Aluminum Co. of America

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 2, 1944

56 N.L.R.B. 216 (N.L.R.B. 1944)

k
In the Matter of ALUMINUM COMPANY OF AMERICA, CHICAGO WORKS
and BRICKLAYERS , MASONS , AND PLASTERERS INTERNATIONAL UNION
OF AMERICA , LOCAL 21, A. F. OF L.
Case No. -13-R-S3S7.Decided May 2, 1944
Messrs. Malcolm) H. Freeman and Lyle B. Mercer, of Brookfield,
Ill., for the Company.
Mr. Wm. J. Harrigan, of Hammond , Ind., for the A. F. L.
Messrs. Leon M. Despres and James T. Gilmore, of Chicago, Ill., for
the C. 1. 0.
Mr. Max M. Goldman, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
STATEMENT OF TIIE CA SE
Upon a petition duly filed by Bricklayers, Mason, and Plasterers
International Union of America, Local 21, affiliated with the Ameri-
can Federation of Labor, herein called the A. F. L., alleging that
a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representa-
tion of employees of Aluminum Company of. America, Chicago Works,
McCook, Illinois, herein called the Company, the National Labor Re-
lations Board provided for an appropriate hearing upon due notice
before Robert R. Rissman, Trial Examiner. Said hearing was held
at Chicago, Illinois, on March 24, 1944. At the hearing the Trial
Examiner granted a motion to intervene made by International Union,
Aluminum Workers of America,' Local 42, affiliated with the Congress
of Industrial Organizations, herein called the C. I. O. The Com=-
pany, the A. F. L., and the C. I. O. appeared and participated. All
parties were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and
cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the
issues. The Trial Examiner's rulings 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.
56 N. L. R. B., No. 43.
216
ALUMINUM COMPANY OF AMERICA 217
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDNGS of FACT
1. THE 13USINESS OF THE COMPANY
,Aluminum Company of America. is a Pennsylvania corporation
engaged in the production of aluminum and aluminum products. The
Company operates approximately 40 plants located in 17 different
States of the United States. The present proceedings involve only'
the Chicago Works of the Company.
The Chicago Works, which is located at Brookfield, Illinois, is one'
of 11 plants comprising the Company's' fabricating ' division. It is
a rolling mill devoted solely to the production of aluminum sheet and
plate. The Chicago Works is owned by Defense Plant Corporation, .
a subsidiary of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, and is op-
erated by the Company tinder lease from Defense Plant Corporation.
The Chicago Works uses annually' raw materials valued in excess
of $5,000,000, 90 percent of which is secured from sources outside the
State of Illinois. It produces annually finished products valued in
excess of $10,000,000, approximately 75 percent of which is shipped to
points outside the State of Illinois.
The Company concedes that it is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
H. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Bricklayers, Masons, and Plasterers International Union'of Amer-
ica, Local 21, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, is a-
labor' organization admitting to membership employees 'of the
Company.
International Union, 'Aluminum Workers of America, Local 42,
affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, is a labor
organization admitting to membership employees of the Company.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
On December 13, 14, and 15, 1943, the Board held a consolidated
hearing .on. the petitions filed by various labor organizations for in-
vestigation and certification of representatives of employees of the
Company at its Chicago Works. -Among these organizations was
the C. I. O: No notice of the hearing was given to the A. F. 1L., and
it did not appear or participate. On February 3, 1944, a Decision and
Direction of Elections was issued in that proceeding by the Board,
and on February 16, 1944,^the petition in the present case was filed by
' 54 N. L. R. B 1043.
218 DECISIONS OF- NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
,the =A. F. L. The Company, has refused to grant recognition to the
A. F. L. as the exclusive bargaining representative of its bricklayers
until the A. F. L. has been certified by the Board in an appropriate
unit.
The elections directed on February 3, 1944, were held on February
22, and 23, and the ballots cast by the bricklayers in a residual voting
group-of production and maintenance employees were challenged and
impounded. On March 20, 1944, the Board-issued a Supplemental
Decision and Certification of Representatives wherein it stated that
since the A. F.-L.'s "petition is presently pending before -the Board,
we shall refrain, at this time, from certifying the C. 1. 0. as bargaining
representative of this group of employees [the bricklayers], without
prejudice, however, to -a ' later determination that such employees
should not; be set apart- from the production and, maintenance
employees."
The record in the instant proceeding reveals, and we find, that the
A. F. L. 'represents all the bricklayers at the Company's Chicago
Works, and that all but one have been members of that organization
during the past several years.2
The C. I. O. ,contends that no question concerning representation
exists because the A.Y. L.'s petition was filed subsequent'to the issu-
ance of the Decision' and Direction of Elections in the prior repre
sentation proceeding involving the Company's- Chicago Works' em-
ployees, and it urges that the petition be dismissed. The A. F. L.,
however, had, a substantial membership in the alleged appropriate
unit prior to the date of the hearing in the previous case and should,
therefore, have been served with a copy of the Notice of Hearing
therein and made a 'party to that- proceeding so that it could have
presented its claim with respect to 'the Company's bricklayers'.3
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 (6) and (7) of,the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UN , IT
The A. F. L. seeks a unit of all the bricklayers employed by the
Company, at its Chicago Works, including the bricklayer foreman.
The C. I. O. and the Company contend that a unit of bricklayers is
inappropriate, and that a plant-wide unit is appropriate. The Corn-_
pany also takes the position that in any case the bricklayer foreman.'
should be excluded as a supervisory, employee.
' S The A. F' L. adduced evidence showing that the five bricklayers employed by the Com-
pany at the Chicago Works were its members at the time of the hearing. The Company
concedes, and the C. I. 0. does not contest, this fact.
' 9 See Matter of Dodge Chicago Plant, Division of Chrysler Corporation, 55 N. L. R. 'B.-
1296. '
ALUMINUM COMPANY OF AMERICA 219
There are five bricklayers and a bricklayer foreman employed by
the Company in the mechanical department at its Chicago Works.
The bricklayers are skilled employees whose trade requires an appren-
ticeship of sever' al years. We- have recognized the right of -such em-
ployees to separate representation, if they so'desired.4 Their primary
function is to keep the Company's 90 furnaces in repair by relining
or rebuilding them as they burn out. They also have the duty to do
repair work on the Company's brick buildings.
The bricklayer foreman is in charge of the bricklayers and the yard
crew in the mechanical department. In all, there are approximately
35 employees under' his supervision. The yard crew, not involved in
this proceeding, performs miscellaneous maintenance work of an un-
skilled nature. There is an assistant foreman over this crew, and he
reports to the bricklayer foreman. The bricklayer foreman performs
no manual labor, and all his time is spent directing and supervising
the work 'of others. He attends the forremen's meetings, wears a
foreman's badge, and recommends increases in pay for his men to
the master mechanic, the head of the mechanical department. There
are about 25 foremen under the master mechanic. These foremen
have approximately the same supervisory status as the bricklayer
foreman, and have been'excluded as supervisory employees in the
Board',s prior decision involving the Chicago Works.5 Although the
'Company's employment office actually hires and discharges, it depends
to a large extent on the bricklayer foreman's interviews and judgment.
We are of the opinion that the bricklayer foreman falls within our
customary definition of supervisory employees, and we shall accord-
ingly exclude him.
We are of the opinion that the bricklayers could either be part of
the larger production and maintenance unit or function as a separate
trait: Ordinarily we would direct an election to ascertain their de-
sires before determining the appropriate unit.' The C. I. 0., however,
stated on the record that it 'did not wish to participate in any election
which might be directed in this proceeding. We conclude, therefore,
that the bricklayers constitute an appropriate unit.
In accordance with the foregoing, we find that all bricklayers em-
ployed by the Company at its Chicago Works, excluding the bricklayer
foreman, 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.
4 See Matter of Aluminum Company o f America, 42 N L R B 772 and 43 N L R. B.
1275; Matter of Wisconsin Steel Works , International Harvester Company, 42 N. L.R. B.
1276 and 44 N. L R. B 68.
' See footnote 1, supra.
6 See, for example , cases cited in footnote 4, ,supra.
I ^ .
220 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD I
V. THE ;DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
As noted above, the A. F. L. represents all the employees within
the unit found appropriate in SectionIV,'supra. Both the Company
and the C. I. O. consented to certification of the A. F. L. oil the record
in the event the Board found a unit of bricklayers to be appropriate.
In the circumstances, we shall not direct an election in accordance with
our usual procedure, but shall certify the A. F. L.
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
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 9, of National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3,
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that, Bricklayers, Masons, and Plasterers In-
ternational Union of America, Local 21, affiliated with the American'
Federation of Labor, has been designated and selected by a majority of
the bricklayers of Aluminum Company of America, Chicago Works,
McCook, Illinois, but excluding the bricklayer foreman, 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, as their representative for the
purposes of collective bargaining, and that, pursuant to Section 9 (a)
of the Act, the said organization is the exclusive representative of all
such employees for the purposes of collective bargaining with respect
to rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of
employment.