Standard Steel Spring Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 9, 1950

90 N.L.R.B. 1805 (N.L.R.B. 1950)

In the Matter of STANDARD STEEL SPRING COMPANY, EMPLOYER, and
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, LOCAL No. 821
(AFL), PETITIONER
Case No. 8-RC-882.-Decided August 9,1950
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Charles A. Fleming, 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 Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and
Murdock].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds::'
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain
employees of the Employer.2
3. The Petitioner seeks a unit of all employees in the powerhouse
of the Employer's Newton Falls, Ohio, plant. The Employer and the
Intervenor contend that their current contract constitutes a bar to
this proceeding.
The first contract between the Employer and the Intervenor, con-
taining a maintenance-of-membership clause and a reopening provi-
sion, but no automatic renewal provision, was executed on August 19,
1947, and was to terminate on May 31, 1949. Pursuant to the reopen-
ing provision, a supplemental agreement was negotiated on July 27,
1948, providing for a wage increase and an extension of the 1947
agreement until July 27, 1950. On February 1, 1950, the parties
I The request of the Intervenor for oral argument is denied because the record and the
briefs submitted by the parties , in our opinion , adequately present the issues and positions
of the parties.
2 United Steelworkers of America, CIO, hereinafter called the Intervenor , intervened on
the basis of its contractual interest.
90 NLRB No. 233.
1805
1806 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
'entered into an insurance and pension agreement, and extended the
basic agreement until March 31, 1952. On May 9, 1950, the petition
herein was filed. The Board has held that where an agreement is
prematurely extended, the extended contract is not a bar to a petition
which is timely with respect to the expiration date of the original
agreement.5 It is thus evident that the current agreement between
the Employer and the Intervenor is not a bar to any election at
this time.4
In addition, the Intervenor concedes that it has not been authorized
by the Board to enter into the union-security provision contained in
the current contract, but contends that the contract should never-
theless be held to constitute a bar as the parties have not enforced the
union-security provision. The existence of such an unauthorized pro-
vision, however, renders the contract inoperative as a bar whether or'
not the provision was ever enforced.5
Accordingly, we find that the contract between the Employer and
the Intervenor does not bar this proceeding, and we shall deny the
motions to dismiss made on that grounds We find that a question
affecting commerce exists concerning the representation of employees
of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Sec-
tion 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The appropriate unit :
As noted above, the Petitioner seeks a unit of all the powerhouse
employees at the Employer's Newton Falls, Ohio, plant. The Em-
ployer and the Intervenor contend that the Employer's fabricating
operations are so closely allied with the basic steel industry that such
a unit is inappropriate. We rejected this same contention, however,
in an earlier case involving the Employer, in which we found these
employees to be a readily identifiable and functionally coherent group
who might constitute a separate unit for the purposes of collective
bargaining.' The record does not support the contentions of the Em-
3 Republic Steel Corporation , 84 NLRB 483. If the contract contains an automatic
renewal provision , the petition would have to be timely filed with respect to the Mill B date.
4 We reject the contention of the Employer and the Intervenor that as the extensions of
the contract were for business reasons and not for the purpose of foreclosing the Petitioner
from a determination of representatives , the customary rules of contract bar should not
apply. Our concern is not the purpose but the effect of such premature extensions.
5 Eagle Lock Company , 88 NLRB 970 ; The Leland Electric Company, 89 NLRB 497,
and cases cited therein.
6 We also find no merit in the contention that there is no question concerning repre-
sentation because , after the showing of interest was obtained by the Petitioner, the Inter-
venor obtained affidavits from the employees involved repudiating the Petitioner. It is
well settled that a union's showing of interest is a matter of administrative determination,
and is not subject to collateral attack. The Liberal Market, Inc., 90 NLRB No. 126.
4 The Standard Steel Spring Company, 75 NLRB 471. We have continued, in more recent
cases, to allow severance of powerhouse employees from production and maintenance units
in industries dependent on but not part of the basic steel industry. See International
Harvester Company, West Pullman Works, 89 NLRB 431 ; American Hoist & Derrick
fl
STANDARD STEEL SPRING COMPANY 1807
ployer and the Intervenor that the pertinent facts relating to the
powerhouse employees are now significantly different than they were
at the time of the hearing in the original proceeding.
Accordingly, we find that all employees in the powerhouse of the
Employer's Newton Falls, Ohio, plant, including the licensed firemen,
the firemen second class, and the laborers, but excluding guards, pro-
fessional employees, and supervisors, may, if they so desire, constitute
a separate bargaining unit. However, we shall reserve final deter-
mination in this respect, pending the outcome of the election herein-
after directed. If a majority of the employees vote for the Petitioner,
they will be taken to have indicated their desire to constitute a separate
bargaining unit.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION 8
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining with the Employer, an.election by secret
ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than 30
days from the date of this Direction, under the direction and super-
vision of the Regional Director for the Region in which this case
was heard, and subject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62 of National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations, among the employees in the
voting group described in paragraph numbered 4, above, who were
employed during the payroll period immediately preceding the date
of this Direction of Election, including employees who did not work
during said payroll period because they were ill or on vacation or
temporarily laid off, but excluding those employees who have since
quit or been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or rein-
stated prior to the date of the election, and also excluding employees
on strike who are not entitled to reinstatement, to determine whether
they desire to be represented, for purposes of collective bargaining,
by International Union of Operating Engineers, Local No. 821
(AFL), or by United Steelworkers of America, CIO,9 or by neither.
Company, 87 NLRB 654; International Harvester Company, Milwaukee Works, 85 NLRB
1175.
8 Either participant in the election directed herein may, upon its prompt request to, and
approval thereof by, the Regional Director. have its name removed from the ballot.
9 At the close of the hearing, the Petitioner moved to exclude the Intervenor from the
ballot on the ground that it might be fronting for a noncomplying local union. As there
was no showing by the Petitioner of subterfuge or incapacity to bargain on the part of the
Intervenor , nor that the Intervenor contemplated evasion of the Act in any manner in the
future, the motion is denied.