Republic Steel Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 18, 1951

94 N.L.R.B. 1294 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

1294 ' DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
performing comparable work, we perceive no basis for establishing
them as a separate unite We would therefore dismiss the petition.
e McDonnell Aircraft Corporation , 93 NLRB 1268; Kaiser-Frazer Corporation, 93
NLRB 892; Milprint, Inc., 90 NLRB 98. But cf. General Aniline & Film Corporation,
Ansco Division, 80 NLRB 1352 , where the Board held that a similar unit could appro-
priately be severed from a production and maintenance unit and included in a toolroom
unit.
REPUBLIC STEEL CORPORATION and UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA,
CIO, PETITIONER. Case No. 10-RC-10841. June 18, 1951
Decision and Direction of Election
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before John S. Patton, hearing
officer. 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 [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Reynolds].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act. • 4
. 2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9
(c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner seeks to represent a unit composed of all office
uid clerical employees at the main office of the Employer's Gadsden,
Alabama, plant, excluding employees in the invoice, industrial en-
gineering, industrial relations, and combustion departments, plant
clerical employees,' employees of the Truscon Steel Company, guards,
professional employees, and all supervisors as defined in the Act. The
Employer asserts that the unit is inappropriate, contending that, in
addition to the exclusions requested by the Petitioner; as to which
the parties agree, all other employees should also be excluded on the
ground that they are either confidential, supervisory, or professional
employees.
The clerical employees in the Gadsden offices do routine clerical
tasks, maintaining records, posting figures in ledgers, preparing ac
counts, computing payrolls, and performing the Employer 's local ac-
;The record shows that two inventory clerks and three production clerks, who are
stationed in plant production areas, do not work with the employees in the requested
unit. In accordance with the Employer ' s contention , therefore , we find that they are
plant clericals , and we shall exclude them from the office clerical unit and, in keeping
with the Board ' s practice , leave them in the existing production and maintenance unit.
94 NLRB No. 199.
REPUBLIC STEEL CORPORATION 1295
counting tasks. They work in a group of four office buildings, sepa-
rate from local production facilities. The record shows that these
employees do similar and related work, and share common working
conditions, interests, pay, and other benefits. Many of them collect,
record, and process information relating to production, costs, and
sales. Others work on payrolls, compute incentive payments, and
handle matters relating to unemployment insurance, and grievance
payments and adjustments. While most of these employees handle
confidential business or personnel information, they do not handle
or have access to any matters relating to labor relations. The Em-
ployer nevertheless urges that all employees who have knowledge of
personnel matters, or the Employer's business and financial opera-
tions, are confidential employees. We do not agree. As the confi-
dential information possessed by the office and clerical employees per-
tains to personnel or to matters of a business nature, rather than to
the field of labor relations, we find that they are not confidential
employees.2
The Employer requests exclusion of about 40 percent of the total
office force, on the ground that they are supervisors as defined in the
Act. The Petitioner conceded the supervisory status of 23 of those
whom the Employer would exclude, and little, or no evidence was in-
troduced to show the actual authority exercised by these particular
employees. In view of the Petitioner's concession, therefore, we
shall exclude from the unit the following employees District ac-
countant; assistant district accountant; internal auditor; cost ac-
countant; supervisor of cost projection; supervisor of accounts pay-
able; production accountant; paymaster; assistant paymaster; super-
visor of distribution; supervisor of time checking; supervisor of
tabulating; cashier; manager of orders; assistant manager of orders;
chief entry clerk; chief biller; chief engineer; assistant chief engineer;
chief metallurgist ; assistant chief metallurgist ; supervisor of produc-
tion, rolling mills; and the supervisor of production, rod and wire mill.
The Employer asserts that 18 other employees are supervisors
within the meaning of the Act. It claims that some of them are
subordinate to various section heads, that they exercise direct super-
' Great Lakes Pipe Line Company, 88 NLRB 1370; Singer Sewing Machine Company,
87 NLRB 460; Amplex Manufacturing Company, 85 NLRB 523; Chicago Railway Equip-
ment Company, 85 NLRB 586; Chrysler Corporation, 84 NLRB 516; Bonwit Teller, Inc.,
84 NLRB 414.
The Employer particularly requested exclusion of four secretaries to department heads
because these officials handle grievances and other personnel matters concerning employees
under their immediate supervision. It was not shown, however, that the department
heads are directly concerned with formulation of the Employer's over-all labor relations
-policies. We shall therefore include their secretaries in the appropriate unit. Republic
Steel Corporation, Canton Plant, Central Alloy District, 91 NLRB 904. '
We shall exclude the secretary to the district manager because, as the record shows,
and as the Petitioner concedes, she acts in a confidential capacity to the district manager,
who exercises managerial functions in the field of labor relations.
1296 - DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
visory authority in the absence of their superiors , and that they are
responsible for rating the performance of their subordinates, and
effectively recommend hiring and firing. It alleges that others in
this group , although lower in the chain of command , would exercise
direct authority in the event that 2 or more of their superiors should
-be absent , and that they have power to rate their subordinates' per-
formance, to delegate work , and to recommend hiring and firing. As
to still others , the Employer 's witnesses stated only that they are
"supervisors ," who have power effectively to recommend hiring and
firing. In some instances , as set forth in detail below , the record
contains facts which tend to support the Employer 's assertions, even
though they show an extraordinary high ratio of supervisory em-
ployees to subordinates . Where the evidentiary facts show that
supervisory status exists , we will so find. But where, as here, the
number of alleged supervisors almost equals the nonsupervisory staff,
we shall not , solely on the basis of conclusory statements , unsupported
by any evidentiary facts, find supervisory status.'
The chief clerk in the mechanical engineering department : Testi-
mony by both the Employer 's and the Petitioner's witnesses shows
that this employee actively directs the efforts of six clerks , and that
he has the power effectively to recommend hiring and firing of these
employees . We find that he is a supervisor as defined in the Act, and
we shall therefore exclude him from the unit.
The assistant cost accountant , the assistant supervisor of tabulating,
the chief coding clerk, and the assistant chief entry clerk : The record
shows that each of these employees occupies the second place in
the supervisory hierarchy of their respective sections . They make
regular assignments to their subordinates , and while their section
heads are out, they act as section heads. Uncontradicted evidence
shows that some of them have power to recommend hire and dis-
charge, that the assistant chief entry clerk spends 80 percent of his
time in supervisory , activities , and, apparently, that all of them direct
the work of other employees . In view of the factual basis of the
testimony regarding this group of employees , we find that they are
supervisors , and we shall therefore exclude them from the unit.
Five group leaders, the supervisor of payrolls and rates, the super-
visor of man-hours, social security , and the supervisor of payrolls :
These employees , several of whom supervise nothing more than a
"plan," occupy subordinate positions in their respective sections. Al-
though the record shows that each might occupy a position of super-
visory authority if at least two superiors, in each case, should be away,
nothing in the record suggests that such an occurrence would be usual.
The record also shows that each of these employees has regular
9 The Rollman & Sons Company, 90 NLRB No. 1; The Ironsides Company, 87 NLRB 1564.
REPUBLIC STEEL CORPORATION 1297
routine duties, and that the extent of their power to "delegate" work
is, at most, the power of transmittal of assignments originally made
by their superiors. Although the Employer's witnesses testified that
each of them has power effectively to, recommend hiring and firing, it
also appears that whatever such power exists, the employees in ques-
tion are not required to use independent judgment in connection
therewith, but exercise it only at the behest of their superiors, who
make all decisions in this regard. In view of the hypothetical nature
of their alleged supervisory status, we shall include these employees
in the Unit .4
The supervisor of insurance accounting, the property accountant,5
the building custodian, the mail-car driver, and the chief teletype oper-
ator: The Employer's assertions regarding the supervisory status of
this group of employees are unsupported by evidence in the record.
While the Employer's witnesses testified, in response to leading ques-
tions couched in the language of the Act, that all of these employees
exercise supervisory authority over from one to five subordinates,
no factual evidence was adduced to support the conclusions of
the Employer's witnesses. In the absence of an affirmative showing
that any of these employees have in fact exercised supervisory author-
ity, and in view of the very high percentage of alleged supervisors,
we deem the record as a whole insufficient to support a finding that
any of the remaining employees disputed by the Employer are super-
visors as defined in the Act. We shall therefore include them all in
the unit, except those whom we shall exclude as professional em-
ployees.
There remains for consideration the Employer's contention,
disputed in each instance by the Petitioner, that all of the following
employees are professional and must therefore be excluded from the
unit 6
Property accountant: This employee allocates the cost of materials
and equipment to the proper accounts, maintains records of property
and equipment transfers, and makes computations and entries showing
the effect of purchases, alterations, and repairs on the book value of
the Employer's property. In connection with such duties, he keeps
property records used to establish insurance values, tax values, and
depreciation. He follows no fixed routine, but exercises his own initia-
tive in preparing the figures and materials with which he works. It
is apparent that his tasks are intellectual and varied, and that he exer-
4 Republic Steel Corporation, Canton Plant , Central Alloy District, 91 NLRB 904.
5 The record shows that the property accountant is not a supervisor. For a discussion
of his professional status , see text below.
The Employer also sought to exclude the meter inspector as a professional employee.
However , as this employee works in the combustion department , which the parties agreed
to exclude as a part of the Employer 's production facilities , we need not pass on his
professional status.
953841-52-vol. 94-83
1298 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
cises considerable independent judgment in the performance of his
duties. However, the record does not show how much training or
experience is required for his job.- The evidence is therefore insuffi-
cient to warrant a determination as to this employee's professional
status. Accordingly, we will include him in the unit and permit him
to vote subject to challenge.
Statistical engineer: This employee, in the metallurgical depart-
ment, must have a college degree or its equivalent; he assembles pro-
duction, chemical, and metallurgical data, preparing statistical
analyses for the chief metallurgist. These analyses are used in the
formulation of new chemical and process control standards. On the
basis of the foregoing facts, we find that he is a professional employee,
within the definition set forth in the Act, and we shall therefore
exclude him from the unit.
The estimator, the design draftsman, the draftsman electrical leader,
the detailer, and the draftsmen: The Employer contends that all of
these employees fall within the professional classification set forth
in the Act, and opposes their inclusion on this ground alone. The
estimator, who must have a college degree or its equivalent, prepares
cost estimates dealing with proposed machinery, equipment, and
plant expansion; in addition to projecting costs from blueprints and
material cost-data, he must report actual costs to the chief engineer.
The design draftsman designs and makes layouts of buildings, equip-
ment, and machinery for all departments in the plant. The draftsmen
prepare drawings and blueprints of machinery and buildings, follow-
ing plans initially prepared by the design draftsmen. The drafts-
man electrical leader does similar work, but specializes in electrical
layouts. The detailer makes copies of previous drawings, and draws
the simpler parts of complex drawings. Although it appears from
this record that none of these employees are professionals, as asserted
by the Employer, it is clear, and on. the basis of the foregoing facts
we find, that all of them are technical employees.7 As well-established.
Board policy precludes- the inclusion of technical employees with
office and clerical employees where any party objects to such a group-
ing, we shall exclude them from the unit.'
Field engineers and trainee field engineers: The parties made
no contention regarding these employees during the course of - the
hearing. However, an exhibit submitted by the Petitioner suggests an
intention to exclude these employees from the unit. The trainees are
apparently learners, under contract with the Employer. As nothing
I International Harvester Company, West Pullman Works , 90 NLRB No . 240; Kelsey
Hayes . Wheel Company , 85 NLRB 666. .
. B The Ohio Steel Foundry Company, 92 NLRB 683; International Harvester Company,
West Pullman Works, 89 NLRB 413.
J. P. O'NEIL LUMBER COMPANY 1299
in the record contradicts the inference to be drawn from the exhibit,
we shall exclude them from the unit."
We find that all office and clerical employees in the office of the Em-
ployer's Gadsden, Alabama, plant, including, but not limited to, all
employees listed in Schedule A, excluding all employees listed in
Schedule B, employees in the invoice, industrial engineering, indus-
trial relations, and combustion departments, plant clerical employ
ees, employees of the Truscon Steel Company, guards, professional
employees, confidential employees, and all supervisors as defined in the
Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
9 The Texas Company , 90 NLItB No. 121.
J. P. & KATHLEEN O'NEII , AND GORDON D. AND CATHERINE ORPUT,
D/B/A J. P. O'NEIL LUMBER COMPANY ,1 PETITIONER and INTERNA-
TION AL WOODWORKERS OF AMERICA , LOCAL 5-246, CIO. Case No.
36-RM-62. June 18, 1951
Decision and Direction of Election
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before R. J. Wiener, hear-
ing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are
free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. The question concerning representation :
The Employer and the Union have had contractual relations since
1943.2 On June 1, 1949, the parties executed a collective bargaining
agreement which was to remain in effect until April 1, 1950, and
thereafter for annual periods absent 60 days' notice. The contract
contained a clause providing for reopening with respect to general
wage changes upon 60 days' written notice preceding September 1 or
April 1 of any contract year. On April 1, 1950, the contract was au-
tomatically renewed.
1 The Employer's name appears . as amended at the hearing.
2 The Union has never been certified as bargaining representative of the Employer's
employees , but in 1948 it won a union -authorization election.
94 NLRB No. 190.