Aluminum Co. of America

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 31, 1945

61 N.L.R.B. 239 (N.L.R.B. 1945)

In the Matter of ALUMINUM COMPANY OF AMERICA (NEWARK WORKS)
and AMERICAN FEDERATION or LABOR
Case No. 8-R-1663.-Decided March 31, 1945
Mr. E. B. Fassel, of Newark, Ohio, and Mr. Paul G. Rodewald, of
Pittsburgh, Pa., for the Company.
Mr. Joseph R. Padway, by Mr. James A. Glenn, of Washington,
D. C., Mr. T. C. Dethlo ff, of Akron, Ohio,' and Mr. L. T. Gourley, of
Mobile, Ala., for the AFL.
Mr. Philip M. Curran, of Pittsburgh, Pa., and Mr. Albert J. Marsh,
of Zanesville, Ohio, for the CIO.
Miss Frances Lopinsky, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a petition duly filed by American Federation of Labor, herein
called the AFL, alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen
concerning the representation of employees of Aluminum Company of
America, (Newark Works), Newark, Ohio, herein called the Company,
the National Labor Relations Board provided for an appropriate hear-
ing upon due notice before Thomas E. Shroyer, Trial Examiner. Said
hearing was held at Newark, Ohio, on November 2, 1944. The Com-
pany, the AFL, and United Steelworkers of America, CIO, herein
called the Steelworkers, appeared and participated. All parties were
afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine
witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues.'
At the hearing, the Steelworkers moved the dismissal of the petition
on the grounds that a contract between the Company and the Steel-
workers is a bar to a present determination of representatives, and
1 By stipulation of the parties , approved by the Trial Examiner at the hearing, the
record and exhibits in Case No. 8 -R-1493. cited in footnote 3, infra, concerning the em-
ployees involved herein, were incorporated by reference into the record in the instant case.
The parties stipulated that the witnesses called in that case , if called herein, would, in
respect to facts up to June 13, 1944 , testify now as they did at that time . The parties
agreed, however, that evidence supplementary to or contradictory of that presented in the
prior case might be introduced herein.
61 N. L . R. B., No. 29.
239
240 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
that the Steelworkers "has not had an opportunity to operate under
a collective bargaining agreement and gain the fruits of collective bar-
gaining thereunto appertaining for a period of a year." For reasons
hereinafter set out, the motion is hereby denied. On December 14,
1944, the Steelworkers moved the Board to reopen the record to permit
the introduction of further evidence on the issue of the appropriate
unit. For reasons hereinafter given, the motion was denied by Board
Order dated March 10, 1944.
The Trial Examiner'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 Newark, Ohio, with which this proceeding is con-
cerned. The Newark plant produces aluminum alloys and materials
fabricated therefrom. A large portion of the raw materials used at
the Newark plant is shipped there from points outside the State of
Ohio, and a large portion of the materials produced there is shipped
to places outside the State.
The Company admits that its operations affect commerce within the
meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, and we so find.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
American Federation of Labor is a labor organization admitting to
membership employees of the Company.
United Steelworkers of America, affiliated with the Congress of
Industrial Organizations, is a labor organization admitting to mem-
bership employees of the Company.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Company has refused to recognize the AFL as exclusive bar-
gaining representative of employees at its Newark, Ohio plant, unless
and until the AFL has been certified by the Board in an appropriate
unit.
On November 1, 1942, the Company and Aluminum Workers of
America, CIO, herein called the AWA, executed a contract herein
ALUMINUM COMPANY OF AMERICA 241
called the Master Agreement, covering employees at various of the
Company's plants. The said agreement was made effective for a term
of 18 months, and thereafter until modified after at least 30 days' notice.
On November 15,1943, following a consent election in which employees
at the Newark plant designated the AWA as their collective bargaining
representative,2 the Company and the AWA executed a Memorandum
of Understandings, which incorporated by reference the provisions of
the Master Agreement (including term), except for a minor revision
relating to factors to be taken into consideration in reduction of forces.
In negotiations not pertaining to the contract, the Company and the
AWA agreed upon a schedule of wages for employees at Newark, and
submitted it to the Regional War Labor Board for approval. In April
1944, the AFL filed d-a petition for investigation and certification of
representatives which the Board dismissed, despite the fact that at the
time the case was decided, the Memorandum of Understanding had
expired, because a reasonable time had not yet elapsed since the AWA
had been designated as collective bargaining representative of
employees at Newark.8
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 September 12, 1944, when the AFL
filed its petition in the instant case, the three proceedings above-men-
tioned were pending before the National War Labor Board, the matter
submitted to the Regional War Labor Board had not been completely
disposed of, and neither the proposed master agreement, nor a new
local agreement for employees at Newark had been signed. In June
1944, the AWA merged with the Steelworkers and the Company recog-
nized the Steelworkers as exclusive bargaining representative of its
employees at all plants where the AWA had been certified. For pur-
poses of convenience in the discussion which follows, the AWA and
a Case No. 8-R-1231.
3 Matter of Aluminum Company of America , Newark Works, 57 N. L. R. B. 913.
242 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
its successor, the Steelworkers, are indiscriminately referred to as
the CIO.
The CIO contends that because it submitted disputes to the Na-
tional and Regional War Labor Boards, which have been pending
before those Boards for an unusual length of time, under the doctrine
enunciated by the Board in Hatter of Allis-Chalmers and related
cases,' no present determination of representatives should be made .5
However, it appears that the contracting union, since its designation
by the Board as exclusive bargaining representative, obtained many
substantial benefits for the employees at Newark, and fully enjoyed
its rights under the certification.' It cannot be 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 consummated, for the union did,
not commence negotiations for the new agreement until March 1944,
about 5 months after its certification.? Consequently, we find the argu-
ment of the CIO, supporting its motion to dismiss the petition, to be
without merit, and that an election at the present time will best effec-
tuate the policies of the Act.
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 fognd appropriate.8
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 parties stipulated at the hearing that all production and main-
tenance employees except for office and clerical employees, adminis-
trative, supervisory, technical and laboratory employees, office jani-
* 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 , 58 N. L. It. B.
24. Matter of Taylor Forge & Pipe Works, 58 N. L It . B. 1375.
i The AFL contends that the case is not subject to the rule established in the Allis-
Chalmers case, supra, because the organization which was certified has ceased to exist
Inasmuch as we hereinabove find that for other reasons the rule invoked by the CIO is
inapplicable , we shall not examine the merit of the AFL's contention.
° See Matter of International Harvester Company, 55 N. L. R. B. 497.
See Matter of Diamond Magnesium Company , 57 N. L . R. B. 393. Cf. Matter of Taylor
Forge d Pipe Works , supra . The fact that wage schedules for employees at Newark were
promptly negotiated after certification , and their approval has been delayed in part by
the War Labor Board , does not distinguish this case from the Diamond Magnesium case,
supra. Since wages will be incorporated into no term contract , it may be assumed that
the contracting parties herein are satisfied with instability on that subject , and that a
present determination of representatives would disturb no equities with relation thereto.
See Matter of Thompson Products , Inc., 60 N. L. R. B. 885.
6 The Field Examiner reported that the AFL submitted 414 authorization cards, 320 of
which bore signatures of persons listed on the Company ' s pay roll for the period ending
September 30, 1944, which contained the names of 763 employees in the appropriate unit ;
and that the cards were dated in March through October 1944 . The CIO relies upon its
contract to show its interest in the proceeding.
ALUMINUM COMPANY OF AMERICA 243
tors, matrons, time cost clerks, fire protection inspectors and guards °
constitute an appropriate unit. The AFL and the Company would
confine such a unit to the named employees at the Company's Newark
plant. The CIO contends that employees of the Company at all
plants wherein the CIO is recognized as collective bargaining repre-
sentative, comprise a single unit including employees at Newark.
This contention was not raised at the hearing, but was incorporated
in a motion filed by the CIO subsequent to the hearing, requesting the
Board to reopen the records in the instant case and in Case No. 10-R-
1290, concerning employees at the Alcoa, Tennessee plant of the Com-
pany, to permit the introduction of evidence to prove the impropriety
of single plants units. • In Case No. 19-R-1381, decided this day, the
contention was raised at the hearing that employees at the Company's
Troutdale, Oregon, plant, who had previously designated the CIO
as their exclusive bargaining representative, constituted a part of the
same multi-plant unit which the CIO now contends encompasses em-
ployees at Newark. Evidence to support the contention was adduced
at the hearing in Case No. 19-R-1381, but established no actual bar-
gaining on a multi-plant basis, stabilized by agreement. Accordingly,
the Board in that case rejected the assertion that a multi-plant unit
had been created and found a single plant unit of the Company's
employees to be appropriate. Since the evidence which the CIO
would present at a rehearing of the instant matter is presumably
the same as that offered at the hearing in the Troutdale case, above
mentioned, we have heretofore denied the request for a rehearing.1°
We find that all production and maintenance employees at the
Company's Newark plant, excluding office and clerical employees, ad-
ministrative, supervisory, technical and laboratory employees, office
janitors, matrons, time cost clerks, fire-protection inspectors and
guards constitute a unit appropriate 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
period immediately preceding the date of the Direction of Election
herein, subject to the limitations and additions set forth in the
Direction.
The AWA was designated as representative of employees in such a unit in Case No.
8-R-1231 and in Case No . 8-R-1493 the parties stipulated that such a unit is appropriate.
10 Order issued March 10, 1945.
244 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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
DIREorED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representa-
tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Aluminum Com-
pany of America (Newark Works), Newark, Ohio, 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
supervision of the Regional Director for the Eighth 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 Regular
tions, among the employees in the unit found appropriate in Section
IV, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately
preceding the date of this Direction, including employees who' did not
work during the said pay-roll period because they were ill or on vaca-
tion 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 those employees who have since quit or been dis-
charged for, cause and have not been rehired or reinstated prior to
the date of the election, to determine whether they desire to be rep-
resented by American Federation of Labor (AFL) or by United
Steelworkers of America (CIO), for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining, or by neither.
0