Aluminum Co. of America

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 31, 1945

61 N.L.R.B. 251 (N.L.R.B. 1945)

In the Matter of ALUMINUM COMPANY OF AMERICA and METAL TRADES
COUNCIL OF PORTLAND AND VICINITY, AFL
Case No. 19-R-1381.-Decided March 31, 1945
Mr. David L. Davies, of Portland, Oreg., and Messrs. George R.
Stout and J. G. Gough, of Troutdale, Oreg., for the Company.
Messrs. Edwin D. Hicks and Henri Nordahl, of Portland, Oreg.,
for the AFL.
Messrs. A. F. Hartung and James Menzie, of Portland, Oreg., for
the Steelworkers.
Miss Frances Lopinsky, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon an amended petition duly filed by Metal Trades Council of
Portland and Vicinity, AFL, herein called the AFL, alleging that
a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representa-
tion of employees of Aluminum Company of America, Troutdale,
Oregon, herein called the Company, the National Labor Relations
Board provided for an appropriate hearing upon due notice before
Joseph D. Holmes, Trial Examiner. Said hearing was held at Port-
land, Oregon, on November 10, 1944. The Company, the AFL, and
United Steelworkers of America, CIO,1 herein called the Steehvork-
ers, 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. At the hearing the CIO
moved the dismissal of the petition on the grounds that (1) a contract
between the CIO and the Company is a bar to a present determination
of representatives; (2) that the employees at Troutdale are but part
of a multi-plant unit consisting of employees at all of the Company's
I The motion to intervene names Aluminum Workers of America, CIO, as intervenor
It recites that Aluminum Workers of America, CIO, is now the United Steelworkers of
America, and is signed by United Steelworkers . We take official notice that in June 1944
the former organization was merged into the latter.
61 N. L. R. B., No. 31. )
251
252 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
plants where the CIO has been designated as collective bargaining
representative, and that the unit requested by the AFL, confined to
employees at Troutdale, is, therefore, inappropriate. For reasons
hereinafter given, the motion is hereby denied. - The Trial Exam-
iner'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.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Aluminum Company of America is a Pennsylvania corporation hav-
ing its principal office and place of business at Pittsburgh, Pennsyl-
vania. It is engaged in the production and sale of aluminum and
aluminum alloys. The Company operates several plants including
one plant located at Troutdale, Oregon, with which this proceeding is
concerned. A large portion of the raw materials used at the Troutdale
plant is shipped there from points outside the State of Oregon, and
a large portion of the materials produced there is shipped to places
outside the State.
The Company admits that it is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the National Labor Relations Act and we so find.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Metal Trades Council of Portland and Vicinity, affiliated with the
American Federation of Labor, is a labor organization admitting to
membership employees of the Company.
United Steelworkers of America, successor to Aluminum Workers
of America, both affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organiza-
tions, is a labor organization admitting to membership employees of
the Company.
M. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Company has refused to recognize the AFL as exclusive bar-
gaining representative of employees at its Troutdale, Oregon, plant,
unless and until it has been certified by the National Labor Relations
Board in an appropriate unit.
On November 1, 1942, the Company and representatives of various
locals of Aluminum Workers of America, herein called the AWA,
executed a contract, herein called the Master Agreement, covering em-
ployees at various plants of the Company. The Master Agreement,
by its terms, was effective until May 1, 1944, and thereafter until
modified after at least 30 days' notice. On June 16, 1943, pursuant to
ALUMINUM COMPANY OF AMERICA 253
the results of a consent election conducted by the Board,2 the AWA
was designated as exclusive bargaining representative for the Com-
pany's employees at Troutdale. On August 19, 1943, the Company,
and Local No. 30 of the AWA signed a contract identical to the
Master Agreement, in terms and provisions, covering the Company's
employees at Troutdale. Neither of the contracts covered the subject
of wages, which was left for separate negotiations at each of the
Company's plants.
During the term of the Master Agreement, the AWA made demands
upon the Company for a general wage increase. On January 27,
1944, the setting of a retroactive date from which any wage increase
granted should become effective was referred to the National War
Labor Board. On March 28, 1944, a second case was certified to the
National War Labor Board involving wage demands covering all of
the plants of the Company wherein employees were then represented
by the AWA. On March 14, 1944, the AWA requested a conference
for the purpose of negotiating a new master agreement to succeed the
one which would terminate May 1, 1944. The Company entered into
such negotiations and the parties agreed that the Master Agreement
of 1942 should remain in effect until a new master agreement should
be executed. On May 19, 1944, the parties certified to the National
War Labor Board 17 non-wage contract issues. On August 4, 1944,
when the AFL filed its petition in the instant case, the 3 proceedings
above-mentioned were pending before the National War Labor Board,
and neither the proposed master agreement, nor a local agreement for
employees at Troutdale had been signed. In June 1944, the AWA
merged with the Steelworkers and the Company, recognized the Steel-
workers as exclusive bargaining representative of its employees at
all plants where the AWA had been certified. For purposes of con-
venience in the discussion which follows, the AWA and its successor,
the Steelworkers, are indiscriminately referred to as the CIO.
The Steelworkers contends that because it submitted disputes to the
National War Labor Board, which have been pending before that
Board for an unusual length of time, under the doctrine enunciated
by the Board in Matter of Allis-Chalmers and- related cases; no
present determination of representatives should be made.
However, it appears that the contracting union has, since its
designation by the Board as exclusive bargaining representative,
obtained many substantial benefits for the employees at Troutdale,
and fully enjoyed its rights under the certification 4 It cannot be
S Case No. 19-R-1047.
'Matter of Allis-Chalmers Manufacturing Company, 50 N. L. R. B 306; Matter of
Aluminum Company of America, Vancouver, Washington, 53 N L. R. B. 593, and 58
N L. R. B 24. Matter of Taylor Forge & Pipe Works, 58 N. L. R B. 1375.
4 See Matter of Internattonpl Harvester Company, 55 N. L. R. B. 497.
639078-45-vo1 61--18
254 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
argued that the CIO's adoption for a short term of the Master
Agreement was merely an interim device for achieving a measure of
stability until the CIO's initial bargaining program could be con-
summated, for the union did not commence negotiations for the new
agreement until March 1944, about 9 months after its certification.5
A statement of a Board agent, introduced into evidence at the
hearing, indicates that the AFL represents a substantial number of
employees in the unit hereinafter found appropriate.s
We find that a question affecting commerce has 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 UNIT
The AFL requests a unit composed of all production and mainte-
nance employees at the Company's Troutdale plant, excluding build-
ing construction workers, 'supervisors, technical, laboratory, office,
clerical, fire protection, and custodial employees, police, office janitors,
and watchmen.7 The CIO does not dispute the propriety of the
inclusions and exclusions listed by the AFL. It contends, however,
that a unit confined to employees at the Troutdale plant is inappro-
priate, and that the employees constitute only part of a multi-plant
unit composed of employees of the Company at all plants wherein the
CIO has been designated as exclusive bargaining representative. The
AFL insists that no such broad unit exists. The Company takes no
position in the matter.
The CIO bases its contention mainly upon the following facts :
The Master Agreement, executed in November 1942, specifies that the
Company recognizes the CIO as the exlusive representative of its
employees at eight named plants wherein the CIO has been certified
or designated by the Board as such representative, and that the Com-
pany will further recognize the CIO as exclusive bargaining repre-
sentative for similar employees at other plants of the Company,
where employees may, in Board conducted proceedings, select the
CIO as their bargaining representative. When the CIO was recog-
nized by the Company as bargaining representative of its employees
at Troutdale, the local manager at Troutdale and representatives of
the local union there, held conferences and negotiated the terms of
5 See Matter of Diamond Magnesium Company, 57 N L. R B. 393 ; cf. Matter of Taylor
Forge & Pipe Works, supra.
6 The Field Examiner reported that the AFL submitted 247 designation cards, 151 of
which bore signatures of persons listed on the Company 's pay roll of September 23, 1944,
which contained the names of 462 employees in the appropriate unit ; and that the cards
were dated August and September 1944. The CIO relies upon its contract to indicate its
Interest in the proceeding.
7 This is the unit described in the consent election agreement in Case No . 18-R-1047
See footnote 2, supra.
ALUMINUM COMPANY OF AMERICA 255
a collective bargaining contract , emerging August 19, 1943, with a
virtual facsimile of the Master Agreement, providing for a term of
101/2 months for the apparent purpose of achieving complete uni-
formity with the Master Agreement . Negotiations for a new con-
tract, ending in the submission of disputed items to the National
War Labor Board, as hereinabove mentioned , have been carried on
at the Company 's central office between officials of the Company and
representatives of each of the Locals representing the Company's
employees at its various plants, and representatives of the CIO inter-
national . Apparently no negotiations on a local level have been
conducted since August 1943.
These facts bear some resemblance to those in Matter of Bethelhem-
Fairfield Shipyard , Inc., 8 in that in both cases the employees involved
had on a single -plant basis selected the same bargaining representa-
tive; in both , a writing named a nucleus of plants at which the con-
tracting party had been designated as collective bargaining repre-
sentative of employees , and provided for the contingency of certain
other employees making a like designation ; in both, negotiations have
been carried on at a central point for employees at all plants wherein
the contracting union was recognized as the collective bargaining
representative . There are , however, several factors in the instant case
which differentiate it from the Bethlehem-Fairfield case and require a
contrary result herein.
The agreement to which the Board gave weight in Bethlehem-Fair-
field, provided , inter alia , that employees at all plants where the con-
tracting union should be selected by employees as their bargaining
representative , should be governed by the terms of a master agree-
ment therein provided for. The agreement upon which the CIO in
the instant case relies provides only that as the CIO is selected by
employees at plants other than the ones mentioned in the agreement,
the ICIO will be recognized by the Company as representative of the
employees at those plants . Although the respective clauses adverted
to may be interpreted as identical in effect , it is clear from the actions-
of the parties that they were not so intended . Employees at individual
plants concerned in the Bethlehem-Fairfield case were considered as
automatically covered by the master agreement upon their designation
of the contracting union as their representative ; employees at Trout-
dale negotiated with the local manager at that plant for 3 days before
withdrawing demands for terms and conditions not appearing in the
'Master Agreement , and agreeing to execute a contract identical there-
with. The fact that the CIO attempted to obtain , at Troutdale, a con-
tract different in terms from the Master Agreement forecloses an
interpretation that the CIO , at the time it conducted the negotiations,
8 58 N. L. R. B 579.
256 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
considered the employees at Troutdale as part of a multi-plant unit
governed by the Master Agreement.
Furthermore, although representatives of the Troutdale and other
locals met with the Company at its central office to negotiate a master
agreement to succeed the one which terminated May 1, 1944, there is no
evidence that they, as a group, constitute an authorized representative
binding all locals, as was the case in Bethlehem-Fairfield. Inasmuch
as the Troutdale employees apparently had the alternative of accepting
the terms of the Master Agreement or some other contract, it may be
inferred that the joint representation is an expedient of the Company's
and that individual locals may accept or reject the results of the negoti-
ations at the central office. Moreover, certain provisions of the
Master Agreement are illustrative of an intent in the parties thereto
to treat the employees at the plants, at which it is applied as separate
bargaining units; for example, the section on grievance procedure
provides that grievances shall progress from discussions between the
employee or his representative and his immediate supervisor, through
the hierarchy of local supervisors, to the president or other general
executive of the Company, at which step discussions are still between
a company official and the employee or his representative. Conceiv-
ably, the representative function may be taken from the local when
the grievance reaches the central office; the contract, however, leaves
the choice of accepting aid from the international, with the aggrieved
or his local.9 The section of the contract on seniority provides for
seniority on a city-wide basis; employees transferring from plant to
plant within the alleged multi-plant unit lose seniority.
The plants within the alleged unit are functionally dissimilar and
widely scattered throughout the country. Since we are not persuaded
that the CIO "by actual bargaining on a multi-plant basis, stabilized
by agreement" 10 created a multi-plant unit, we find that all produc-
tion and maintenance employees of the Company, at its Troutdale,
Oregon, plant, excluding building construction workers, supervisors,
technical, laboratory, office, clerical, fire protection and custodial em-
ployees, police, office janitors, and watchmen, constitute a unit appro-
priate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9 (b) of the Act.
V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
We shall direct that the question concerning representation which
has arisen be resolved by an election by secret ballot among the em-
ployees in the appropriate unit who were employed during the pay-roll
Cf. Matter of Bethlehem-Fairfield Shipyard, Inc., supra, and Matter of P. Lorillard
Company, Louisville Plant, 58 N. L. R. B. 1112.
10 Quotation from cases cited in footnote 9, supra.
ALUMINUM COMPANY OF AMERICA 257
period immediately preceding the date of the Direction of Election
herein, subject to the limitations and additions set forth in the
Direction.
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
,DrBECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain represent-
atives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Aluminum
Company of America, Troutdale, Oregon, an election by secret ballot
shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than sixty (60)
days from the date of this Direction, under the direction and super-
vision of the Regional Director for the Nineteenth 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 unit 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 pay-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 any who have since quit or been discharged
for cause and have not been rehired or reinstated prior to the date
of the election, to determine whether they desire to be represented
by Metal Trades Council of Portland and Vicinity, AFL, or by
United Steelworkers of America, CIO, for the purposes of collective
bargaining, or by neither.