Truscon Steel Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 28, 1946

66 N.L.R.B. 204 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

In the Matter of TRIISCON STEEL COMPANY and SHOPMEN 's LOCAL
#487, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BRIDGE , STRUCTURAL AND
ORNAMENTAL IRON WORKERS (AFL)
Case No. 8-R-1933.-Decided February 28,1946
Mr. George R. Ruschenberg, of Cleveland, Ohio, for Truscon.
Mr. Harold E. Stern, of New York City, for the Iron Workers.
Mr. Frank J. Dowser, of Washington, D. C., for the Steelworkers.
Mr. James J. Dennis, of Newcastle, Pa., for the Machinists.
Miss Margaret M. Farmer, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a petition duly filed by Shopmen's Local .#487, International
Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers
(AFL), herein called the Iron Workers, alleging that a question
affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation of
employees of Truscon Steel Company, Cleveland, Ohio, herein called
Truscon, the National Labor Relations Board provided for an appro-
priate hearing upon due notice before John W. Irving, Trial Exam-
iner. The hearing was held at Youngstown, Ohio, on August 28,
1945. Truscon, the Iron Workers, the United Steel Workers of
America, CIO, herein called the Steelworkers, and the International
Association of Machinists, Lodge 404, herein called the Machinists,'
appeared and participated. All parties were afforded full oppor-
tunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to
introduce evidence bearing on the issues. The Trial Examiner's
rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are
hereby affirmed. All parties were afforded opportunity to file briefs
with the Board.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
"The Machinists appeared for the sole purpose of protecting the rights of its members,
who, it developed as the case progressed , were not involved.
66 N. L . R. B., No. 15.
204
TRUSCON STEEL COMPANY
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
205
Truscon Steel Company, a subsidiary of Republic Steel Corpora-
tion, herein called Republic, is a Michigan corporation, engaged in
peacetime production to which it is rapidly converting, in the fabri-
cation of many types of steel reinforcing, building products, and
road mesh. Over 50 percent of its products are normally shipped
outside Ohio.2 Truscon, which is operated as a distinct and separate
unit from Republic, maintains plants in Youngstown, Cleveland,
and Canton, Ohio, and Gadsden, Alabama, as well as warehouses
throughout the country. Its plant at Youngstown, Ohio, is the only
one herein involved.
Truscon stipulates and we find that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Shopmen's Local #487, International Association of Bridge.
Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, is a labor organization,
affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, admitting to mem-
bership employees of the Company.
United Steel Workers of America is a labor organization, affiliated
with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, admitting to mem-
bership employees of the Company.
International Association of Machinists, Local 404, is a labor
organization admitting to membership employees of the Company.
III. THE ALLEGED QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
In July 1944, the Steelworkers was certified by the Board as collec-
tive bargaining representative for Truscon's employees within an
appropriate unit. Shortly thereafter, in August 1944, it opened
bargaining negotiations with Truscon, presenting as part of its
demand the "24 point program" which a few months previously the
international organization of the Steelworkers had demanded in its
negotiations with steel companies all over the country (among them
Republic, Truscon's parent), and which was then under consideration
by the National War Labor Board in the Basic Steel case .3 Truscon
s During the war period Truscon 's principal finished products consisted of tank treads,
the value of which, during the 6 months preceding the hearing, exceeded 2 million dollars,
over 75 percent of which was shipped outside Ohio
• 19 War Labor Reports 580-586.
206 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and the Steelworkers immediately agreed to defer the negotiation
of the "24 point program" until the War Labor Board had rendered
its decision, and, in the meantime, to enter into an interim agreement
which would provide a mutually satisfactory grievance procedure.
On September 18, 1944, they adopted, without substantial change,
the contract 4 signed in 1942 between Republic and the Steelworkers
and still in operation at Republic, by extension beyond its expiration
date, pending the decision in the Basic Steel case.
On September 28, 1944, within 10 days after the adoption of the
Republic contract, the Steelworkers, without requesting that that
contract be reopened, requested the United States Conciliation Serv-
ice to certify the cost items of its "24 point program" to the Regional
War Labor Board as a dispute between itself and Truscon. On
October 19, 1944, the Regional War Labor Board accepted jurisdic-
tion of the dispute.
The National War Labor Board issued its Decision and Directive
Order in respect to the cost items of the "24 point program" on
November 25, 1944.5 Later, on February 27, 1945, the War Labor
Board, at the request of the Steelworkers, issued a directive in respect
to the termination date of the forthcoming contracts, an item of the
original program not among the cost items considered.
Republic and the Steelworkers began negotiations for a contract
about the first of March 1945. Henry V. Golle, the superintendent
of Industrial Relations for Truscon, was invited to observe the nego-
tiations by Mr. Voss, Director of Industrial Relations for the entire
Republic Steel Corporation. Henry Allen, a representative of the
Steelworkers at Truscon, also attended some of the meetings. During
the course of the negotiations, Golle, Voss, and Allen spoke together
informally of the coming negotiations between Truscon and the
Steelworkers and it was agreed that the parties would adopt all but
the seniority provisions of the new Republic contract then being
negotiated. It was understood that the seniority provision would
have to be negotiated separately.
On April 4, the War Labor Board, acting "pursuant to a request
of Truscon Steel Company dated April 3, 1945," approved the exten-
sion to Truscon of the November 25, 1944, Directive Order in the
• The provisions of the Republic contract were similar to the provisions of the contract
under which Truscon and the Iron Workers had operated, prior to the certification of
the Steelworkers.
The international organization of Steelworkers , appearing before the panel appointed
by the War Labor Board in the Basic Steel case, requested that the panel consider and
take evidence upon only 14 of the points of its program and that it defer the remaining
items for further collective bargaining It reserved the right, however, to appeal to the
Board for ruling upon such of these items as the parties could not agree upon. The
panel considered the War Labor Board issued its Directive Order of November 25, 1944,
in respect to the 14 items, with the addition of several issues introduced by the Com-
panies involved . 19 War Labor Reports 571-584.
TRUSCON STEEL COMPANY 207
Basic Steel case and the provision for the adjustment of wages retro-
actively to December 25, 1943.
On April 11, the new contract between Republic and the Steel-
workers was signed. Negotiations with Truscon began forthwith.
The parties quickly agreed, in accordance with the understanding
informally reached during the Republic negotiations, that they
would adopt all but the seniority provisions of the Republic con-
tract.6 The parties could not reach agreement on the seniority provi-
sion and on May 3 referred the issue to the War Labor Board.7 The
parties had not been notified of the War Labor Board's decision of
this matter at the time of the hearing in this case and Truscon had
refused to put into effect any of the provisions agreed upon until
all issues were settled."
The Steelworkers contends that, in accordance with the equitable
doctrine enunciated in Matter of Allis-Chalmers Manufacturing Co.,°
and similar cases, the present petition should be dismissed because
the Steelworkers, by reason of the long pending WLB proceedings,
was precluded from completing its original bargaining program, and
thus reaping the benefits of its certification before the Iron Workers'
demand for recognition was asserted. The Iron Workers argues
that the contract negotiated between the Steelworkers and Truscon
on September 18, 1944, afforded the employees and their newly certi-
fied representative substantial benefits and that, accordingly, there
is no bar to a present determination of representatives. We find
merit in the contentions of the Steelworkers. The Steelworkers
promptly opened bargaining negotiations after its certification and
diligently took the steps open to it in securing the necessary approval
of its bargaining program by the War Labor Board. The point.
still unsettled at the time of the hearing was one of the original
items of the bargaining demands; the inability of the Steelworkers
to secure a contract was occasioned by Truscon's refusal to sign any
contract until this one item had been passed upon by the War Labor
Board. The record shows, furthermore, that the contract of Sep-
tember 18, was only an interim agreement, not intended by the
parties to represent the fruits of the collective bargaining program
which commenced with the certification. A comparison of this con-
tract with the contract under which Truscon had been operating
6 One of the provisions agreed upon was the termination date of October 15, 1946.
9 Seniority was one of the original items of the "24 point program" reserved by the
Steelworkers for collective bargaining , with the right to refer it to the War Labor Board
in case no agreement could be reached. See footnote 5, supra
8 The Directive Order of the War Labor Board was issued on August 24, 1945, and
made public on September 13, 1945, after the hearing in this case , directing Truscon and
the Steelworkers to incorporate in their contract the seniority provisions of the Republic
contract . 17 L. R. R. 166.
9 50 N. L. R. B. 906.
208 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
prior to 1944, and the uncontradicted testimony of witnesses for both
Truscon and the Steelworkers shows it to have embodied only sub-
stantive provisions long in use. The fact that immediately after
signing the September 18 contract the parties continued their efforts
to reach agreement on the "24 point program" without reference to
its existence, shows clearly that the parties did not consider that it
represented a settlement of their negotiations.
We are of the opinion that, under the circumstances of this case,
the Steelworkers should have a reasonable opportunity to complete
and enjoy the fruits of its bargaining.10 Accordingly, we hold that
no determination of representatives should be made at this time. The
Iron Workers' petition will therefore be dismissed.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the
.entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations Board hereby
orders that the petition for investigation and certification of repre-
sentatives of employees of Truscon Steel Company, Youngstown,
Ohio, filed by Shopmen's Local #487, International Association of
Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers (AFL), be, and
it hereby is, dismissed.
MR. GERARD D. REILLY took no part in the consideration of the
above Decision and Order.
10 See Matter of AZll8-Chaimer8 Manufacturing Company , 50 N. L. R. B. 306 ; Matter
of Montgomery Ward & Company, 60 N. L. R. B. 574; Matter of California Door Company,
64 N. L.• R. B. 5 ; Matter of Taylor Forge & Pipe Works, 58 N. L. R. B. 375.