Virginia Bridge Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 28, 1941

29 N.L.R.B. 241 (N.L.R.B. 1941)

In the Matter Of VIRGINIA BRIDGE COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF BRIDGE , STRUCTURAL & ORNAMENTAL IRON WORKERS,
SHOPMEN'S LOCAL 530
Case No. R-2251.-Decided January 08, 1941
Jurisdiction : steel fabricating industry.
Investigation and Certification of Representatives : existence of question: re-
fusal to accord recognition to union ; contract with , rival union providing for
representation for members only, no bar to ; election necessary.
Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining : all employees, excluding watchmen,
clerical employees, superintendents, assistant superintendents, general fore-
men, foremen , and sub-foremen who spend at least 50 per cent-of their time
in actual supervisory duties.
Mr. B. L. Rawlins, Jr., of Pittsburgh, Pa., for the Company.
Mr. Stanley Rovinds, of Knoxville, Tenn., for the Union.
Mr. Louis Cokin, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On October 30, 1940, International Association of Bridge, Struc-
tural & Ornamental Iron Workers, Shopmen's iLocal 530, herein
called the Union, filed with the Regional Director for the Tenth.Re-
gion (Atlanta, Georgia) a ,,petition alleging that a question affecting
commerce had arisen concerning the representation of employees of
Virginia Bridge Company, Memphis, Tennessee, herein. called ,the
Company, and requesting an investigation and certification of repre-
sentatives pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations
Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. On December 3, 1940, 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 and authorized the Regional
Director to conduct it and to ' provide for an appropriate hearing
upon due notice.
29 N. L. R. B, No. 43.
241
242 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On December 9, 1940, the Regional Director issued a notice of hear-
ing, copies of which were duly served upon the Company, the Union
and Steel Workers Organizing Committee, herein called the S. W. O. C.
On December 18 and 20, 1940, respectively, the Regional Director
issued an amended notice of hearing and a second amended notice
of hearing. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on January 10,
1941, at Memphis, Tennessee, before Alexander E. Wilson, Jr.,
the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board. The Com-
pany was represented by counsel, the Union by its representative';
both participated in the hearing. The S. W. O. C. did not appeaii
at the hearing. Full opportunity to b_ e heard, to examine and cross-
examine witnesses, `and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues
was afforded all parties. During the course of the hearing the Trial
Examiner ,made several rulings on '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.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Virginia Bridge Company is a Delaware Corporation operating
plants at Roanoke, Virginia, Birmingham, Alabama, and Memphis,
Tennessee. We are here concerned solely with its plant at Memphis,
Tennessee, where it is engaged in the fabrication of bridge and building
steel. During 1940, the Company purchased -about 15,000 tons of raw
materials all of which were shipped to it from points outside the
State of Tennessee. During the same period the Company sold ap-
proximately 15,000 tons of finished products, more than 50 per cent
of which were shipped by it to points outside the State of Tennessee.
The Company employs approximately 250 employees at the Memphis
plant.
H. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
International Association of Bridge, Structural & Ornamental
Workers, Shopmen's Local 530, is a labor organization affiliated with
the American Federation of Labor. It admits to -membership all
employees at the Memphis plant of the Company, excluding watch-
men, clerical employeees, superintendents, assistant superintendents,
and general foremen.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
On October 26, 1940, the Union, claiming to represent a majority
of the,employeees at the Memphis plant, asked the Company for
VIRGINIA BRIDGE CO: 243
exclusive recognition. The Company refused this request- stating
that it doubted the Union's claim to a majority.
On May 5, 1937, the Company and the S. W. O. C. entered into a
contract recognizing the S. W. O. C. as exclusive representative of its
members in the employ of the Company. On April 1, 1938, the Com-
pany and the S. W. O. C. entered into a supplemental agreement ex-
tending the 1937 agreement and providing that at any time subsequent
to March 31, 1938, either party to the contract,by 10 days' notice
to the other could ask for a conference for the purpose of changing
the 1937 agreement and in the event of failure to agree within 20
days from such notice, the 1937 agreement would terminate. No such
notice has been given: Since the contract is not an exclusive bar-
gaining contract, we find that it is not a bar to a determination of
representatives at this time.'
A statement of the Trial Examiner during the hearing shows
that the Union represents a substantial number of employees in the
alleged appropriate unit.2
We find that a question has arisen concerning the representation
of employees of the Company.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION UPON
COMMERCE
We find that the question concerning representation which has
arisen, occurring in connection with the operations of the Company
described in Section I above, has a close; intimate, and substantial
relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and
tends to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce
and the free flow of commerce. -
V. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Union urges that all employees at the Memphis plant of the
Company, excluding watchmen, clerical employees, superintendents,
assistant superintendents, and general foremen, constitute a unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining. The only con-
troversy with respect to-the unit concerns foremen and sub-foremen.
The Union urges the inclusion of all such employees, and the Company-
desires their exclusion.
The Company has nine employees classified by it as foremen. They
all issue orders to other employees and have the sole right to lay off,
hire, and discharge employees. These employees spend over 90 per
i See Matter of Northrop Corporation and United Automobile Workers Local No. 229,
3 N L. R B 228.
2 The Trial Examiner 's statement shows that 134 employees whose names appear on a
pay roll of the Company have signed cards designating the Union as their representative.
There are approximately 237 employees in the alleged appropiiate unit.
413602-42-vol 29--17
244 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
cent of their time in supervisory 'work. In view of their supervisory
duties, we find that they should be excluded from the units
The -Company has five employees classified by it as sub-foremen.
Two of these sub-foremen, Pensinger and Dorman, spend approxi-
mately ^ 90 per cent of their time in actual production work. Under
these circumstances we find that Pensinger and Dorman should be
included in the unit. The other three sub-foremen spend approxi-
mately 80 per cent of their time in actual supervisory functions and
replace the foremen in their departments when the latter are absent.
In view of the supervisory duties of these three sub-foremen, we find
that they should be excluded from the unit.4
We find that all employees at the Memphis plant of The Company,
excluding watchmen, clerical employees, superintendents, assistant
superintendents, general foremen,, foremen, and sub-foremen who
spend at least 50 per cent of their time in actual supervisory duties,
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargain-
ing, and that said unit will insure to the employees of the Company
the full benefit' of their right to self-organization and to collective
bargaining and otherwise effectuate the policies of the Act.
VI. THE DETERMINATION OF REPEiESENTATIVES
We find that the question concerning representation which has
arisen can best be resolved by an election by secret ballot. The Union
stated that in,the event the Board directs an election, it desires that
the' first pay roll of the Company in December 1940 be used to deter-
mine eligibility to vote. The Company stated that it desires that a
pay roll immediately preceding the date of our Direction of Election
be used for this purpose. A representative of the Company testified
that it has increased its personnel by approximately 20 employees
since December 1, 1940, due to the National Defense program and
that it expected to add an additional 10 to 12 employees by the,end
of January 1941. We. find that the employees of the Company
eligible to vote in the election shall be those employees in the appro-
priate unit who were employed during the pay-roll period immedi-
ately preceding the date of the Direction of Election herein, including
employees who did not work during said pay-roll period because they
were ill or on vacation and employees who were then or have since
.been temporarily laid off, but excluding' those employees who have
since quit or been discharged for cause.
S See Matter of Birmingham Tank Company , Division of The Ingalls Iron Works Com-
pany, Inc. and International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Work-
ers, Shopmen's Local # 539, 25 N V . R. B. 1306
4 See footnote 3, supra
VIRGINIA BRIDGE CO. 245
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire
record in the case, the Board makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. A question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the repre-
isentation of employees of Virginia Bridge Company , Memphis, Ten-
nessee, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7)
of the National Labor Relations Act.
2. All employees at the Memphis plant of the Company, excluding
watchmen, clerical employees , superintendents , assistant superintend-
ents, general foremen, and sub-foremen who spend at least 50 per cent
of their time in actual supervisory duties, constitute a unit appro-
priate for the purposes of collective bargaining , within the meaning
of Section 9 (b) of the National Labor-Relations Act.
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 Rela-
tions Act, and pursuant , to Article III, Section 8, of National
Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2, as amended,
it is hereby
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation authorized by the Board
to ascertain representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining
with Virginia Bridge Company, Memphis, Tennessee, 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 supervision of the Regional Director for the Tenth Region, acting
in this matter as agent of the National Labor Relations Board, and
subject to Article III, Section 9, of said Rules and Regulations, among
all employees of the Company who were employed during the pay-roll
period immediately preceding the date of this Direction of Election,
including employees who did not work during such pay-roll period
because they were ill or on vacation and employees who were then or
have since been temporarily laid off, but excluding watchmen, clerical
employees, superintendents , assistant superintendents , general"fore-
men, foremen , sub-foremen who spend at least 50 per cent of their
time in actual supervisory duties, and employees who have since quit
or been discharged for cause , to determine whether or not they desire
to be represented by International Association of Bridge , Structural
& Ornamental Iron `Yorkers, Shopmen's Local 530, affiliated with the
American Federation of Labor, for the purposes of collective
bargaining.
CHAIRMAN HARRY A . MILLIS took no part in the consideration
of the above Decision and Direction of Election.
.v