Samor Quality Brass, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 5, 1951

93 N.L.R.B. 1225 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

SA-MOR QUALITY BRASS, INC. 1225
SAMOR QUALITY BRASS , INC. and UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEY-
MEN AND APPRENTICES OF THE PLUMBING AND PIPE FITTING INDUSTRY
OF THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA, LOCAL 152, AFL, PETITIONER
STERLING FAUCET COMPANY and UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEY-
MEN AND APPRENTICES OF THE PLUMBING AND PIPE FITTING INDUSTRY
OF THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA, LOCAL 152, AFL, PETITIONER.
Cases Nos. 6-RC-694 and 6-RC-695. April 5,1951
Decision and Direction of Election
Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing in the above-consolidated cases 1 was held
before Joseph C. Thackery, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rul-
ings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are here-
by affirmed. District 50 and the Employers requested oral argument.
As the record and the briefs filed herein adequately present the issues
and the positions of the parties, the request is hereby denied.
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-mem-
ber panel [Members Houston, Reynolds, and Styles].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employers are engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employers. 2
3. The question concerning representation :
Pursuant to a determination by card check that District 50 repre-
sented a majority of its employees, Sa-Mor and District 50, on June
16, 1950, entered into a 5-year contract. On September 19, 1950, Sterl-
ing and District 50, which has represented employees since 1944, exe-
cuted a 5-year contract. The Employers and District 50 assert .that
these contracts constitute a bar to the petitions in these cases, which
were filed on October 4, 1950. Both contracts contain the following
clause :
The Company further agrees that as a condition of employ-
ment all of its Employees at Sabraton, West Virginia, shall be-
come members of District 50, United Mine Workers of America,
and its Local Union No. -. This section shall not be effective if
it is now prohibited by law, but in such case shall become effective
if and when such agreement shall later become lawful.
I At the hearing, District 50, United Mine Workers of America, hereinafter called
District 50, voiced its objection to consolidation of the instant matters by the Regional
Director, Sixth Region. The objection is overruled.
2 The motions of United Steelworkers of America, CIO, herein called the Steelworkers,
and of District 50, to intervene were granted by the hearing officer without objection.
93 NLRB No. 211.
1226 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The foregoing clauses were not authorized by elections under Section
9 (e) (1) of the Act, and, even if so authorized, would be illegal if
presently effective. The Petitioner and the Steelworkers contend that
the inclusion of the foregoing union-security provisions precludes
the contracts from serving as bars to an election: at this time. How-
-•Cver, the Employers and District 50 assert that the, said provisions
are not presently effective, but their effect is specifically postponed
until such time as they might become valid. The Board has held
that a contract with an illegal union-security clause may not operate
as a bar unless it is clear from the language of the clause that the
application of the union-security provision is deferred until its
legality is established.3 The underscored phrase in the union-security
provisions herein does not, as contended by the Employers and District
50, postpone their effect until they are authorized by an election under
Section 9 (e) (1) of the Act. This language, in our opinion, does
not clearly defer the operation of the union-security provisions until
their validity is established. It would seem rather, to make those
provisions presently effective, postponing the issue of legality for a
future determination by a proper tribunal. We, therefore, find that
the contracts between the Employers and District 50 do not bar this
proceeding.
We find that a question affecting commerce exists concerning the
representation of employees of the Employers within the meaning of
-Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The appropriate unit:
The Petitioner seeks a single unit of the production and mainte-
nance employees and watchmen, excluding all office clerical employees,
shipping clerks, factory clerks, timekeepers, cafeteria workers, service
employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act, of both
-Sa-Mor and Sterling; The Steelworkers is in accord with this unit
,description, District 50, although in agreement with internal composi-
4ion -of the unit sought by the Petitioner expressed a preference for
-two separate plant-wide units. The Employers were neutral.
Sa-Mor, incorporated in 1948, has the same officers and virtually the
.same Board of Directors as does Sterling, which was organized some
years previously. Sterling is engaged in the production of tubular
brass products used in the plumbing industry. Sa-Mor is,engaged in
the production of cast brass plumbing products. Both corporations
are located in the same fence-enclosed plot •of land and share common
entrances and exits. Both use the same office building, and one per-
sonnel department handles all hiring. Although there is little -em-
ployee transfer, the employees of both companies have common vaca-
8 Wyckof Steel Company, 86 NLRB 1318; Barium Steel and Forge, Inc, 88 NLRB 564.
,Cf. Sono tone Corporation, 90 NLRB 1236; Unique Art Manufacturing Company, 83
NLRB 1250.
SA-MOR QUALITY BRASS, INC. 1227
tion benefits and share the same recreational facilities. The record
,dogs not disclose any dissimilarity in skills used by the employees of
the two corporations.
There is no evidence in the record concerning the handling of the
Employers' labor relations, but both contracts presently in effect were
signed on behalf of the Employers by the same officials who hold
equivalent positions in both corporations. Except for wage rates,
these contracts are identical.
The operations of the corporations are integrated to a considerable
extent. Approximately 5 percent of the parts used in Sa-Mor's manu-
facturing process is supplied by Sterling. Much of the remainder,
although purchased separately, is ordered through the official who
orders materials for Sterling. In addition, about 15 percent of Sa-
Mor's total production consists of processing work on products manu-
factured by Sterling.
In view of the common control and the integration of production
operations, we find that Sa-Mor and Sterling constitute a single em-
ployer within the meaning of Section 2 (2) of the Act.4 Moreover,
under the circumstances set forth above, we find that despite the brief
period of bargaining by the Employers with District 50 on a single
company basis, a unit comprising the employees of both companies is
appropriate.5 Accordingly, we find that a single unit composed of the
employees of Sa-Mor and Sterling is appropriate.
The Board finds, in agreement with the stipulation of the parties
as to internal composition of the unit, that the following employees
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act:
All production and maintenance employees and watchmen e in the
Morgantown, West Virginia, plants, of the Sterling Faucet Company,
and Sa-Mor Quality Brass, Inc., excluding office clerical employees,
shipping clerks, factory clerks, timekeepers, cafeteria employees, serv-
ice employees, guards, professional employees, and supervisors as
defined in the Act.'
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
Salter Mills Company , 76 NLRB 930; Home Furniture Company, 77 NLRB 1437.
Cf. Koppers Company , Inc, 81 NLRB 1186
e The parties stipulated that none of the watchmen spend as much as 50 percent of
their time in guard duty.
IIn view of our disposition of this matter; It is unnecessary for us to discuss other
issues raised by the Petitioner and the Steelworkers.