United States Steel Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 21, 1970

185 N.L.R.B. 669 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

AMERICAN BRIDGE DIVISION
American Bridge Division , United States Steel Cor-
poration and United Steelworkers of America,
AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case 6-AC-16
September 21, 1970
DECISION AND AMENDMENT OF
CERTIFICATION
BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND JENKINS
On May 2, 1946, in Case 6-RC-1264, the predeces-
sor' of the Association of Technical and Clerical
Employees, American Bridge Division, Ambridge
Plant2 (Association), was certified as the bargaining
representative of an appropriate unit of salaried and
clerical employees, Ambridge plant. On November
6, 1969, the Petitioner filed its petition (an attachment
to the Petition was filed on November 12, 1969)
in this proceeding seeking to amend the certification
and substitute itself as the certified representative.
The Regional Director for Region 6, on January
26, 1970, issued a notice of hearing, and thereafter,
on January 29, 1970, an order rescheduling hearing.
A hearing was held on February 16, 17, and 18,
1970, before Hearing Officer Samuel S. Blaufeld. Sub-
sequent to the hearing, the Petitioner, Intervenor,'
and Employer filed briefs with the Regional Director.
Thereafter, the Regional Director transferred the case
to the Board for decision.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel.
The Hearing Officer's rulings made at the hearing
are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board
finds:
After its certification in 1946, the matter of affilia-
tion between the Association and the Petitioner had
been considered in several meetings between Associa-
tion officers and Petitioner before 1969.
Technical & Clerical Employees, American Bridge Company of
Ambndge Plant affiliated with National Federation of Salaried Unions
The name appears as amended at the heanng
Patricia J MacDonald an employee, was permitted to participate
in the hearing Mrs MacDonald sought to intervene in behalf of the
Association, but the Petitioner objected to such intervention although
it did not object to her intervention as an interested third party The
Hearing Officer referred the matter to the Regional Director for ruling
In our view, as MacDonald was neither a past nor present officer of
the Association, and as there is no evidence that she was designated
or authorized to represent any group of employees claiming the continued
existence of the Association, MacDonald's intervention is properly recog-
nized as that of an interested party and not as representative of the
Association
669
On August 25, 1969 (all dates hereinafter are 1969
unless otherwise specified) members of the executive
committee of the Association met with John Pastin,
director of the office and technical department of
Petitioner, and with other officers of Petitioner, con-
cerning affiliation. They were advised that if affiliation
were done in accordance with Association bylaws
at a legally held meeting, the Petitioner would accept
the affiliation, that the Steelworkers would continue
to administer the Association contract until it expired
in 1971; and that after the affiliation the Petitioner's
dues structure would take effect. At a subsequent
meeting, September 12, between Pastin and the execu-
tive committee, similar information was imparted.
Pastin then left the room and on return was informed
that the executive committee had voted unanimously
to proceed with the affiliation.
The committee did not officially inform members
of the Association about these meetings while they
were taking place, but on September 22, Carmen
L. Sylvester, the secretary-treasurer of the Association,
mailed a notice of a special membership meeting
to be held on October 5 at 3 p.m. for the purpose
of taking a secret ballot vote on the matter of affiliation
with the Petitioner. The notice, which was also posted
in the plant, also stated that "we [presumably the
Executive Committee] hope" to present all the facts
necessary for an intelligent vote on the subject, and
that representatives of the Petitioner would be present.
On September 25, Robert Matascik, a former officer
of the Association, presented a petition, signed by
100 members (including the Intervenor, MacDonald),
to Sylvester requesting that, in accordance with section
3 of article 6 of the constitution,' a special meeting
be held at a designated time prior to October 5
for the purpose of "debating with the entire Executive
Committee" on the issue of affiliation. After seeking
advice of counsel, Sylvester sent out a letter to the
members informing them of the petition, but indicating
that the committee fully intended to provide time
for discussion and debate at the special meeting which
had already been called for October 5. Thereafter,
Matascik posted a notice stating the petition had
been denied on a "legal technicality of duplication."
The Employer circulated a notice suggesting some
of the problems which it believed might be caused
by affiliation and urging the employees to weigh
carefully the factors involved.
The October 5 meeting was held, as scheduled,
at the Polish National Alliance hall. A table was
set up at the entrance to the hall and members
of the Association were required to sign sheets as
' Sec 3 Special meetings of the member:, may be held at any time
upon call of the President or by call of the majority of the Executive
Committee or any time that 30 percent of the members of the Association
shall make a demand in writing up in the secretary for such a meeting
185 NLRB No. 98
670 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
they entered. As they were doubling and tripling
up in the doorway, another table for signing in was
set up in such a way that persons entering would
have to come in between the tables. Members of
the executive committee, including First Vice Presi-
dent Bichey and Second Vice President Tyro, were
at the desks as members signed in. Although cards
of the members were available, they were not checked
against the names or signatures of those signing in,
as all the signers were identified as members of the
Association by members of the committee. Of the
3045 members of the bargaining unit as of that date,
198 signed the entrance list. There is no evidence
that any persons, other than members and invited
representatives of the Petitioner, entered the meeting.
The meeting6 was opened by President Janicki and
then turned over to District Representative Hartig
of the Association, who reported the views of the
executive committee in favor of affiliation. Thereafter,
Pastin made a short address. Among other items,
Pastin indicated that the Petitioner would continue
to honor the existing contract, and that if the members
voted for affiliation they would come under Petition-
er's constitution and bylaws and that they would
become a local of the Petitioner. After some period
of questioning, the Petitioner's representatives were
asked to leave the meeting. After further discussion,
a motion was made and passed that a vote be taken.
President Janicki appointed a committee of six; three
of whom were to hand out ballots, and three of
whom were to sit at the table with the ballot box.
the ballots were a printed form marked "Ballot"
and stated they were for the purpose of voting "to
affiliate or not to affiliate with the United Steelworkers
of America, Office and Technical Division." Two
squares were on the ballot, one to be marked if
"I am in favor of affiliating with . . . "; the other
to be marked if "I am not in favor of affiliating
with . . . ." The ballots were not marked by number,
nor were names checked against membership cards
or the signed entrance lists before being handed out.
No special place, such as a voting booth, was provided
for marking the ballots, and ballots were marked
on tables, against the wall, etc. There was testimony
that persons could, and actually did, see how others
voted. Ballots were then folded and deposited in
the wooden ballot box. The ballots were tallied by
' President Frank Jamcki testified that as of October 5 , there were
304 people on the checkoff list and that all employees in the bargaining
unit were members of the Association Among those who voted was
E H Kindelberger who may have been ineligible as he had been transferred
out of the unit October 1 However, notification of the transfer was
not received by the Association until after the October 5 meeting
No minutes were kept of the meeting although the bylaws require
the secretary - treasurer to keep a proper record of all minutes
two members of the volunteer election committee
and showed a vote of 111 to 85 in favor of affiliation.'
On October 15, President Janicki wrote Petitioner's
secretary-treasurer, informing him of the affiliation
vote and subsequently a Charter of Affiliation, dated
October 28, was issued to "United Steelworkers of
America, Local Union Number 7637." The officers
are, with the exception of one who died, the same
as before the affiliation vote and the bank and checking
accounts have been transferred from the Association
to a new account. Old stationery was used by the
Union but new stationery was ordered. The Employer
has refused to recognize Petitioner's staff representa-
tives in dealing with the unit, citing the certification
to the Association.
In arriving at our decision to grant the petition
we have carefully examined the circumstances sur-
rounding the vote to affiliate to ascertain whether
it reflects the true desires of the two-thirds of the
membership who participated in the decision. Notice
of the meeting was given 2 weeks before it was
held, and all who wished to participate were encour-
aged to do so. While the actual voting procedures
did not follow the format employed in Board-conduct-
ed elections, it is evident that inexperience in conduct-
ing votes of this nature (elections of officers have
been by mail ballot) contributed to the lack of some
safeguards. However, there was no challenge at the
time of the election or, thereafter until the hearing,
of the procedures used, the voluntary committee which
distributed and counted ballots included individuals
apparently opposed to affiliation, and there is no
evidence of manipulation in the distribution of ballots,
or of coercion in the voting. Therefore, the vote
is, in our judgment, an accurate reflection of the
desires of the participating membership. Moreover,
we note that since the vote no separate group claiming
to be the Association has been established (the Interve-
nor's position apparently is that the vote was ineffec-
tive and that affiliation will change the Union's ability
to control its destiny), the officers of the Association
have continued to operate and represent the member-
ship, and there has been continuity of representation
through Local 7637 of Petitioner.'
We are mindful of the Employer's contention that
if Petitioner "take(s) over" the union, these employees
would come under the Employer's basic labor agree-
ment with Petitioner resulting in changes in terms
' Janicki testified that he extended the voting period for 15 minutes
and tried to contact the two people who did not vote, but understood
they had already left
' Although the Petition was not filed in the name of Local 7637,
we note that Pastin stated at the October 5 meeting that a charter
designating the group as a local would be issued, and that such a charter
was issued We believe that the employees vote reflected a desire to
become a local of Petitioner Cf Equipment Manufacturing, Inc, 174
NLRB No 74, fn 6
AMERICAN BRIDGE DIVISION
and conditions of employment, thus presenting a ques-
tion concerning representation. The Employer's con-
tention is based on section 2-A-1 of its basic labor
agreement with Petitioner, which provides that the
term "employee" applies to all employees (salaried
clerical and technical) for whom the Petitioner is
or may be "certified" (emphasis supplied) by the
Board as bargaining representative during the life
of the basic agreement. The Employer contends that
if we amend the certification, the basic agreement
and not the Association contract will apply to these
employees. If the present procedure were indeed a
certification, problems of this nature might be present-
ed. However, not only has Petitioner pledged to admin-
ister the existing contract until its expiration, but
the Board has long held that an amendment of certifi-
cation is not a new certification or a recertification.'
' Safeway Steel Scaffolds Company, 173 NLRB No 52, Baton Rouge
Water Works Company, 163 NLRB 1070, Emery Industries, Inc (Dice
Road), 148 NLRB 51
671
Accordingly, and regardless of interpretations of the
meaning of section 2-A-1, it would not appear to
apply to the instant case.
For the reasons set forth above, we conclude that
there does not exist a question concerning representa-
tion, and we shall therefore grant the petition.
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the petition to amend
the certification filed by the United Steelworkers of
America, AFL-CIO, be, and it hereby is, granted
and that the Certification of Representative issued
in Case 6-RC-1264 be amended by substituting
"United Steelworkers of America, Local Union Num-
ber 7637," for "Association of Technical and Clerical
Employees, American Bridge Division, Ambridge
Plant."