Kennecott Copper Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 30, 1964

147 N.L.R.B. 1235 (N.L.R.B. 1964)

gENNECOTT COPPER CORP.' UTAH COPPER DIVISION 1235
As noted above, : the Union contended that the- arbitrator's award
should be dispositive of the matter. We find merit' in_ the Union's
contention that the Bekrd should honor the arbitration award.
In' Raley's,l the Board stated that in representation cases, as well as
unfair labor practice cases, where "a question of contract interpreta-
tion is in issue, and the parties thereto have set up in their` agreement
arbitration machinery for the settlement'of disputes arising under the
contract, and an award has already been rendered which meets Board
requirements applicable to arbitration awards, we think it would fur-
ther the underlying objectives of the Act to promote industrial peace
and stability to'give effect thereto.' It'is true, of course, that under
Section 9 of the Act the Board is empowered to decide questions con-
cerning representation. However, this authority to decide questions
concerning representation does not preclude the Board in a proper case
from considering an arbitration award in determining whether such a
question exists." '
We are satisfied that the award upon which the Union relies meets
the above-mentioned requirements. The arbitration proceeding was
conducted pursuant to a provision in the agreement between the Union
and Employer. The identical parties who are before the -Board
presented to the arbitrator the identical issue,as to the scope of the
contract, and there is no contention that the arbitration proceeding
was other than fair and regular and free from any procedural in-
firmity which might render,the award unacceptable.' In his award
of April 24, 1964, the arbitrator held that the contract covers the em-
ployees in Department 149. "We see nothing in the arbitrator's de-
cision that is contrary to the purposes and policies of the Act. In
view-6f the foregoing, we find it will effectuate the policies and pur-
poses of the Act to honor the arbitration award finding that the con-
tract between the Employer and the Union covers' the employees in
dispute herein, and we shall deny the Employer's motion.
[The Board denied the motion to clarify the certification -in Case
No. 9-RC-4345.]
7 Raley's Inc., d/b/a Raley 's Supermarkets, 143 NLRB 256.
8 The Employer 's position is based solely on its disagreement with the arbitrator's
conclusion.
Kennecott Copper Corporation ,.Utah Copper Division and Order
of Railway Conductors and Brakemen and 'Brotherhood of
Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen, Petitioners . Case No.
27-RC-2473 and 27-RC-21474.. June 30, 1964
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF.ELECTIONS .
Upon petitions filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, as amended, a consolidated hearing was held before Hear-
147 NLRB No. 154.
1236 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Ing Officer Allison E Nutt The Hearing Officer's rulings made at
the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Members Leedom, Fanning, and Brown]
Upon the entire record in this case the Board finds
1 The Employei, Kennecott Copper Corporation, Utah Copper
Division, is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act
2 The 'labor organizations named below claim to represent certain
employees of the Employer 1
3 A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of certain employees of the Employer within the meaning of Sec-
tion 9(c) (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act
In Case No 27-RC-2473, the Petitioner, Order of Railway Con-
ductoi s and Bi akemen, seeks a unit of
All conductors, biakemen, enginemen , engine foremen and switch-
men engaged in the Company s rail transportation between the Cop-
perton Yard to and within the Magna Switching District, which is
defined as follows 2,000 feet above Arthur Junction, Riter on the
Denver & Rio Giande Western Railroad tracks, Garfield Smelter,
Utah Refinery, Central Warehouse trackage, Sands Spur, Western
Pacific Railroad and Union Pacific ti ansfei ti acks, and to exclude all
other employees, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act
In Case No 27-RC-2474, the Petitioner, Brotherhood of Locomotive
Firemen and Enginemen, seeks a unit of
All engineers, firemen or helpers, hostlers and hostlers' helpers en-
gaged in the Company's rail transportation between the Copperton
Yard to and within the Magna Switching District which is defined as
follows 2,000 feet above Arthur Junction, Riter on the Denver &
Rio Grande Western Railroad tracks, Garfield Smelter, Utah Refinery,
Central Warehouse trackage, Sands Spur, Western Pacific Railroad
and Union Pacific transfer tracks, and to exclude all other employees,
guards and supei visors as defined in the Act
The Employee takes the position that the units sought by the re-
spective Petitioners are appropriate
The Intei venor, however, contends that the inclusion of Central
Warehouse trackage is inappropriate since the operation of trains
over said trackage is now part of its contractual unit 2
Except for the inclusion of Sands Spur and Cential Warehouse
trackage, the unit descriptions as set forth above have for many years
represented the scope and composition of the contract units of the
1 United Steelworkers of America , AFT -CIO was allowed to Intervene on the basis of
an asserted contractual Interest
2 The Intervenor does not desire to be placed on the ballot In the event the Board
orders an election
KENNECOTT COPPER CORP., UTAH COPPER DIVISION 1237
respective Petitioners . Intervenor, on the other hand, is at present
recognized under an existing collective -bargaining agreement, as. the
exclusive 'representative of all production and maintenance employees
working at the smelter . It is undisputed that among the employees
within the unit represented by the Intervenor are employees who
operated trains servicing a warehouse and other facilities within the
confines of the smelter yard. .
4. The Employer operate ,a large facility , for the recovery and re-
fining of copper . The facility includes a ' mine,' two concentrating
plants, a smelter , and an electrolytic refinery as well as a powerplant
and a railroad operation . The railroad operation which is commonly
known as the "ore haulage" plant or system is the subject of the
instant petitions.
Essentially , the ore haulage plant or system consists of a main track
about 20 miles long connecting the various manufacturing operations
required to produce pure copper . 'At the mine, ore-laden cars are as-
sembled and then delivered to' the concentrators for the initial step in
the refining process. At the concentrators the ore is reduced to a
product known as concentrate which is transported by train to the
smelter. At the smelter the concentrate is processed into copper
anodes and then moved by train to the refinery where the finished pure
copper product is produced. From the refinery the copper moves into
interstate commerce.
The ore haulage system is used not only to ship the -copper product
from one refining operation to the next, but also to make deliveries of
other materials and supplies to the concentrators , smelter, and refinery.
Prior to May 1963 each of these operations - was serviced by its own
warehouse : Deliveries td these warehouses were made by trains op=
erating on the ore -haulage system . Except for material destined for
the smelter and smelter warehouse , employees represented by Peti-
tioners operated the trains . At the smelter ; unlike the other facilities,
the operation of the trains was turned over to smelter yard employees,
who were represented by the Intervenor . Thus, at the smelter yard
limit employees operating the trains , who, were represented by the
Petitioners , would surrender the train to a crew from the smelter yard,
who would then operate the train on the trackage within the smelter
yard. Ultimately the trains would be returned either empty or with
products destined for shipment to other points to the smelter yard
limit where the trains would be returned to employees represented by
the Petitioners.
In May 1963, the Employer , for economic reasons, abandoned the
system of operating-a,warehouse ' at'eaeh facility ,l and began using two
newly erected .centrally located warehouses,*each to serve two facilities.
One of the new warehouses was known as 'Central Warehouse and
serviced both the smelter and the refinery . Commencing in May 1963,
1238 DECISIONS -OF .NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS. BOARD
;products, formerly stored at,,the•smelter yard warehouse were stored
at the Central Warehouse. In addition; products used exclusively; by
.the refinery, . which at no time had been stored in the smelter ware-
house, were also stored in,Central Warehouse.
-Rail access to the .Central Warehouse was provided by means of, a
new spur known-as the Central Warehouse trackage, which in turn ran
,off a new spur known as Sands Spur. Neither the Sands Spur nor the
Central Warehouse trackage connected directly to the trackage within
the smelter yard,, but only, with, the main track of the ore-haulage
system. Unlike the situation, which prevailed with respect to the
smelter yard warehouse, no..terminal switching point existed within
the smelter yard between the main track and the Central Warehouse.
Trains carrying materials from the main track and over the Sands
spur and Central Warehouse trackage continued to the Central Ware-
house under the control of their original crews.
-, As.indicated, Intervenor's opposition to the Petitioners' unit re-
quests stems from a belief that.the .employees who operate trains to
the Central Warehouse are performing work which under the terms
of the Intervenor's contract with the Employer is essentially part of
smelter unit work.' While it is true that employees represented by
the Intervenor, and covered by- the existing -collective-bargaining
agreement,. formerly operated trains which made deliveries -to the
smelter yard warehouse, it is clear that these operations were over
trackage not considered part of the ore-haulage system. The ore-
haulage system was so constructed that it did not extend beyond the
smelter yard limit. Thus, there was a clear .differentiation between
the trackage serving the plant in general and that serving the smelter
yard and its related facilities.4 . However, the Central Warehouse
trackage . and- the Sands Spur - from.. which. the Central Warehouse
trackage originates is simply an :extension of the main ore-haulage
system. No terminal point exists where the. Central Warehouse track-
age enters the smelter yard area; no switching facilities exist at that
point, and there is nothing in the record indicating that the haulage
of materials and supplies to the Central Warehouse requires skills
associated with the operations of the smelter.
Although the Central Warehouse trackage is new, in its use and
location it is simply an undifferentiated extension of the trackage of
the ore-haulage system. The fact that the warehouse served by this
new trackage -includes operations formerly performed in the smelter
?When Central Warehouse became operative on May 1,. 1963, the Intervenor asserted
its claim that its contract with the Employer applied to employees operating trains to
Central Warehouse. The Employer, -however, rejected the Intervenor 's claim and assigned
the work to employees represented by the Petitioners.
. * Apparently smelter train crews still operate trains within the smelter yard area for
all purposes connected with the operation of the smelter other than the hauling of mate-
rials to the Central Warehouse. .
KENNECOTT COPPER CORP, UTAH COPPER DIVISION 1239
yard warehouse does not, in our opinion, affect the operational inte-
gration of the new trackage into the ore-haulage system Further,
it is undisputed that the employees operating trains over the ore-
haulage system, excluding this new trackage, are part of the Peti-
tioners' respective units, it is undisputed that the Intervenor's contract
unit does not include such employees, and it is clear that the em-
ployees who operate the trains on the Central Warehouse trackage
are the very employees who operate the trains on the balance of the
ore-haulage system In all these circumstances, we find that the Cen-
tral Warehouse trackage is within the scope of the Petitioners' historic
units, and that employees operating trains on such trackage are in-
cluded in such units
In view of the foregoing, we find that the following units are ap-
propriate for collective bargaining within the meaning of Section
9 (b) of the Act
In Case No 27-RC-2473
All conductors, brakemen, enginemen, engine foremen, and switch-
men engaged in the Company's rail transportation between the Cop-
perton Yard to and within the Magna Switching District, which is
defined as follows 2,000 feet above Arthur Junction, Riter on the
Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad tracks, Garfield Smelter,
Utah Refinery, Centi al Warehouse trackage, Sands Spur, Western
Pacific Railroad and Union Pacific transfer tracks, and to exclude all
other employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act
In Case No 27-RC-2474
All engineers, firemen or helpers, hostlers and hostlers' helpers en-
gaged in the Company's rail transportation between the Copperton
Yard to and within the Magna Switching District which is defined
as follows 2,000 feet above Arthur Junction, Riter on the Denver
& Rio Grande Western Railroad tracks, Garfield Smelter, Utah
Refinery, Central Warehouse trackage, Sands Spur, Western Pacific
Railroad and Union Pacific transfer tracks, and to exclude all other
employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act
Although the units herein found appropriate, except for Sands
Spur and Central Warehouse trackage, are the same units for which
the Petitioners are currently recognized, the Peitioneis assert that
they seek the benefits arising from Board certification, and desire to
proceed to an election 8 We shall, therefore, direct elections in the
respective units As the Intervenor has indicated that in such event
it does not wish to participate in an election, we shall not place its
name on the ballot
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication ]
5 See General Bow Company, 82 NLRB 678