Crucible Steel Co. of AmericaDownload PDFNational Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsOct 16, 194458 N.L.R.B. 1033 (N.L.R.B. 1944) Copy Citation In the Matter Of CRUCIBLE STEEL COMPANY OF AMERICA, MIDLAND WORKS AND NATIONAL DRAWN WORKS and DISTRICT 50, UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA - Cases Nos. 6-R-989 and 6-R-1090 respectively. Decided October 16, 1944 Messrs. Reed, Smith, Shaw & McClay, by Mr. Paul J. TVinschel, of Pittsburgh, Pa., for the Company. Mr. John J. Barnes, of Pittsburgh, Pa., for the Union. Mr. Bernard Goldberg, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon petitions duly filed by District 50, United Mine Workers of America, herein called the Union, alleging that questions affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation of employees of Crucible Steel Company of America, Midland Works and National Drawn Works, Midland, Pennsylvania, and East Liverpool, Ohio, herein called the Company, the National Labor Relations Board con- solidated the cases and provided for an appropriate hearing upon due notice before Allen Sinsheimer, Jr., Trial Examiner. Said hearing was held at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, on September 12, 1944. The Company and the Union 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. At the hearing, the Trial Examiner reserved for the Board a ruling on the Company's motion to dismiss the petitions on the ground that the units sought were inappropriate. For reasons hereinafter stated the said motion is hereby denied. 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. 58 N. L. R. B., No. 195. 1033 1034 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY Crucible Steel Company of America, a New Jersey Corporation, is engaged in the manufacture of iron and steel products at a number of plants throughout the United States, including the plants at Mid- land, Pennsylvania, and East Liverpool, Ohio, with which this pro- ceeding is concerned. During the past year, these two plants which are operated as a single unit, used raw materials valued in excess of $5,000,000, of which about 80 percent was shipped into the Common- wealth of Pennsylvania and the State of Ohio from other States. During the same period, the Company manufactured at these two plants, coke, iron, and steel products valued in excess of $10,000,000, of which approximately 70 percent was shipped to points outside the State of Ohio and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The Company admits that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. IT. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED District 50, United Mine Workers of America, unaffiliated, is a' labor organization admitting to membership employees of the Company. - III. THE QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE REPRESENTATION The Company has refused to grant recognition to the Union as the exclusive bargaining representative of its militarized and non-mili- tarized guards on the ground that the units sought are inappropriate. A statement of a Board agent,•introduced into evidence at the hear- ing,-indicates that the Union represents a substantial number of em- ployees in the units hereinafter found appropriate.' ,We find that questions affecting commerce have 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 UNITS The Union seeks two separate units, one comprising militarized guards, and the other non-militarized guards and guardettes, exclud- i The Field Examiner reported that in Case No 6-R-989, the Union submitted 4 authori- zation cards in a unit consisting of 8 employees , ( non-militarized guards ), and that in Case No 6-R-1020, the Union submitted 26 authorization cards with the unit petitioned for containing 32 employees ( militarized guards). CRUCIBLE STEEL COMPANY OF AMERICA , 1035 ing the superintendent of police, lieutenants, sergeants, and other supervisory personnel, at the Midland, Pennsylvania, and East Liver- pool, Ohio, plants. The Company, while adulitting the appropriate- ness of a two-plant unit, contends that guards, militarized and non- militarized, are members of the managerial hierarchy and as such their allegiance to management should not be divided by affiliation with any labor organization. Guards, militarized and unmilitarized, who are hired, paid and supervised by Company officials, as in the instant case, are employees of the Company and like other employees are entitled to the protection of the Act. While the guards do per- form monitorial or police duties with respect to their fellow em- ployees, they are not thereby created members of management, as con- tended by the Company. The Company's fear that if the guards are accorded their rights under the Act, their allegiance to the Company will be weakened, is also groundless. We have more than once pointed out that there is no incompatibility between union membership and honest, faithful discharge of duty to the employer.2 Accordingly, we find, that the following units are appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of See- tioh 9 (b) of the Act : (1) All guards at the Midland, Pennsylvania, and East Liverpool, Ohio, plants of the Company 3 who are members of the auxiliary mili- tary police, excluding the superintendent, lieutenants, sergeants, and all other supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, dis- charge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of em- ployees, or effectively recommend such action. (2) All guards and. guardettes at the Midland, Pennsylvania, and East Liverpool, Ohio, plants of the Company, who are not members of the auxiliary military police, excluding the superintendent, lieu- tenants, sergeants, 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. V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES We shall direct that the questions concerning representation which have arisen be resolved by elections by secret ballot among the em- ployees in the appropriate units who were employed during the pay- roll period immediately preceding the date of the Direction of Elections herein , subject to the limitations and additions set forth in the Direction. 2 See Matter of Dravo Corporation, 52 N. L. R. B. 322 , Matter of Co2ninonwealth Edison Company, 55 N. L R. B. 465: a The Midland, Pennsylvania , and East Liverpool , Ohio , plants are about 6 miles apart and are operated as a single unit . The United steelworkers of America , C I. 0 , presently has contracts with the Company covering employees in both plants as parts of a single unit. 1036 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 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 Relations Act, and pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of National Labor Rela- tions Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3, as amended, it is hereby DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representa- tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Crucible Steel Company of America, Midland Works and National Drawn Works, Midland, Pennsylvania, and East Liverpool, Ohio, 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 Sixth Region, acting in this matter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject to Article III, Sections 10 and 11, of said Rules and Regula- tions, among the employees in the units found appropriate in Section IV, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period immedi- ately preceding the date of this Direction, including employees who did not work during said paiy-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 desire to be represented by District 50, United Mine Workers of America, for the purposes of collective bargaining. MR. GERARD D. REILLY took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Direction of Elections. Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation