Stiefel Construction Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 29, 1945

64 N.L.R.B. 565 (N.L.R.B. 1945)

In the Matter of STIEF.EL CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION and UNITED
STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, C. I. O.
Case No. 2-R-5676.-Decided October 09, 1945
Messrs. Jacob I. Goodstein and Fred W. Stie f el, both of New York
City, for the Company.
Vitt cC Cammmer, by Mr. Harold I. Cammer, of New York City, and
Mr. Adron Coldiron, of Tupper Lake, N. Y., for the C. I. O.
Mr. Howard MoSpedon, of New York City, for the A. F. L.
Mr. Glenn L. Moller, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a petition duly filed by United Steelworkers of America,
C. I. 0., herein called the C. I. 0., alleging that a question affecting
commerce had arisen concerning the representation of employees of
Stiefel Construction Corporation, Mineville, New York, herein called
the Company, the National Labor Relations Board provided for an
appropriate hearing upon due notice before Cyril W. O'Gorman,
Trial Examiner. The hearing was held at Port Henry, New York,
and at New York City on June 7 and 12, 1945, and on July 10 and
11, 1945. The Company, the C. I. O. and Building and Construction
Trades Council of Greater New York, hereinafter called the A. F. L.,
appeared and participated' All parties were afforded full oppor-
tunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to
introduce evidence bearing on the issues. The Trial Examiner's rul-
ings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are
hereby affirmed. All parties were afforded an opportunity to file
briefs with the Board.
1 Since the close of the hearing, a motion to intervene has been filed by the American
Federation of Labor. It is apparent , however , that the person who filed this motion was
unaware of the intervention of the Building and Construction Trades Council . Since that
organization has participated in this proceeding and we are placing its name on the ballot,
the interests of the American Federation of Labor are being amply protected . The motion
to intervene filed by the American Federation of Labor is hereby denied.
64 N. L. R. B., No. 94.
565
566 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Stiefel Construction Corporation, a New York corporation with its
principal office and place of business in New York City, is engaged in
heavy construction and engineering work, principally the construction
of subways and tunnels. Since early in 1942, the Company has been
engaged in the construction of mine shafts and levels and in other
tunneling operations, pursuant to a contract with the Republic Steel
Corporation, at an iron mine near Mineville, New York. At the
present time the development work being done by the Company has
reached a stage where the Company is removing about 1,000 tons of
ore daily, all of which is delivered at the mouth of the mine to Re-
public Steel Corporation, which operates a large processing mill ad-
jacent to the mine opening. All of the processed ores are shipped
from this processing plant to points outside the State of New York:
Assuming the correctness of the Company's contention that it is
still engaged in the construction and development of the mine, the fact
remains that the Company's operations differ only in degree and extent
from the operation of a full developed iron mine and are, in fact, the
mining of iron ore.2
We find that the Company, at its Mineville, New York, operations, is
engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act.'
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
United Steelworkers of America, affiliated with the Congress of In-
dustrial Organizations, is a labor organization admitting to member-
ship employees of the Company .
Building and Construction Trades Council of Greater New York,
affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, is a labor organiza-
tion admitting to membership employees of the Company.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Company has refused to grant recognition to the C. I. O. as
the exclusive bargaining representative of its Mineville employees
until the C. 1. 0. has been certified by the Board in an appropriate unit.
The Company urges that this proceeding is barred by reason of cer-
tain agreements with the A. F. L. It was admitted, however, that the
2 Cf. Matter of Johns-Manville Corporation , at al., 61 N. L R. B. 1.
3 Matter of If. S. McClintock Company, 53 N. L. R. B. 1382.
STIEFEL CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION 567
Company's written agreements with the A. F. L. are limited to the
geographic area within a 25-mile radius of New York City, and that
whatever agreements it has with the A. F. L. covering operations out-
side that geographic area are oral. The operation here involved is
approximately 250 miles from New York City. We find that the
Company's agreements with the A. F. L. do not constitute a bar to
this proceeding.4
A statement of the Trial Examiner at the hearing indicates that the
CIO and the AFL represent a substantial number of employees in the
unit hereinafter found appropriate.5
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the
representation of employees of the Company, within the meaning of
Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (E) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
In conformity with the stipulation of the parties and the entire
record, we find that all mechanics repair first class, all shift foremen,
underground foremen, timberman foremen, scraper operators, boss
mechanic, explosives foreman, electricians, and drill runners, at the
Company's operations at Mineville, New York, but excluding level
foremen, and all other supervisory employees with authority to hire,
promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status
of employees, or effectively recommend such action, constitute a unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (b) of the Act.'
V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
We shall direct that the question concerning representation which
has arisen be resolved by an election by secret ballot among the em-
ployees in the appropriate unit who were employed during the pay-
roll period immediately preceding the date of the Direction of Election
herein, subject to the limitations and additions set forth in the
Direction.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National Labor
Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations
4 Dfatter of Eicor, Inc, 46 N L. R. B 1035
6 The Trial Examiner stated that the CIO submitted 33 authorization cards, 29 of which
bore apparently genuine original signatures of persons listed on the Company's pay roll for
the pay-roll period ending May 31, 1945, which pay roll contained the names of 52 persons
within the appropriate unit. The AFL relies upon its agreements with the Company and
oral testimony at the hearing to establish its interest
6 The parties stipulated that none of the foremen who are included in the unit possess
supervisory authority within the Board's customary definition.
568 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Act, and pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of National Labor Rela-
tions Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3, as amended, it is hereby
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representa-
tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Stiefel Construc-
tion Corporation, Mineville, New York, an election by secret ballot
shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than thirty (30)
days from the date of this Direction, under the direction and super-
vision of the Regional Director for the Second 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 Regulations,
among the employees in the unit found appropriate in Section IV,
above, who were employed during the, pay-roll period immediately
preceding the date of this Direction, including employees who did not
work during the pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation or
temporarily laid off, and including employees in the armed forces of
the United States who present themselves in person at the polls, but
excluding any who have since quit or been discharged for cause and
have not been rehired or reinstated prior to the date of the election, to
determine whether they desire to be represented by United Steelwork-
ers of America, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organiza-
tions, or by Building and Construction Trades Council of Greater
New York, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, for the
purposes of collective bargaining, or by neither.
MR. GERARD D. REILLY took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Election.