged for
cause and have not been rehired or reinstated prior to the date of the
elections :
1. The employees in the first voting group described in Section IV,
above, to determine whether they desire to be represented by Brick-
layers, Masons, and Plasterers International Union of America,
Local No. 3 of Arizona, AFL, or by International Union of Mine,
Mill and Smelter Workers, Local 616, C. I. 0., for the purposes of
collective bargaining, or by neither;
2. The employees in the second voting group described in Section
IV, above, to determine whether they desire to be represented by
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen
and Helpers of America, Local No. 310, AFL, or by International
Union of Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers, Local 616, C. I. 0., for
the purposes of collective bargaining, or by neither;
3. The employees in the third voting group described in Section IV,
above, to determine whether they desire to be represented by Inter-
national Brotherhood of Blacksmiths, Drop Forgers and. Helpers,
Local Union No. 621, AFL, or by International Union of Mine, Mill
and Smelter Workers, Local 616, C. I. 0., for the purposes of collective
bargaining, or by neither; _
4. The employees in the, fourth voting group described in Section
TV, above, to determine whether they desire to be represented by
PHELPS DODGE CORPORATION 1451'
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local
Union No. 221, AFL, or by International Union of Mine, Mill and
Smelter Workers, Local 616, C. I. 0., for the purposes-of collective
bargaining, or by neither;
5. The employees-in the fifth-voting group described in Section IV,
above, to determine whether they desire to be represented by Inter-
national Association of Machinists, Lodge 1132, AFL, or by Interna-
tional Union of Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers, Local 616, C. I. 0.,
for the purposes of collective bargaining, or by neither;
6. The employees in the sixth voting group described in Section IV,
above, to determine whether they desire to be represented by Inter-
national Union of Operating Engineers, Local 228, AFL, or by Inter-
national Union of Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers, Local 616, C. I. 0.,
for the purposes of collective bargaining, or by neither;
7. The employees in the seventh voting group described in Section
IV, above, to determine whether they desire to be represented by In-
ternational Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders and
Helpers of America, Local No. 506, AFL, or by International Union
of Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers, Local 616, C. I. 0., for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining, or by neither;
8. The employees in the eighth voting group described in Section
IV, above, to determine whether they desire to be represented by
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No.
B-1254, AFL, or by International Union of Mine, Mill and Smelter
`Yorkers, Local 616, C. I. O., for the purposes of collective bargaining,
or by neither;
9. The employees in the ninth voting group described in Section IV,
above, to determine whether they desire to be represented by Mill and
Smelter Workers Union No. 22893, and Mine, Mill and Smelter
Workers Union No. 22852 AFL, or by International Union of Mine,
Mill and Smelter Workers, Local 616, C. I. 0., for the purposes of
collective bargaining, or by neither.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petitions for investigation and cer-
tification of representatives of employees of Phelps Dodge Corpora-
tion, Morenci, Arizona, filed herein by Brotherhood of Railway Car-
men-Lodge No. 432; by United Association of Journeymen, Plumb-
ers and Steam Fitters of the United States and Canada, Local 679,
AFL; by Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers Union No. 22852, AFL; and
by Mill and Smelter Workers Union No. 22893, AFL, be, and they
hereby are, dismissed.
1452 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
CHAIRMAN HARRY A. MILLIS, dissenting :
I am unable to concur in the opinion of the majority in this case
and think the petitions should be dismissed. The statement of the
question here which my colleagues have said is the "precise issue" to^
be decided supports the correctness of the Board's earlier and unani-
mous decision involving this company and these Unions.27 In that
case we held that a plant-wide unit was appropriate for the Morenci
operations of the Company. The opinion of the majority herein now
undertakes, "on the basis of the present record and a reappraisal of
the Company's bargaining history" to determine whether "the craft
units sought by the individual AFL Unions may now be found appro-
priate for the purposes of collective bargaining." I am convinced that
the evidence in the present record provides a fortiori proof that our
earlier decision was correct and therefore should stand.
In the 1943 decision we found that the contract which the Company
signed with the Metal Trades Department of the AFL as the repre-
sentative of the AFL Unions herein was a single collective bargaining
agreement covering all employees of the Company at its Morenci opera-
tions with specific exclusions not material here. The AFL Unions were
not separate signatories; they were not separately recognized as bar-'
gaining representatives; nor were their jurisdictional claims deline-
ated. When proof of their representative status was requested by the
Company, their agent, the Metal Trades Council presented a number
of authorizations in a group. These were checked against the pay
roll of the Company without reference to the occupational category
in which the signer fell and without segregation into such classifica-
tions for the purpose of checking with respect to the representation
claims of individual AFL unions. Moreover, we found, on the basis
of the undisputed testimony of an AFL witness, that "any repre-
sentative of the AFL Unions who negotiates or takes up any matter
with the Company does not do so as a representative of one of the AFL.
Unions but as a representative of the MTC." We also found that,
in the November 1941 contract, the AFL Unions and the Company
recognized and accepted the appropriateness of a plant-wide unit.
The AFL Unions did not change their position to request separate units
until the 1943 hearing. Indeed both the AFL Unions and the Com-
pany, in an earlier Board case (40 N. L. R. B. 180) heard in February
1942, involving petitions by two Railway Brotherhoods for units of
railway employees at the Morenci operations, testified in opposition
to the units sought on the ground that the appropriate unit for the
Morenci operations was plantwide. Finally, there was no evidence in
27 Matter of Phelps Dodge Corporation and International Union of Mine, Mill and
Smelter Workers, CIO, 48 N . L. R. B. 489 , decided March 24, 1943.
PHELPS DODGE CORPORATION 1453
the record of any separate bargaining by craft groups prior to the
1941 contract. On the contrary, undisputed evidence introduced in
the present proceeding clearly establishes that bargaining prior to
the advent of the Metal Trades Council in 1941, was conducted by the
.Company and the Morenci Association of Copper -Mine Employees
on the basis of a plant-wide contract from June 1938 until about August
1941. Upon the record to which I have adverted above, we concluded
that the appropriate unit should be plant-wide in scope. Unless sub-
stantial and compelling evidence now appears from which we may
properly take a different view, there is no sound basis for disturbing
the relationship of the parties. My colleagues, however, find such
evidence in a number of particulars which I shall discuss below.
The opinion of the majority adverts to the request of the Company
for "separate authorizations" from the various AFL Unions prior to
-the commencement of negotiations with the Metal Trades Council.
If this is intended to prove that by such action the subsequent nego-
tiations were conducted upon an individual AFL Union basis, it not
only fails in that respect but proves the contrary. This evidence
strengthens my opinion that the Company sought and the AFL Unions
-concurred in the establishment of the Metal Trades Council as the
bargaining agent of the various unions. Such action is wholly con-
sistent with an intent and purpose to negotiate on a broad, over-all
basis, and as later events show, that is precisely what did occur. My
conclusion in this regard is convincingly supported by the type of
employee authorization presented by the AFL Unions through the
Metal Trades Council and accepted and checked by the Company.
These were described in our earlier decision and have been alluded
to above. No suggestion of separateness appears in this record in
regard to either the AFL Unions' claims of representation among the
employees or in the Company's treatment of such claims. Indeed the
testimony of the manager, Davis, on this point is revealing:
Q. Mr. Davis, going back to about August, 1941, after these lists
of names had been submitted to you by the A. F. of L. representa-
tive, what kind of a check did you make? -
A. We checked the list submitted against the payroll-against
the names on the payroll.
Q. Was any attempt made to check the names on the list against
a certain craft or claimed units by the individual A. F. of L.
Unions ?
A. I don't recall that there was. - My recollections is that the
-check was merely taking the list of names and checking the names
against the payroll.
1454 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Moreover, the evidence is undisputed that the negotiations which pre-
ceded the execution of the contract were carried on by the Company
with the AFL Unions as a group and that no records were kept which
would establish the separate handling of such discussions on single
AFL Union bases. Nor did the Company at any time divide and
classify its employees, during the negotiations, according to the craft
jurisdictions of the AFL Unions. On the contrary, the plant-wide
nature of the unit adopted by the parties is made clear by the fact
that the mechanical wage scale set forth in the contract is not based
upon craft distinctions, but rather upon varying degrees of skill, as
indicated by such classifications as "mechanic first class" and "me-
chanic special," both of which contain members of various craft unions
represented by the AFL. It is further to-be noted in this connection.
that the 1941 contract provided that seniority should be upon a depart-
mental and occupational basis. Certain other contracts covering other
operations of the Company contain similar wage scales and seniority
provisions. While these contracts provide for craft recognition, their
existence does not impinge upon the plant-wide nature of the Com-
pany's relationship with the Metal Trades Council at Morenci. At
its other operations where various craft organizations are recognized
contractually, such recognition was predicated upon Board determina-
tion that employee organization had developed upon a craft basis and
at the United Verde operations in the face of the Company's conten-
tion that plant-wide units were appropriate. The inclusion of wage
scales and seniority provisions such as I have alluded to in such con-
tracts, therefore, is nothing more than an attempt on the part of the
Company to preserve a measure of plant-wide administration in its
labor relations, while, at the same time, conforming its contractual
practices to the Board's certification. Furthermore, and rather con-
clusive to my mind, is the penciled memorandum in the present record.
This memorandum was made by the Company's Morenci manager
while attending the AFL negotiations which resulted in the November
1941 contract. In addition to the names of various AFL representa-
tives, it contains the following notation, which discloses the unit basis
upon which the Company was proceeding :
"To be included
All hourly paid employees
All production and maintenance employees except :
Foremen with the right to employ or discharge."
The sum of this evidence seems to me to negative completely any
possible inference that the Company recognized and dealt with the
AFL Unions upon a separate and individual basis.
Allusion is made, however, in the majority opinion to the fact
that the contract which the parties executed in 1941 referred to the
PHELPS DODGE CORPORATION 1455
Metal Trades Council as "representing individually and collectively
the craft organizations affiliated with the metal trades department."
But an examination of our earlier decision discloses the identical
allusion . Nothing has appeared since to give the term " individually"
a different meaning than that attributed to it by us in 1943. Nor
does the form of the July 1942 amendment to the November 1941
contract support the conclusion reached by the majority. ' Provision
for signature by the individual craft organizations loses significance
if the actual administration on a day to day basis of the contract
thus executed does not conform to the ostensible intent of the parties.
This happened here. In the fall of 1942 when similar provision was
made for insertion in the 1942 contract and when blank spaces were
set up to contain descriptions of the occupational classifications to be
allocated to the various craft organizations , these proposals were
not effectuated and no division of employees for recognition or admin-
istrative purposes was ever made by the Company and the AFL
Unions. Thus , the most that may be said as to the significance of
these formal indicia is that they were an attempted amplification
of the term "individually " noted above , and, so far as the actual
history of collective bargaining is concerned have proved abortive
and meaningless.
,The opinion of the majority seeks further support and significance
in evidence which it contends is indicative of "preservation of craft
interests ." Such "preservation" is found by my colleagues in "the
fact that in the handling of grievances the grievance committee
of the Metal Trades Council was customarily attended by a spokes-
man for the craft union representing the individual employees con-
cerned . . . [and ] that the Company customarily enforced the
closed shop provision in the agreement upon notice from an indi-
vidual craft union that an employee within its jurisdiction was no
longer a member in good standing with such union." The evidence
upon which these conclusions seem to rest was given by the Company's
manager at Morenci who testified in the present proceeding in sub-
stance that in negotiating the contract he thought that the Company
was dealing with the various unions since the Metal Trades Council
was designated as the representative of such unions. He also testified
that in the presentation of grievances the spokesman was a member
of the union in nihich the complainant held membership. It is highly
significant to note, however, that in the proceeding in which the two
Railroad Brotherhoods sought separate craft units of railway em-
ployees, and which antedated the present proceeding by more than a
year, thus occurring , in point of time, shortly after the execution
of the 1941 contract , the same manager testified that he understood
that the Company did not negotiate with separate AFL unions, but
1456 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
with the Metal Trades Council. He also testified that he could not
recollect whether each AFL union was separately represented at the
conference preceding the execution of the 1941 contract. Moreover,
in the present proceeding the same witness testified that the negoti-
ating committee of the Metal Trades Council constituted the griev-
ance committee with which the Company dealt and that, in the
administration of the contract the Company dealt with the Metal
Trades Council. The construction that I place upon this testimony
differs from the meaning given it by my colleagues. Aside from its
obviously contradictory nature, the aspect most favorable to the
majority consists of a recognition by the manager that the Metal
Trades Council was the agent for the AFL Unions. To deduce from
this that the negotiations were conducted upon an individual craft
union basis disregards labor relations realities and ignores completely
well-known collective bargaining practices which we have, on numer-
,us occasions, recognized in cases involving determinations of
association-wide bargaining units. An agent, who purports to act
for a collective principal, represents such a principal collectively.
Of no more value to the majority position is the testimony concerning
the presence of spokesmen from individual craft unions at grievance
meetings. Such a practice amounts to common usage in large indus-
trial operations where department stewards constitute the conduit
by which a worker's complaint is brought into the grievance pro-
cedure for adjustment. That such spokesmen "customarily" attend
grievance conferences indicates only that the wheels of collective
bargaining are moving and hardly that a particular craft interest
is being "carefully preserved."
There is in evidence a letter from the manager of the Morenci
operation to an employee advising that he must regain good standing
in the Boilermakers' Union as a condition of his continued employ-
ment under the contract between the Company and the "Union." The
manager testified that the Company sent such letters when lack of good
standing of employees was called to its attention by the Union and
that he never questioned whether the employee concerned was within
the jurisdictional classifications claimed by the organization from
which notice was received.28 Rather than the careful preservation
of craft interests which my colleagues also find in this evidence, I
am of the opinion that the looseness of administration implicit in the
manager's testimony indicates an unawareness on the part of the
28 This portion of the manager ' s testimony finds corroboration in the fact that at no
time were the contours of the units now sought by the AFL Unions delineated . In fact,
during the course of this proceeding various of the AFL Unions shifted the boundaries
of their units and made overlapping claims , a position hardly consonant with the notion
that craft lines were fixed in 1941 . This circumstance is completely glossed over by the
majority.
PHELPS DODGE CORPORATION 1457
Company of special craft interests and an intent only to abide. by a
contractual provision which it had agreed upon with the Metal Trades
Council and which it construed was to be. administered without -re-
gard for the craft unions.
The broad conclusion of the majority that the AFL Unions have
acquiesced in the plant-wide bargaining subsequent to the advent
of the CIO only by necessity and therefore have not relinquished their
status and identities as craft labor organizations seems to me to be
wholly inadequate as a reason why the Board must now direct elec-
tions in the units desired by.the AFL Unions. This rationale attaches
strange importance to the commonplace in industrial relations, since
it must be contemplated that affiliated organizations which have been
unsuccessful in an election do not ipso facto collapse and become
merged with the victor. Such organizations generally retain their
structure and in most cases their adherents participate in the bar-
gaining which follows. Nor do they participate unwillingly, or ac-
cept the fruits of bargaining on their behalf resentfully. It is to be
noted in this case that the CIO, after resort to the War Labor Board,
obtained a substantial wage increase for the employees here without
regard to their union affiliation. At best the retention by the AFL
Unions of their formal structure as labor organizations indicates a
normal phenomenon;_ it does not require new unit determinations by
the Board.
I agree that it is highly relevant to know what the custom or prac-
tice has been in a particular industry when we are asked .to determine
whether a certain class of employees is properly includible in a bar-
gaining unit, or where a question involving contractual practices, as
for example, the customary term of a contract in the industry, is
before us. Where we are called upon to determine the appropriate-
ness of bargaining units, such considerations are also material. Since
custom or practice may derive from a multiplicity of sources, it is
important here to discover what evolutionary process caused the
present character of organization in the copper industry to which
my colleagues allude as a supporting reason for their opinion. With-
out setting out statistical data in the present record, my investigation
of this factor has convinced me that in the copper industry as a whole
there is no definitive pattern of organization upon which present day
collective bargaining is progressing. A diversity of bargaining units
exists. In the case relied upon by the majority as indicating that
craft organization is not inappropriate in the face of a single con-
tract,29 the facts are clearly distinguishable in that there craft units
were recognized by the parties to the contract as a result of Board
20 54 N. L . R. B. 1293 ( Copper Queen Branch).
628563-45-vol. 60-93
1458 - DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
determination that organization had developed upon a craft basis.
In my opinion, no such development occurred at Morenci, and, as I
have noted, the Board in its 1943 decision so found. Reference to other
copper industry cases decided by this Board reveals that the various
unions have not pursued a consistent policy with respect to the units
they have sought. American Federation of Labor unions, and in some
cases the Metal Trades Department itself, have sought or agreed to
broad plant-wide units.30 Indeed in practically all cases involving
the copper industry in this area the guiding principle in the develop-
ment of types of unit appropriate for bargaining has been founded
upon Board determination in specific factual contexts, with particular
emphasis upon the state of employee organization and collective bar=
gaining pattern in the operation involved. This is an evolutionary
process which indicates a result quite different from that reached
by my colleagues.
What I have said impels me to conclude that we should be intro-
ducing a new and unwarranted precedent into the Board's decisional
policy in representation cases were we to disregard completely a his-
tory of bargaining on a plant-wide basis which has been successful
and which shows every sign of continuing to be so.
80 See, e g. Matter of Consolidated Coppermines Corporation , 48 N. L. R. B. 1274, in
which the Metal Trades Department stipulated kith the CIO that a single unit of that
company ' s approximately 850 mine employees at Kimberly, Nevada, was approximate ;
Matter of Kennecott Copper Coi poration, et al, 46 N . L. R B 208, where the American
Federation of Labor, the only organization involved, sought and obtained a unit of the
Ray, Arizona, mine and mill employees, numbering over 700, of Nevada Consolidated Copper
Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of Kennecott ; Matter of Kennecott Copper Cor-
poration, 47 N L. R. B. 732 , establishing a unit of the company's Hayden , Arizona, mill,
pursuant to stipulation of the A. F of L and the company ; Matter of American Smelting
and Refining Company, 47 N L R. B. 1423, to the same effect involving that company's
Hayden, Arizona , smelter For other cases establishing industrial type units, but outside
the geographical area here involved, see Matter of Phelps Dodge Refining Corporation,
40 N L. R. B. 1159 ( Long Island smelter , 970 employees ) ; Matter of Phelps Dodge Refin-
ing Corporation, 41 N. L. R. B 1016 (El Paso refinery , 420 employees) ; Matter of Ameri-
can Smelting and Refining Company , 47 N L. R. B 631 (El Paso smelter, 540 employees) ;
Matter of Tennessee Copper Company , 25 N. L R. B 218 ( entire mining and processing
operations in the Ducktown Basin, involving about 1300 employees ; unit finding affirmed,
69N L R B 1135)