Consolidated Steel Corp. of Texas

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 18, 1947

74 N.L.R.B. 204 (N.L.R.B. 1947)

In the Matter of CONSOLIDATED STEEL CORPORATION OF TEXAS, EMPLOYER
and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF BOILERMAKERS, IRON SHIP
BUILDERS AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 408-A. F. L., PETITIONER
Case No. 16-R-2120.-Decided June 18, 19.4%
Mr. A. D. Moore , of Beaumont , Tex., and Messrs . S. P. Dunn and
F. J. Lackey , of Orange , Tex., for the Employer.
Mr. Clarence C. Rehl, of Houston, Tex ., and Mr . John A . IAeatts,
of Orange , Tex., for the Petitioner.
Messrs . Joe A. Verrat and G. I. Thompson , of Port Arthur, Tex.,
for the IBEW.
Mr. Clifton Brignac, of Fort Worth, Tex., and Mr . Jack Peveto, of
Orange, Tex ., for the Intervenor.
Mr. David C . Buchalter , of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Orange,
Texas, on April 1, 1947, before Glenn L. Moller, hearing officer. The
hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prej udicial
error and are hereby affirmed. At the hearing, the Intervenor moved
to dismiss the petition. The hearing officer referred the motion to
,the Board for ruling thereon. For reasons appearing hereinafter,
the motion is hereby denied.
Upon the entire record in the, case, the National Labor Relations
Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Consolidated Steel Corporation of Texas, a Texas corporation, is
engaged at its plant in Orange, Texas, in the manufacture and fabrica-
tion of steel products. The Employer annually purchases raw ma-
terials valued in excess of $500,000, of which over 50 percent repre-
sents shipments from points outside the State of Texas. During
a similar period the Employer manufactures products valued in excess
74 N L R. B, No. 41.
204
CONSOLIDATED STEEL CORPORATION OF TEXAS 205
of $500,000, of which over 10 percent represents shipments to points
outside the State.
The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
H. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED 1
The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with the American
Federation of Labor, claiming to represent employees of the Em-
ployer.
International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental
Iron Workers, Local 630, herein called Intervenor, is a labor organiza-
tion affiliated with the American Federation of Labor,2 claiming to
represent employees of the Employer.3
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Intervenor and the Employer have been in contractual rela-
tionship since March 1941. The last two contracts between these par-
ties were executed in 1946 and 1947, respectively. The 1946 contract
was for an initial period ending March 7, 1947, and provided for its
automatic renewal for annual periods thereafter in the absence of
written notice given not less than 120 days before March 7 of any
year, of a desire to change or modify the agreement.
On November 1, 1946, in advance of the "Mill B date" 4 of the 1946,
contract, the Petitioner notified the Employer that it represented a
majority of the employees at the plant and requested recognition as
their bargaining representative. The Employer, by letter of Novem-
i International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Port Arthur Local Union No 390,
AFL, heiein called the IBEW, moved in advance of the hearing to intervene in this pro-
cei ding However, during the course of the hearing it requested and was granted permis-
sion to withdraw its motion on the ground that it did not have a substantial interest
among the employees in the unit The hearing officer's ruling in this matter is hereby
upheld.
Upon withdrawal of the motion to inteivene by the IBEWV, the International Asso-
ciation of Machinists, who appeared but had not yet filed its motion to intervene, withdrew
from the hearing, indicating that it had no inteiest in the proceeding in view of the request
of both the Petitioner and Intervenor for it plant-wide unit
2 At the hearing the Intervenor amended its Motion to Intervene to show its affiliation
with the American Federation of Labor
J The Intervenor contends that because the employees sought herein are engaged in the
type of work over which it normally has jurisdiction, the Petitioner, its coaffliate, is incom-
petent to represent these employees and the petition, therefore, should be dismissed We
hind no merit in this position We have frequently held that the authority of the bargain-
ing agent must be sought in the emplovees' consent and not in the jurisdictional grant
of that agent Inasmuch as emploiees oh the Employer have designated the Petitioner as
their representative for collective bargaining purposes, we find that it is competent to
represent them Accordingly, the ruling of the hearing officer rejecting the Intervenor s
offer of proof on this issue is hereby upheld
4 The operative date of an automatic renewal clause has come to be known as the "Mill
B date" of a contract Mattel of Mill B, Inc, 40 N. L R 13 346
•206 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ber 21, 196, refused to grant such recognition, whereupon the Peti-
tioner filed its petition on November 21, 1946. Similarly the Inter-
venor advised the Employer, in advance of the "Mill B date," of its
desire to negotiate a new contract. Negotiations were thereupon con-
ducted between the Employer and the Intervenor and a new contract
-was executed on March 7, 1947.
At the hearing and in its brief the Intervenor moved to dismiss
the petition on the ground that the 1947 contract is a bar to this pro-
ceeding. It contends, in effect, that because more than 10 days had
elapsed between the date of the Petitioner's original assertion of its
claim and the filing of the petition, during which period the "Mill B
date" of the 1946 contract occurred, the petition is untimely for con-
tract bar purposes. We do not agree. While the failure to file the peti-
tion within 10 days after the assertion of the claim renders that claim
to representation inoperative with respect to an intervening contract
or intervening automatic renewal of an existing contract, under the
stile in the,General Electric X-Ray case,° it does not destroy the effect
of the petition itself as notice to the Employer of the Petitioner's
claim,to representation from the date of its filing.7 Accordingly, in-
asmuch as the filing of the petition preceded the execution of the 1947
contract, that instrument cannot, under well established principles of
the Board's bar an election at this time.
The Intervenor also moved to dismiss the petition on the further
ground that the Petitioner had not made a sufficient showing of inter-
est to warrant further proceedings. We do not agree. We have held
that the requirement of making a showing of representation is but an
administrative expedient adopted to enable the Board to determine
for itself whether or not further proceedings are warranted and is
not subject to objection at the hearing 9 Moreover, we are adminis-
tratively satisfied that the Petitioner has made an adequate showing
of interest.
In view of the foregoing, it is clear that no obstacle exists to a
current determination of representatives.
We find, therefore, that a question affecting commerce has arisen
.concerning the representation of employees of the Employer, within
the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
5 The 1947 agreement effected the tollowmg substantial changes in the 1946 agreement
it provided for an mciease in pay foi the employees covered thereby , changed the term of
the centiact from 1 to 2 years , and iequired 90 rather than 120 days' notice of a desire
to change or-modify the agreement It was thus more than a ureic extension of the 1946
.contract as contended by the Intervenor
° Matter of General Electric X-Ray Corporation, 67 N L R B 997, and Matter of Henry
,& Allen Inc, 68 N L R B 724
7 Matter of International Paper Company, Container Division. 71 N L R B 1224
3iltatter of Central Ohio Light, & Power Company. 72 N L R B 1414
°Matter of Embassy Manufacturing Company, 71 N L R Y. 430, and Matter of 0 D.
Jennings,& Company, 68 N L. R B 516
CONSOLIDATED STEEL CORPORATION OF TEXAS
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
207
- We find, in accordance with the agreement of the parties, that all
employees of the Employer at its Orange, Texas, plant, excluding
salesmen, office clerks, time checkers, technical engineers, draftsmen,
truck drivers, executives, superintendents, and all or any other super-
visory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, disci-
pline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or effec-
tively recommend such action, constitute a unit appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9
(b) of the Act.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION 10
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining with Consolidated Steel Corporation of
Texas, Orange, Texas, an election by secret ballot shall be conducted
as early as possible, but not later than thirty (30) days from the date
of this Direction, under the direction and supervision of the Regional
Director for the Sixteenth Region, acting in this matter as agent for
the National Labor Relations Board, and subject to Sections 203.55 and
203.56, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-
Series 4, 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 Direytion, 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 those employees 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 Inter-
national Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders and
Helpers of America, Local 408-A. F. L., or by International Asso-
ciation of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, Local
230, A. F. L., for the purposes of collective bargaining, or by neither.
CHAIRMAN HERZOG took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Election.
10 Any participant in the election herein may, upon its prompt request to, and approval
thereof by, the Regional Director, have its name removed from the ballot
755420-4S-vol 74 15