Glen Alden Coal Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 16, 1943

50 N.L.R.B. 656 (N.L.R.B. 1943)

In the Matter of GLEN ALDEN COAL COMPANY and INT. MOLDERS AND,
FOUNDRY WORHxRs UNION 'OF N. A.,'L #133 (A. F. OF L.)
Case No. C-2,599.-Decided June 16, 194.9
DECISION
AND
ORDER
'On April 28, 1943, the Trial Examiner issued his Intermediate Re-
port in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the respondent had
engaged In and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and
recommending that it cease and desist therefrom, and that it take
certain affirmative action, as set forth in,the'copy of the Intermediate
Report annexed hereto. Thereafter, the respondent filed exceptions to
the Intermediate Report and a brief in support of its exceptions. Oral
argument was held before' the Board in Washington, D. C., on June 8,
1943. The Board has considered the rulings made by the Trial Ex-
aminer at the hearing and finds that no -prejudicial error was com-
mitted. The rulings are hereby affirmed. '
The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the respondent's
exceptions, and brief, and the entire record in the case, and hereby
adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial
Examiner.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case, and pursuant to Section 10 (c) of
the National Labor Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Board
hereby orders that the respondent, Glen Alden Coal Company, Scran-
ton, Pennsylvania, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall :
1. Cease and desist from :
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with Int. Molders and Foundry
Workers Union of N. A., Local #133, affiliated with the American
Federation of Labor, as the exclusive representative of all its foundry
employees in the unit herein found to be appropriate;
(b) Engaging in any like or related acts or conduct interfering with,
restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the right to
self-organization, to form, joint, or assist labor organizations, to bar-
50 N. L. R. B., No. 86. -
656
GLEN ALDEN COAL COMPANY 657
gain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and
to engage in concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargain-
ing or other mutual aid or protection, as guaranteed in Section 7' of
the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Board finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with Int. Molders and
Foundry Workers Union of N. A., Local #133, affiliated with the,
American Federation of Labor, as the exclusive representative of all its
foundry employees in the appropriate unit;
(b) Post immediately in conspicuous places at its Exeter Shop, West
Pittston, Pennsylvania, and maintain for a period of at least sixty
(60) consecutive days from the date of posting, notices'to its employees
stating: (1) that the respondent will not engage in the conduct from
which it is ordered to cease and desist in paragraphs 1 (a) and (b) of
this Order, and (2) that the respondent will take the affirmative action
set forth in paragraph 2 (a) of this Order;
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Fourth Region in writing,
within ten (10) days from the date of this Order, what steps the
respondent has taken to comply herewith.
Ma. GERARD D. REiLLY took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Order.
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Mr. Robert H. Eleeb,. Regional Attorney, for the Board.
Messrs. J. H.. Oliver and J. J. Powell, of Scranton, Pa., for the respondent.
Mr. Walter Griffiths, of Reading, Pa., for the Union.
STATEMENT OF TAE CASE
Upon a charge duly filed on March 6, 1943, by Int. Molders and Foundry
Workers Union of N. A, Local No. 133 (A. F. of L), herein called the Union,
the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, by the Regional
Director for the Fourth Region (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania), issued its com-
plaint, dated April 10, 1943, against Glen Alden Coal Company, Scranton,
Pennsylvania, herein called the respondent, alleging that the respondent had
engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices affecting commerce
within ` the meaning of Section 8 (1) and (5) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of
the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. Copies
of the' complaint accompanied by notice of hearing were duly served upon
the respondent, the Union, and the United Mine Workers of America, District
No. 1; Scranton, Pennsylvania.
Concerning the unfair labor practices, the complaint, as amended at the hear-
ing, alleged in substance: (1) that on January 8, 1943, in its Supplemental
Decision, Certification of Representatives and Second Direction of Election, in
Case No. R-4400' the Board found that all foundry employees of the respond-
1 Matter of Glen Alden Coal Company and International Moulders d Poundi y Workers
Union, Local 133 , A. F. L.
658 ' iYECISSONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ent at its Exeter shop, including moulders, coremakers, chippers and grinders, -
crane runners, cupola tenders, 'and laborers, but excluding supervisors, fore-
men, and clerical employees, constituted a unit appropriate for collective bar-
gaining; (2) that on the same date the Board certified the Union as the
exclusive representative of all employees within the said appropriate unit for
the purpose of collective bargaining; (3) that on February 1, 1943, and since,
the Union requested the respondent to bargain collectively and the respondent
refused; and (4) that by such refusal the respondent has interfered with,
restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in
Section 7 of the Act.
In its answer verified on April 19, 1943, the respondent-(1) admitted certain
allegations of the complaint as to its business, but denied that it was engaged in
interstate commerce and averred that the Board 'is without jurisdiction; (2)
admitted that it has declined to negotiate an agreement with the Union but
denied that this refusal constitutes an unfair labor practice within the meaning
of Section 8 (5) of the Act; (3) and averred that the unit found by the Board
to be appropriate was inappropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held at, Scranton, Pennsylvania, on April
22, 1943, before the undersigned, the'Tria1 Examiner duly designated by the
Chief Trial Examiner. The Board and the respondent were represented by
counsel, and the Union by an officer All parties participated in the hearing
and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine
witnesses,2 and to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues. At the close of
the hearing the Trial Examiner granted a joint motion by counsel for the Board
and counsel for the respondent to conform the pleadings to the proof. Also at
the close of the hearing opportunity was offered to the parties to present oral
argument before the Trial Examiner. Counsel for the respondent and for the
,Board availed themselves of this opportunity ; the officer of the Union waived it.
The oral arguments appear in the official transcript of the hearing. A period of
5 days after the close of the hearing, within which to file briefs, was granted
by the Trial Examiner. No brief has been received.
Upon the record thus made the Trial Examiner makes, in addition to the
above, the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT 2
Glen Alden Coal Company, a Pennsylvania corporation, having its principal
office in Scranton, Pennsylvania, is'engaged in mining, removing, and preparing
coal at its various collieries in Pennsylvania. It owns more than 99 percent of
the capital stock of the Delaware, Lackawanna and Western Coal Company. In
1942 the respondent, produced about 9 million short tons of anthracite coal, valued
at about $45,000,000. About 90 percent of such coal was purchased by the
Delaware, Lackawanna and Western Coal Company for destination outside the
State of Pennsylvania. The respondent also sells an undetermined amount of
anthracite coal to the Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad for use in the
operation of its engines and ferry-boats, the latter operating between Hoboken,
New Jersey, and New York City. During .1942 the respondent purchased raw
materials, including pig iron and other metals, valued at $478,747 67, more than
50 percent of which was shipped to the respondent from points outside the State
2 No witnesses were called by any of the parties. All evidence submitted was documen-
tary, by stipulation, or by statements of counsel accepted in lieu of testimony.
2 The findings in this section are based upon, the Board's "Findings of Fact" in Case
No. R-4400 and upon stipulations entered into in the present proceedings.
GLEN ALDEN COAL COMPANY 659
of Pennsylvania . The respondent is the largest producer of anthracite coal
in Pennsylvania ; its output is some 20 percent of the total. It employs a total
of about 14,00 0 employees At its Exeter Shop, where it produces and, repairs
materials for use in its mining operations , the respondent employs about 250
workers. Of this number, about 50 foundry employees are herein involved.
U. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Int. Molders and Foundry Workers Union of N A, Local #133, affiliated with
the American Federation of Labor, and United Mine Workers of America, Dis-
trict No. 1,4 herein called the Mine Workers , are labor organizations admitting
to membership employees of the respondent.
M. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
The refusal to bargain
1. The appropriate unit and representation by the Union of a majority therein
On November 23, 1942, the Board issued a Decision and Direction of Elections
in Case No. R-4400,5 in which it ordered an election to be conducted among the
foundry employees at the respondent's Exeter Shop, to determine whether they
desired to be represented by the Union, the Mine Workers, or by neither.6 An
election by secret ballot was 'conducted on December 11, 1942. On January 8,
1913, the Board issued a Supplemental Decision, Certification of Representatives
and Second Direction of Election,7 in which it found that a majority of the
foundry employees had selected the Union as their bargaining representative-
and desired to function as a separate unit, and in which it certified the Union
as the exclusive bargaining representative of the foundry employees, for the
purposes of collective bargaining, in an appropriate unit.5
The respondent contests the Board's findings as to the appropriate unit. It
urges that its contract with the Mine Workers covers all its employees, includ-
ing the foundry workers in its Exeter Shop. The same position was maintained
by the respondent in Case No. R-4400, above described, to support its contention
that the contract constituted a bar to an election. At the hearing, in the instant
case. the respondent offered no additional evidence to support its contention as
to the appropriate unit; in fact, respondent's counsel agreed that there had been
no change since the representation hearing. In accordance with the Board's
4 The,United Mine Workers of America, District No. 1, although served with a copy of
the complaint and notice of hearing , was not represented at the hearing As noted here-
inafter, this organization is involved in these proceedings , not by issue3 raised in the com-
plaint , but by issues raised in the respondent 's answer.
5 45 N L. R. B. 738.
"The Board said: "In view of the bargaining history of the Exeter Shop and the other
circumstances in the' case . . . we find that the employees in the . . . [unit] de-
sired by the Mouldars Union . . . may properly be considered as [a] separate . . .
[unit] or as part of the industry -wide unit desired by the Company and the U M W . . .
(Mine Woikers ) Under such circumstances , we apply the principle that , the considerations
being balanced , the desires of the employees themselves determine , in part, the type of
unit or units through which they shall bargain . . Thereupon the Board ordered an
election among "all foundry employees at the Exeter Shop, including moulders, coremakers,
chippers and grinders , crane runners , cupola tenders , and laborers , but excluding supervisors,
foremen, and clerical employees ," to determine whether they desired to be represented by
the Union , the Mine Workers , or by neither.
T Tho Second Direction of Election involved employees in another unit, in Case No
R-4401, with which these proceedings are not concerned.
Y In its Decision the Board pointed out that of 56 employees eligible to vote, 43 had voted
for the Union, 1 for the Mine Workers, and 1 for neither.
1
660 DtECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
previous finding as to the respondent 's contention , the Trial Examiner finds said
contention to be without merit. The respondent 's position, is based upon the
same facts before the Board in Case R-4400.,
The Trial Examiner finds, in accordance with the Board 's previous determi-
nation, that all foundry employees at the respondent 's Exeter Shop, including
molders, coremakers , chippers and, grinders , crane runners , cupola tenders, and
laborers, but excluding supervisors , foremen, and clerical employees , constitute
and at all times material herein have constituted , a unit appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining . The Trial Examiner further finds that on
and at all times after January 8, 1943, the Union was the duly designated bar-
gaining representative of a majority , of the employees'in the aforesaid appro-
priate unit , and that, pursuant to the provisions of Section 9 (a) of the Act,
the Union was on January 8, 1943, and at all times thereafter has been and is
now the exclusive representative of all employees in the aforesaid unit for the
purposes of collective bargaining with respect to rates of pay, wages , hours of
employment , and other conditions of employment.
2. THE REFUSAL To BARGAIN
,By letter, dated January 11, 1943, the Union requested a meeting with man-
agement of the respondent in order to "negotiate and execute a labor agree-
ment." A meeting of the parties was held on February 1, when the respond-
ent informed the Union that it would not 'negotiate a contract with it because
such negotiations would violate its existing contract with the Mine Workers.
Between February 1 and 27, conferences were held between the parties and a
representative of the U. S. Conciliation Service, at which the respondent main-
tained the same position established by it on February 1. On March 8 the
respondent was informed by the Acting Regional Director that the Moulders
had filed a charge, alleging a refusal to bargain. In telephonic conversation
on March 24 with Ralph P. Winters, a Field Examiner at the Regional. Office,
the 'respondent's counsel stated: (1) that the respondent would not negotiate
with the Union, "even though" it had been certified by the Board, until-the
question of the appropriate unit had been finally resolved; (2) that the Mine
Workers, by virtue of its contract with the respondent, represented the em-
ployees in the respondent's foundry; and (3) that the Board was without juris-
diction in the matter.'
The Trial Examiner finds that on February 1, 1943, and at all times there-
after, the respondent has refused to bargain collectively with the Union as the
exclusive representative of its employees in the appropriate unit and has thereby
interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in 'the exercise of the
rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PBAOTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities'of the respondent set forth in Section III above, occurring in
connection with the operations of the respondent described in Section I above,
have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce
among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and ob-
structing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
O The above findings are based upon documents entered in the record and upon oral
stipulations between the parties.
GLEN ALDEN COAL COMPANY
V. THE REMEDY
661
Since it has been'found that the respondent has engaged in unfair labor
practices, it will be recommended that it cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies of the Act. Since
it has been found that the respondent has refused to bargain collectively with,
the Union as the exclusive representative of its employees in an appropriate
unit, it will be recommended that the respondent, upon request, bargain col-
lectively with the Union. .
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire'record in
the case, the Trial Examiner makes the following:
Coxci.usioxs or LAW
1. Int. Molders and Foundry Workers Union of N A, Local #133, affiliated
with the American Federation of Labor, is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. All foundry employees at the respondent's Exeter Shop, including mold-
ers, coremakers, chippers and grinders, crane runners, cupola tenders, and
laborers, but excluding supervisors, foremen, and clerical employees, at all
times material herein constituted, and now constitute, a unit appropriate for
the purposes of collective bargaining, within the meaning of Section.9 (b) of
the Act.
3. Int. Molders and Foundry Workers Union of N. A., Local #133, affiliated
with the American Federation of Labor, was on January 8, 1943, and at all
times thereafter has been, the exclusive representative of all the employees
in the aforesaid -unit for the purposes of collective bargaining, within the
meaning of"Section 9 (a) of the Act.
4. By refusing, on February 1, 1943 and at all times thereafter, to bargain
collectively with Int. Molders and Foundry Workers of N A., Local #133, affil-
iated with the American Federation of Labor, as the exclusive representative
of all its employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit, the respondent has en-
gaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Sec-
tion 8 (5) of the Act.
5 By interfering with. restraining and coercing its employees in the exer-
cise of rights guaranteed in Sect ion 7 of the Act, the respondent has engaged
in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of Section
S (1) of the Act. '
6. The- aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
comnierce,'withii the` meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon
the entire record in the case, the Trial Examiner recommends that the respond-•
ent, Glen Alden Coal Company. Scranton, Pennsylvania, and its officers, agents,
successors, and assigns, shall:
1 Cease and desist from:
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively with Tnt. Molders and Foundry Work-
ers Union of N. A., Local #133, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor,
as the exclusive representative of all its foundry employees in the above-
described appropriate unit;
(b) Engaging in any like or related acts or conduct interfering with, restrain-
ing. or coercing its employees in the exercise of the right to self-organization,
5 36105-44-vol 50--43
662 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL ' LABOR REiLATIONS` BOAR1
to form , join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing, and to engaged in concerted activities
for the purposes of, collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, as
guaranteed in Section 7' of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action which the Trial Examiner finds
will effectuate the policies of the Act : '
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively -with Int. Molders and Foundry Work-
ers Union of N. A., Local #133, affiliated with the American Federation of
Labor, as the exclusive representative of all its foundry employees in the
above-described appropriate unit;
(b) Post immediately in conspicuous places at its Exeter Shop and maintain,
for a period of at least sixty (60) consecutive days from the date of posting,
notices to its employees stating: (1) that the respondent will not engage in
the conduct from which it is recommended that it cease and desist in para-
graphs 1 (a) and (b) of these reconimeudations, and (2) that the respondent
will take the affirmative action set forth in paragraph 2 (a) of these
recommendations ;
(c)'Notify the Regional Director for the Fourth Region in writing, within
ten (10) days from the date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report, what
steps the respondent has taken to comply herewith.
It is further recommended that unless on or before ten (10) days from the
receipt of this Intermediate Report, the respondent notifies said Regional
Director in writing that it will comply with the foregoing recommendations,
the National Labor Relations Board issue an order requiring 'the respondent
to take the action aforesaid.
As provided in Section 33 of Article II of the Rules and Regulations of the
National, Labor Relations Board, Series 2-as amended, effective October 2S,
1942-any party may within fifteen (15) days from the date of the entry of
the order transferring the case to the Board, pursuant to Section 32 of Article
II of said Rules and Regulations, file with the Board, Shoreham Building,
Washington, D. C. an original and four copies of a statement in writing setting
forth such exceptions to the'Intermediate Report or to any other part of the
record or proceeding as lie relies upon, together with the original and four
copies of a brief in support thereof. As further provided in Section 33, should
any party desire permission to argue orally before the Board, request therefor
must be made in writing to the Board within ten (10) days after the date of
the order transferring the case to the Board.
C. W. WHITTEMORE,
Trial Examiner..
Dated April 28, 1943.
l