Utah Copper Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 9, 1941

35 N.L.R.B. 1295 (N.L.R.B. 1941)

In the Matter of UTAH COPPER COMPANY AND KENNECOTT COPPER
CORPORATION and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS,
LODGE No. 568, A. F. OF L.
In the Matter of UTAH COPPER COMPANY AND KENNECOTT COPPER
CORPORATION and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS,
LODGE No. 568, A. F. OF L.
In the Matter Of UTAH COPPER COMPANY AND KENNECOTT COPPER
CORPORATION and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS,
LODGE No. 568, A. F. O F L.
In the Matter Of UTAH COPPER COMPANY AND KENNECOTT COPPER
CORPORATION and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS,
LOCAL No. 353, A. F. OF L.
In the Matter Of UTAH COPPER COMPANY AND KENNECOTT COPPER
CORPORATION and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL
WORKERS LOCAL UNION 1081, A. F. OF L.
Cases No. R-2719 to R-2703, inclusive. Decided October 9, 1941
Jurisdiction : copper mining industry.
Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining
In view of the integrated nature of the operations of the Company, the
functional interdependence of the various departments, the arbitrary pro-
posed classifications and the absence of recognizable craft groupings, and
the fact that the employees claimed by the craft unions constitute only a
small portion of the total number of employees, held that the units proposed
by the several craft unions are inappropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining.
Practice and Procedure : petitions dismissed; no appropriate unit or units
within the scope of the petitions.
Mr. Willard Y. Morris, for the Board.
Mr. William M. McCrea, Mr. C. C. Parsons, and Mr. A. D. Moffat,
of Salt Lake City, Utah, for the Company.
Mr. Walter Owens and Mr. C. N. Chadwick, of Salt Lake City,
Utah, for the I. A. M.
Mr. R. R. Corrie, of San Francisco, Calif., for the I. U. O. E.
Mr. William Myers, of Salt Lake City, Utah, for the I. B. E. W.
Mrs. Margaret B. Porter, of Littleton, Colo., and Mr. Ralph H.
Rasmussen, of Salt Lake City, Utah, for the C. I. O.
Mr. Elliott Evans, of Bingham Canyon, Utah, for the Independent.
Mr. Ralph S. Clifford, of counsel to the Board.
35 N. L. B. R., No. 221.
1295
1296 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On May 5, 1941, International Association of Machinists, Lodge
No. 568, A. F. of L., herein called the I. A. M., filed with the Regional
Director for the Twenty-second Region (Denver, Colorado) three
petitions each alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen
concerning the representation of employees of Utah Copper Company
and Kennecott Copper Corporation, Bingham Canyon, Utah, herein
called the Company, and requesting an investigation and certification
of representatives pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. On May 5, 1941,
International Union of Operating Engineers, Local No. 353, A. F.
of L., herein called the I. U. O. E., filed a similar petition with the
Regional Director, and on May 15, 1941, International Brotherhood
of Electrical Workers Local Union 1081, A. F. of L., herein called
the I. B. E. W., also filed a similar petition with the Regional Di-
rector. On June 6, 1941, the National Labor Relations Board, herein
called the Board, acting pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the Act, and
Article III, Section 3, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and
Regulations-Series 2, as amended, ordered an investigation in each
case, and authorized the Regional Director to conduct it and to
provide for an appropriate hearing upon due notice, and, acting
pursuant to Article III, Section 10 (c) (2), of said Rules and
Regulations, ordered that the cases be consolidated.
On June 18, 1941, the Regional Director issued a notice of hearing,
copies of which were duly served upon the Company, the I. A. M.,
the I. U. O. E., the I. B. E. W., and upon International Union of
Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers, Local 485, C. I. 0., herein called
the C. I. 0., and Independent Association of Mine Workers, herein
called the Independent, the latter two being labor organizations
claiming to have an interest in the investigation. Pursuant to no-
tice, a hearing was held on July 10, 11, and 12, 1941, at Salt Lake
City, Utah, before Henry J. Kent, the Trial Examiner duly desig-
nated by the Acting Chief Trial Examiner. The Company, the
I. A. M., the I. U. O. E., the I. B. E. W., the C. I. 0., and the Inde-
pendent were represented by counsel or other official representatives
and participated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to
examine and cross-examine witnesses, and * to introduce evidence
bearing on the issues` was afforded all parties. At the opening of
the hearing the Trial Examiner granted motions by the C. I. O. and
UTAH COPPER COMPANY 1297
the Independent, respectively, to intervene.' During the course of
the hearing, the Trial Examiner made rulings on other motions and
on objections to the admission of evidence. The Board has reviewed
the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial
errors were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. On Au-
gust 4, 1941, a brief was filed by the C. I. O. which the Board has
considered.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
L TIIE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Utah Copper Company, a wholly owned and controlled subsidiary
and operating agent for Kennecott Copper Corporation, operates
the open-pit copper mine owned by Kennecott Copper Corporation
located at Bingham Canyon, Bingham County, Utah. Approxi-
mately 1,950 non-supervisory employees work at the mine.
The ore is shipped from the mine to the Company's Arthur and
Magna mills, located approximately 18 -miles from the mine,2, where
over 99 per cent of the ores are reduced to copper concentrates. These
concentrates and a small amount of concentrates produced at the
mine are then smelted at Garfield, Utah, by the American Smelting
and Refining Company. The blister copper, the resultant of the
smelting operation, is shipped to three refineries operated by Amer-
ican Smelting and Refining Company in the States of Maryland,
New Jersey, and Washington, where it is refined and the copper
and precious metals of which the blister copper is composed, are
separated, purified, and prepared for sale. The finished products
are sold by Kennecott Copper Corporation through its wholly owned
1 The Tria] .Examiner overruled the objection of.the I U 0 E . to the participation of
the Independent in the hearing . In Its brief , the C I O. contends that the Independent
should not be permitted to participate in an election for the reason that the evidence
adduced at the hearing shows that the Independent is a company -dominated organization
From about 1918 to 1938 the mine employees were represented by an Employees General
Committee , which consisted of three representatives from each of the eight divisions of
the mine and is apparently still in existence . The Independent , which was organized in
1938, according to the testimony of its counsel , to replace the Committee in the event
the Board ordered the Committee disestablished , was organized after the Board found an
Employees General Committee at the Company ' s Arthur and Magna mills to be company
dominated and ordered said organization disestablished See Matter of Utah Copper
Company, a corporation , and Kennecott Copper Corporation , a corporation and Interna-
tional Union of Mine, Mill, and Smelter Workers, Local No. 392 , 7 N. L. R . B. 928. The
Independent remained dormant from the date of its organization until April or May 1941
The only election of officers occurred when the organization was first formed ; no regular
meetings have been held and no dues have been collected . No charges respecting the
Independent have been filed . In view of our decision herein, we make no determination as
to the contention regarding the alleged domination of the Independent
2 This proceeding is concerned only with employees at the mine.
1298 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
subsidiary, Kennecott Sales Corporation.3 Substantial quantities of
molybdenite concentrates, all of which are shipped and used outside
the State of Utah, are also produced at the mills as a by-product.
During 1940 approximately 229,858 tons of blister copper, attrib-
utable to the Bingham Canyon mine, were shipped to refineries out-
side the State of Utah. During the same year 8,169 tons of molyb-
denite concentrates, attributable to the Bingham Canyon mine, were
produced at the Arthur and Magna mills, a large portion of which
were shipped outside the State of Utah.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
.International Association of Machinists, Lodge No. 568, Interna-
tional Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 1081, and Inter-
national Union of Operating Engineers, Local 353, all affiliated with
the American Federation of Labor, are labor organizations admitting
to membership employees of the Company.
International Union of Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers, Local
485, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, is a
labor organization admitting to membership employees of the
Company.
Independent Association of Mine Workers, unaffiliated, is a labor
organization admitting to membership employees of the Company.
III. THE ALLEGED' APPROPRIATE UNITS
The mining operations of the Company at the Bingham Canyon
mine are a highly integrated enterprise. The mine, which is a huge
open pit, consists of about 42 terraces from which the ore is removed
by means of electric shovels, of which there are some 35. In the
mining process the overburden or waste covering the ore is first
drilled and blasted, then loaded into railroad cars by the shovels and
removed to the waste-disposal areas. Thereafter the ore is drilled
and blasted, loaded into railroad cars by the shovels, and hauled
into the assembly yard, from which it is transported to the Arthur
and Magna mills for processing. All the operations center around
the shovels. Most of the non-supervisory employees, approximately
1,950 in number, are engaged either in preparing the terraces for the
shovels, moving the shovels, servicing and operating them, operating
the trains which haul the waste and ore, maintaining the tracks,
8 During the smelting of the ore at Garfield , Utah , the concentrates and precipitates
are commingled with concentrates and precipitates from other sources , and the blister
copper, while being refined , is commingled with blister copper from other sources ; however,
Kennecott Copper Corporation retains title to the ores from the Bingham Canyon mine
at all times during their mining, concentrating or precipitating , smelting, and refining,
and during their transportation between these operations.
UTAH COPPER COMPANY 1299
or servicing, moving, replacing, or repairing the various types of
machinery involved.
The Company, because,of the nature of the operations, employs
no workmen who could be classed as miners, as the term is usually
applied. There is no underground mining and all the actual mining
is done by shovels operating on, the surface, which are operated by
engineers and serviced by machinists, electricians, oilmen helpers,
and other mechanical-department employees such as blacksmiths and
boilermakers. The tracks on which the shovels and other machines
operate are serviced by trackmen, and trackshifter operators and
helpers or students. Angledozers are used to prepare the terraces
for the shovels and other machines used in the operations. The
drilling is done by pneumatic drills, which are supplied with air
pressure piped over the operations from the compressor plant, and
the drilling and blasting is done to prepare the terraces for the
shovels. The mine is also serviced by water pipes and numerous
wood-stave pipes, which carry copper-water solutions from the waste-
disposal areas to the precipitation plant. In addition, all the ma-
chines and the shops are serviced by air and water pipes and electric
power lines which are maintained by the pipe and water department
and the electric department. The mining operations are dependent
upon the full cooperation of all the various groups or classifications
of employees at the mine.
The three labor organizations affiliated with the A. F. of L. contend
that five separate units, allegedly confined to the employees in distinct
and traditional craft groups, are here appropriate for the purposes
of collective bargaining. More specifically, the I. A. M. seeks to estab-
lish three units, consisting of what are termed machinists, blacksmiths,
and boilermakers, respectively; in general, the units proposed by the
I. A. M. would embrace the employees in the Company's mechanical
department, although certain classifications of employees in this de-
partment would be excluded while scattered employees in other depart-
ments would be included. The I. U. 0. E. asserts that electric-shovel
engineers and pitmen, in addition to certain other groups such as crane,
compressor, angledozer, trackshifter, and motorcar operators, comprise
an appropriate unit. The I. B. E. W. claims that employees engaged
in the installation, maintenance, and repair of electric lines and
equipment constitute another appropriate unit. The total number
of employees in the foregoing alleged units is about 450 of the approxi-
mately 1.950 non-supervisory employees employed at the mine, and is
divided as follows: about 160 in the-machinists unit, 18 in the black-
smiths unit, 20 in the boilermakers unit, 125 in the I. U. 0. E. unit,
and 125 in the I. B. E. W. unit. Although the I. A. M. seeks to repre-
sent the employees in the proposed blacksmiths and boilermakers units,
as well as those in the machinists unit, it contemplates transferring
451270-42-vol. 35--83
1300 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
representation of blacksmiths and boilermakers to the appropriate
A. F. of L. affiliates when locals have been established for such
employees.
The C. 1. 0., the Independent, and the Company assert that an indus-
trial unit is appropriate. This unit would, in general, include not
only the employees claimed by the A. F. of L. unions but production
and maintenance employees throughout the mine. They are in dis
agreement concerning the inclusion or exclusion of certain fringe
groups, such as the geological and assay department, plant-protection
employees, the carpenter department which is engaged primarily in,
maintaining about 350 company-owned houses,'and the office and ac-
counting department. The Company and the Independent would
include all these employees, whereas the C. I. O. would exclude them.
Roughly, the unit proposed by the C. I. O. would include about 1,500
employees and that urged by the Independent and the Company about
1,700 employees.
The I. A. M. has in fact organized on a broader basis than its own
craft. At the outset the I. A. M. included electrical workers as well
as the three general types of employees it now seeks to represent in
three separate units, albeit such representation would be a temporary
arrangement pending the establishment of appropriate locals of
A. F. of L. affiliates for blacksmiths and boilermakers. In effect, the
I. A. M. is seeking to represent three crafts. Aside from this, the
separate units urged by the I. A. M. do not follow traditional craft
lines, and, in some respects, group together employees engaged in un-
related tasks in different departments, while placing in separate units
employees performing similar tasks. For example, the I. A. M. would
include in the machinists unit skilled machinists in the machine shop
and oilmen helpers in the oil department who are unskilled workers.
On the other hand, the I. A. M. would include in the blacksmiths unit
the blacksmith-shop and drill-shop employees, including a hammer
operator who does welding in the blacksmith shop and a welder helper
who is a rail slotter and welder under supervision of the track depart-
ment, but excluding the tool dressers in the drill shop, who would be
allocated to the machinists unit. The I. A. M. would also include in
the machinists unit employees who do welding work in the boiler shop
but would exclude entirely a welder classified as a pipe repairman.
Moreover, the T. A. M. proposes to limit the machinists unit to white
employees, a limitation we have held not permissible.4 While the
4 See Matter of American Tobacco Company, Incorporated, Richmond Smoking Branch
and Committee for Industrial Organization, Local No. 472, 9 N L. R B. 579; Matter of
Interstate Granite Corporation and Granite Cutters' International Association of America,
Charlotte Branch, 11 N. L. R. B. 1046; Matter of Brashear Freight Lines, Inc. and
International Association of Machinists, District No. 9, affiliated with the American
Federation of Labor,-13 N. L. R. B. 19; Matter of Georgia Power Company and Utility
Workers Organizing Committee, 32 N. L. R. B 692.
UTAII COPPER COMPANY, ' 1301
Company retains a classification of boilermakers on the payroll, many
of the employees so classified work primarily as welders, and most of
the work done by the boilermakers is not on boilers but rather on the
sheet metal of the electric shovels and railway cars. The I. A. M.
apparently wishes to include in the machinists unit those employees in
the car shop classified as boilermakers who do welding on the cars,
while including in the boilermakers unit the employee who does the
welding on the shovels. The I. A. M. attempted to distinguish em-
ployees who should be in the machinists unit and those whom it would
place in the boilermakers unit on the basis of whether they weld heavy
or light metal. However, the record does not furnish a sufficient basis
for applying the attempted distinction. Boilermakers who do no
welding are engaged principally in shaping and working the
heavy metal used on the shovels, railway cars, and other machines and
in fitting repair parts on the railway cars.
The I. U. 0. E. unit is not confined to engineers and firemen, but
includes employees who are neither, as well as firemen in the heating
plant who work about 50 per cent of each year as machinists in the
machine shop. The proposed unit excludes employees who might
properly be included, such as shop-crane operators and blast-hole drill
operators. Finally, the I. B. E. W. unit embraces only certain employ-
ees in the electrical department proper, but excludes employees in the
locomotive-haulage department and the train crews, who work with
employees from the electrical department in moving and erecting
feeder cables, trolley towers, and trolley lines. Although it is not
clear from the record, it appears from the last statement of the
I. B. E. W. representative that the proposed unit would include em-
ployees who, while listed in the electrical department, work as rail
bonders under the supervision of the track department.
In view of the integrated nature of the Company's operations, the
• functional interdependence of the various departments, the arbitrary-
proposed classifications and the absence of recognizable craft group-
ings, and the fact that the employees claimed by the A. F. of L.
unions constitute only a small portion of the total number of em-
ployees, we find that the units proposed by the I. A. M., the I. U.
0. E., and the L B. E. W. are inappropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining. For the reasons stated in Section IV, we
make no determination respecting the appropriateness of the units
urged by the C. I. 0., the Independent, or the Company. We shall,
therefore, dismiss the petition for investigation and certification of
representatives filed by the I. A. M., the I. U. 0. E., and the
I. B. E. W.
i
1302 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
IV. THE ALLEGED QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
Since, as we have found in Section III above, the bargaining units
sought to be established by the I. A. M., the I. U. O. E., and the
I. B. E. W. are inappropriate for the purposes of collective bargain-
ing, and since the C. I. O. and the Independent have not petitioned
for an industrial unit and make no substantial showing of designa-
tion by employees,6 we find that no question has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Company in an appropriate
unit or units.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire
record in the case, the Board makes the following :
CONCLUSION OF LAw
No question has arisen concerning the representation of employees
of Utah Copper Company and Kennecott Copper Corporation, Bing-
ham Canyon,' Bingham County, Utah, in a unit appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9
(c) of the National Labor Relations Act.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusion of
'law, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the
petitions for investigation and certification of representatives of
employees of Utah Copper Company and Kennecott Copper Corpora-
tion, Bingham Canyon, Utah, filed by International Association of
Machinists, Lodge No. 568, International Union of Operating Engi-
neers, Local No. 353, and International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers Local Union 1081, all affiliated with the American
Federation of Labor, be, and they hereby are, dismissed.
5 The C. I. O. submitted evidence of designation as representative by only about 140
employees out of about 1,500 in the unit claimed . Moreover , the C. I. O. does not desire
to participate in an election at the present time. The Independent submitted evidence of
designation as representative by about 155 employees out of about 1,700 in the claimed
unit; about 93 of these designations were made in 1938. '