American Steel Foundries

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 6, 1946

69 N.L.R.B. 1262 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

In the Matter of AMERICAN STEEL FOUNDRIES , EMPLOYER and FEDERAL
LABOR UNION, LOCAL No. 23847, A. F. L., PETITIONER
Case No. 14-R-1231.-Decided August 6, 1946
Pope and Ballard, by Messrs. W. McNeil Kennedy and E. W. Sin-
nott, of Chicago, Ill., for the Company.
Messrs. E. P. T/ieiss and Johln B. Barr, of St. Louis, Mo., for the
Petitioner.
Mr. John H. Wood, Jr., of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon a petition duly filed, hearings in this case were held at St. Louis,
Missouri, on October 3 and 4, 1945, and on May 7, 1946,1 before Keith
W. Blinn, Trial Examiner. At the hearings the Employer made two
separate motions to dismiss the petition. The Trial Examiner re-
ferred these motions to the Board. For reasons stated hereinafter
both motions are denied. The Trial Examiner's rulings made at the
hearings are free from prejudicial error an are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations
Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
American Steel Foundries is a New Jersey corporation engaged in
the production of steel castings at its nine plants in various parts
of the United States. The plant located in East St. Louis, Illinois,
is the only one involved in this proceeding. During the year 1945,
the Employer purchased for use at its East St. Louis plant, raw mate-
rials valued in excess of $100,000, approximately 80 percent of which
came from outside the State of Illinois. During the same period,
finished products valued in excess of $100,000 were produced at the
East St. Louis plant and shipped to points outside the State.
' The record was reopened by the Board on the latter date for further evidence with
respect to the issue of the appropriate unit.
69 N. L. R. B., No. 150.
1262
AMERICAN STEEL FOUNDRIES 1263
We find that the Employer is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
IT. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with American
Federation of Labor claiming to represent employees of the Employer.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Employer refuses to recognize the Petitioner as the exclusive
bargaining representative of employees of the Employer until the
Petitioner has been certified by the Board in an appropriate unit.
A statement of a Board agent, introduced into evidence at the hear-
ing, indicates that the Petitioner represents a substantial number of
employees in the unit hereinafter found appropriate?
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Employer within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT ; THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
The Petitioner seeks a unit comprised of the line foremen and
assistant general foremen of the Foundry, Core and Cleaning, Finish-
ing,,and Annealing departments of the Employer. The Employer
objects to the proposed unit because it is limited to part of the Em-
ployer 's supervisors, and because it would combine supervisors on
two different levels in a single unit.
As already noted, the Employer is engaged in the manufacture of
castings . Its manufacturing operations are divided into several de-
partments , viz, Yard, Pattern, Open Hearth, Sand Control, Inspec-
tion , Foundry, Core and Cleaning, Finishing and Annealing, and
Building and Equipment. The actual production of castings occurs
in the Foundry, Core and Cleaning, Finishing and Annealing de-
partments giving rise to the practice by the Employer of referring to
these three departments as the "production" departments and to the
2 The Field Examiner reported at the original hearing that the petitioner submitted 25
authorization cards ; that the cards were all dated in April 1945, and that no check of the
cards was made against a pay roll, in view of the refusal of the Employer to supply one.
There are approximately 36 employees in the alleged appropriate unit.
At the reopened hearing in May 1946, the Employer moved that the petition be dismissed
on the ground that the authorization cards referred to above were no longer current. The
purpose of the preliminary showing of cards and of the Field Examiner's statement thereon
has been frequently set forth in our decisions. See Matter of Lalance ci Grosjean Manu-
facturing Co., 63 N. L. R. B. 130; Matter of Tampa Shipbuilding Company, 62 N. L. R. B.
954. Applying the principles enumerated in these cases, we conclude that the showing
satisfies the Board's requirements. Moreover, there is testimony in the record that at the
time of the reopened hearing the Petitioner had 28 dues-paying members among the
employees in the alleged appropriate unit.
1264 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
other departments as "service" departments. It is, however, quite
clear that the work performed in the Yard, Pattern, Open Hearth,
Sand Control, and Inspection departments is so closely related to
the "production" departments that it constitutes an integral part of
what is normally considered the production process. Thus castings
are poured in the Foundry department from molten steel prepared by
the Yard and Open Hearth departments. The moulds, cores, and sand
used by the Foundry are produced or prepared by the Pattern, Core,
and Sand Control departments. After the Cleaning, Finishing and
Annealing department has finished the rough castings and has made
them otherwise ready for delivery, the Inspection department submits
the castings to a complete and final inspection. The Building and
Equipment department, however, is not devoted to production, but
rather to the maintenance and repair of plant facilities.
The record further shows in this connection that the Employer has,
in effect, recognized the close integration in its production operations
by bargaining with the Steelworkers for the rank and file employees
in a single unit which generally comprises all employees in the de-
partments referred to above as being engaged in what is normally
considered production work.3 Accordingly, in view of the close re-
lationship which exists among these departments and the Board's
policy of following the pattern of bargaining among the rank and
file employees in establishing supervisory units in the absence of a
history of collective bargaining for supervisors in the industry, we are
of the opinion that the supervisory employees in the Yard, Pattern 4
Open Hearth, Core, Foundry, Inspection, Sand Control, and Clean-
ing, Finishing and Annealing departments may function together for
purposes of collective bargaining.
We come now to the Employer's contention that it is improper
to combine the line foremen and the assistant general foremen in a
single supervisory unit. The record discloses that the Employer's
supervisory hierarchy consists of the Works Manager, the Shop Su-
perintendent, their 2 assistants, 7 general foremen, 15 assistant gen-
a The Steelworkers represents in a single bargaining unit all the rank and file employees
of the Foundry, Core and Cleaning, Finishing and Annealing departmets whose supervisors
are requested by the Petitioner, and, in addition, all the rank and file employees of the
Yard, Open Hearth , Sand Control , and Inspection departments . In the Pattern depart-
ment the wood pattern makers are represented by the Pattern Makers League of North
America (AFL), while the Steelworkers represents the metal pattern makers and other
employees. Although the Steelworkers also represents employees of several shops of the
Building and Equipment department, and divides the representation of the other employees
of that department with the International Association of Machinists, and the International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (AFL), it is apparent that the unit is fundamentally
one of production employees.
4 Although the rank and file wood pattern makers are represented separately from the
other production employees we shall nevertheless make provision for the inclusion of the
assistant general foreman , the only supervisory employee in this department, in the same
unit with other assistant general foremen of production, inasmuch as he would otherwise
be left without any possibility of engaging in collective bargaining.
AMERICAN STEEL FOUNDRIES 1265
eral foremen, and 31 line foremen. A general foreman heads each
department assisted by 1 or more assistant general foremen and usually
by 1 or more line foremen. An assistant general foreman substi-
tutes for a general foreman in his absence during the day shifts and
at night each department is normally under the direction of an assist-
ant general foreman.
With particular reference to the line foremen and the assistant gen-
eral foremen, the record discloses the following : These two groups en-
joy similar conditions of employment and have similar powers, duties,
and responsibilities . Neither the line foremen nor the assistant gen-
eral foremen have the authority , even in emergencies , to hire or dis-
charge rank and file employees , but both may make recommendations
on these questions . Both groups of foremen may promote rank and
file employees in line with their seniority and may make transfers
within their departments . Ordinarily line foremen handle grievances
of rank and file employees for the Employer at the first step of the
grievance procedure , but in several of the smaller departments where
there are no line foremen, this function is carried on by assistant gen-
eral foremen . The Employer 's rules governing vacations and pay for
time not worked for line foremen and assistant general foremen are
identical , and are unlike those of general foremen.
However, the record also shows that the assistant general foremen
have some of the attributes of general foremen. Thus they substitute
for general foremen in the latter 's absence . On these occasions they,
in addition , have the authority to approve daily piece -rate wage pay-
ments to rank and file employees , to handle grievances at the second
step of the grievance procedure , to attend the regular management
meetings of general foremen and top officials , and to conduct depart-
mental supervisory meetings to inform line foremen of any changes
in the Employer's operations or policies.
In view of the foregoing , we are of the opinion that the evidence
points with equal propriety to the inclusion of the assistant general
foremen in the same unit with the line foremen and to the establish-
ment of a separate unit of assistant general foremen. In these cir-
cumstances , we shall afford the assistant general foremen the opportu-
nity by separate voting to indicate whether or not they desire to be
in the same unit with line foremen. We shall make no final unit deter-
mination at this time pending the elections hereinafter directed. In
the event the employees in the voting groups described below, voting
separately , select the Petitioner , they shall together constitute a single
appropriate unit.
We shall direct that separate elections be held among the employees
in the voting groups described below who were employed during the
pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of the Direction of
701592-47-vol. 69-81
1266 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Elections herein, subject to the limitations and additions set forth in
the Direction :
(1) All line foremen of the Yard, Open Hearth, Pattern, Foundry,
Core, Sand Control, Inspection, and Cleaning, Finishing and Anneal-
ing departments of the Employer's East St. Louis plant, excluding
assistant general foremen, general foremen, assistant superintendents,
and superintendents.
(2) All assistant general foremen of the Yard, Open Hearth, Pat-
tern, Foundry, Core, Sand Control, Inspection, and Cleaning, Finish-
ing and Annealing departments of the Employer's East St. Louis
plant, excluding line foremen, general foremen, assistant superintend-
ents, and superintendents.
As stated above, there will be no final determination of the appropri-
ate unit pending the results of the elections.
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining with American Steel Foundries, East St.
Louis, Illinois, separate elections 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 Fourteenth Region, acting in this matter as agent for
the National Labor Relations Board, and subject to Article III, Sec-
tions 10 and 11, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regula-
tions-Series 3, as amended, among the employees in the voting groups
described 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 said 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 those employees who have since quit
or been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or reinstated
prior to the date of the elections, to determine whether or not they de-
sire to be represented by Federal Labor Union, Local No. 23847,
A. F. L., for the purposes of collective bargaining.
MR. GERARD D. REILLY, concurring separately :
My position in this case is the same as that expressed in my concur-
ring opinions in The Midland Steel Products Company and Westing-
house Electric Corporation cases.-5 As in those cases, I would direct
no election in this matter since all the persons who are the subject of
this petition are supervisors and the business involved here does not
5 Matter of The Midland Steel Products Company, 65 N. L. R. B. 997 ; Matter of Westing-
house Electric Corporation ( East Springfield Works ), 66 N. L. R. B. 1297.
AMERICAN STEEL FOUNDRIES 1267
differ in any relevant respect from the kind of business carried on by
the Packard (C1ompany.6 Since the majority of the Board entertain
a contrary view, however, I wish to concur in the conclusion that the
assistant general foremen should be balloted separately so as to as-
certain whether or not they desire to be in the same bargaining unit
which includes the line foremen. There is sufficient evidence in the
record to indicate that the duties and responsibilities of the line
foremen and the assistant general foremen are distinguishable.
MR. JOHN M. HousTON, concurring separately :
For the reasons stated in my concurring opinion in Matter of The
Midland Steel Company, cited above, which I find equally applicable
here, I would provide for only one voting group including both levels
of foremen.
My views on this basic question are contained in the dissenting opinion in Matter of
Packard Motor Car Company , 61 N. L. R. B. 4.