Granite City Steel Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 18, 1943

47 N.L.R.B. 712 (N.L.R.B. 1943)

In the Matter of GRANrrE Ci SiEEt COMPANY:'anal ,,U•°NIT n STEEL; .
. I WORKERS OF AMERICA '
Case No. C-2350.-Decided February 18,1943
Jurisdiction : flat rolled steel manufacturing industry. ,
Unfair Labor Practices.
Collective Bargaining: charges••of-refusal ,,to_,bargain,collectively, dismissed;
employer found justified in its refusal to negotiate with a labor organiza.
tion following its certification by" Regional Director pursuant' to a pay roll
check agreement notwithstanding the fact that it had consented to bargain
with that organization if its majority was established thereby when no
effect was given to the certification establishing the union's majority.
Practice and Procedure : complaint dismissed.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
On September 26, 1942, the Trial Examiner issued his Interme-
diate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the re-
spondent 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.
During the hearing, the Trial Examiner ruled upon various mo-
tions and upon objections to the admission of evidence. The Board
has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no
prejudicial errors were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing for the purpose of oral argument
was held before the Board on November 17, 1942, at Washington,
D. C. The respondent was represented by counsel and presented
argument. The United did not appear. The' Board has consid-
ered the Intermediate Report, the respondent's exceptions and
brief, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts only those
findings of fact made by the Trial Examiner as are not inconsistent
with the findings, conclusions, and older set-forth' below.
47 N. L. R. B., No. 92.
712
1.
GRANITE CITY STEEL COMPANY,
THE ALLEGED REFUSAL TO BARGAIN
The Trial Examiner found that on April 8, 1942, and at all times
thereafter, the respondent refused ' to bargain collectively with the
United as the exclusive representative of the' respondent's employ ees'in
an appropriate unit. The Trial Examiner predicates his finding, in
part, upon the pay-roll-,cheek agreement entered into between the
respondent and the United on- March 17, 1942, pursuant to which
agreement it was found by the Regional Director that the'United
represented a majority of the employees in an appropriate bargaining
unit. The respondent contends, however, that since it entered into the
pay-roll check agreement under a misunderstanding as to a material
fact, the agreement and the determination of representatives made
pursuant thereto are void. We find merit in the respondent's conten-
tion. The evidence shows that the respondent entered into the pay-roll
check agreement believing erroneously, but in good faith and in
reliance upon representations made by an agent of the Board, that the
United had agreed to eliminate foremen from its membership. But
for such misunderstanding, it is clear that the respondent would not
have entered into the pay-roll check agreement, thereby relinquishing
its opportunity to have the question concerning representation, and the
incidental question regarding the eligibility of foremen in the United
determined in a representation proceeding. As soon as the respondent
became aware of the fact that the United had not, in fact, ruled fore-
men ineligible to membership, it declined to negotiate with the United,
thus, in effect, asserting a right to rescind the pay-roll check agree-
ment., Under these circumstances, we are of the opinion that no effect
should be given to the pay-roll check agreement. In consequence we do
not accept the Regional Director's certificate, made pursuant thereto,
as proof that the United represents a majority of the respondent's
employees in an appropriate unit. We shall therefore dismiss the
allegations of the complaint that the respondent "refused to-bargain
collectively with theUnited as such representative.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in the case , and pursuant to Section 10 (c)
of the National Labor Relations At, the National Labor Relations
Board , hereby orders that the complaint against the respondent,
Granite City Steel Company , Granite City, Illinois , be, and it hereby
is,
CHAIRMAN MILLIS took no part in its consideration of the above
decision and order.
1 Cf. In this respect, Matter of Ellis-Klatscher & Co. and .General Warehousemen, Local
598, of the international Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and-Helperp
of America, A. F. L., 40 N. L. R. B . 1037. '
714 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
INTERMEDIATE REPORT
Mr. William W. Ward, Jr., for the Board -
Mr. Charles Young, of Granite City, Ill., for the United
Mr. Ethan A. H. Shepley, of St. 'Louis, Mo., and Mr. M. D. Conroy, of Granite
City, Ill., for the respondent. -
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
1 -
Upon an amended charge' duly filed on August 7, 1941, by\ the United Steel
Workers of America, herein called the United, the National Labor Relations
Board, herein called the Board, by the Regional Director for the Fourteenth
Region -(St. Louis, Missouri), issued its complaint dated August 7, 1942, against
Granite City Steel Company, 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 and notices of hearing thereon were duly served upon the
repsondent and the United.
,With respect to the unfair labor practices the complaint alleged in substance
that the respondent on or about April 8, 1942, and at all times thereafter, refused
to bargain collectively with the Union, which was on and after April 8, 1942,
the duly designated exclusive representative of the employees of the respondent
in an appropriate unit ; and that the respondent by such acts interfered with,
restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
in Section 7 of the Act. On or'about August 13, 1942, the respondent filed its
answer admitting certain facts as to its corporate organization and the character
of its business ; that the Union was a labor organization within the meaning of
the Act; and that the respondent was"engaged'in interstate commerce within
the meaning of the Act. The respondent, however, denied that it had committed
any unfair labor practices and stated with reference to the alleged refusal to
bargain collectively. with the Union, that it had "refused to negotiate with the
committee of said Lodge No. 69 because of the fact that foremen were included
in the group, and its belief and conviction that the inclusion of supervisory
employees in the same group with other employees was contrary to the spirit,
if not to'the,letter, of'the National Labor Relations Act."
Pursuant to notice a hearing was held in Granite City, Illinois, on September
3, 1942,?'before Charles" E. • Persons, the Trial Examiner duly designated,by the
Acting Chief Trial Examiner The Board, the respondent,- and the' United
were represented and participated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard,
to examine and cross-examine witnesses and to introduce evidence was afforded
all parties. At the beginning of the hearing the Board moved to strike from
the respondent's answer, reference "to an oral "understanding. concerning the
exclusion of foremen 'from the Union." This motion was denied • At the close
bf the' hearing 'pursuant' to respondent's request • the und'er'signed directed that
the 'record' be held open through September 16, 1942; to `receive a' deposition of
' The original charge was filed by the Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel and Tin
Workers of North America, herein called the Amalgamated, Lodge No. 69 on April ` 15, 1942:
Ong or,about July 1, 1942,• as was stipulated by all parties, on the record ,' tbe. United
succeeded to all the rights and privileges of the Amalgamated. At that time Lodge No. 69,
became a subsidiary of the United. For convenience these labor organizations are herein
referred to jointly as the Union.
The hearing date was 'first ' set for August' 20, -1942, but on motion for a 'continuance
made by the respondent was advanced to September 3, 1942,
f • - -,,GRANITE CITY STEEL COMPANY, - _ 715
Hayward Niedringhaus, president of the respondent. On the request of the
respondent's counsel, this period later was extended for a week This deposition
was received on September 22, 1942, incorporated in the record, and has been duly
considered by the undersigned. At the conclusion of the hearing oral argument
participated in by the Board .and by, the respondent was held before the Trial
Examiner. -The parties were duly informed that they bad a right to present briefs
to the undersigned within fifteen (15), days after the close of the, hearing. , The
parties waived this right. .. - - -
Upon the entire record in the case the undersigned makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT
The respondent, Granite City Steel Company, a Delaware corporation having
its principal office and place of business at Granite City, Illinois, is engaged
in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of flat rolled steel. Its principal
raw materials consist of scrap iron and pig iron, of which large quantities are
annually purchased and transported to Illinois from other States of the United
States. It produces annually approximately $10.000,000 worth of steel of which
about 90 percent is shipped from-the plant to points outside the State of Illinois.
11 THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel and Tin Workers of Nolth
America, was, on or about July 1, 1942, merged in the United Steel Workers of
America. These unions and their subsidiary, Lodge No 69, are labor organ-
izations admitting to membership employees of the respondent
III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A Bachgroand
The respondent has had collective bargaining agreements vv ith the Amalgamated
since 1892. These arguments have been annually renewed during this 50-year
period and are presently in effect-with the successor organization, the United.
Five different lodges are involved. The respondent also has collective bargaining
agreements currently in effect with certain craft organizations including the
blacksmiths, bricklayers, and hod carriers, affiliates of the American Federation of
Labor. Sometime prior to November 1941 the Amalgamated through its organ-
izer, Martin Schuster, set up Pioneer Lodge. No 69, with' jurisdiction "over
practically everybody" not previously organized among the respondent's em-
ployees. Lodge No. 69's jurisdiction covers monthly, hourly, and day-rate super-
visors; clerical workers in mill office,- and on mill floors; test runners, junior
and senior chemists, and observers in, the Department' of Metallurgy and
Inspection.". This Lodge was chartered in'Novernber 1941 and the officers first
elected, and currently serving at the time of the hearing included as president
Charles W Young, and as vice president. ' Leona rd Hain, both of whom were and
are foremen in the respondent's plant '
i-' Shoiily after its organization Lodge No' 69 aphlied'to the respondent's officials
for a- conference On March 17, 1942, -the respondent and -the Amalgamated
entered into a written, agreement with the Fourteenth Regional Office for a pay-
roll check. The significant' paragraphs of this agreement, omitting 2 and 3 which
have to do with the furnishing of a pay- roll by the respondent and authorization
or membership, cards by the Union, are as follows: .
7 16 DECISIONS ' OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIOATS, BOARD
1. All persons employed by the company at its Granite City, Illinois, plant
as `follows : clerical workers on mill" floors and in mill offices, and observers,
junior and senior chemists, and test runners in the Department of Metallurgy
and' Inspection, constitute a-unit appropriate for' the purposes of collective
bargaining (hereinafter called the appropriate unit). -
4:"The parties hereto certify that no other known individual or labor organ-
ization purports to, act as bargaining representative of any employee in' the
appropriate unit.
5. The parties hereto authorize the Regional Director or his duly designated
agent or agents to check the records submitted by each of the parties in
accordance with paragraphs 2 and 3 above, and issue a report thei eon as to :
(a) the-number of employees included in- the, appropriate unit
(b) the number of employees in the appropriate unit who have authorized
the union to represent them for the pnrpo5e of bargaining with the company.
6. The report and all rulings and determinations of the Regional Director
on any question relating to this pay-roll check shall be final and binding upon
the parties hereto. The parties agree to cooperate fully with the Regional
Director in all matters provided for herein.
7. The company agrees that should the Regional Director report that the
union represents a majority of the employees in the appropriate unit the
company will, upon request, bargain collectively with the union as the
exclusive 'bargaining representative for all employees in the unit and will
embody any agreement that may be reached in a written, signed agreement.
Qn'March 18 the, Regional, Director certified that as a result of the cress-check
he had found 90 employees in the appropriate unit of whom 52 were members of the
Union -
E, The refusal to bargain collectively
1 The appropriate unit
The complaint alleges, that "a unit consisting of clerical workers on mill floors
and in mill offices,, and observers, junior and senior chemists, and test runners in
the Department of Metallurgy and Inspection constitutes an appropriate
unit for'the,purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section,9 (b)
of the Act" This defined unit agrees with that included in the Agreement for
Pay Roll Check quoted above. In its answer the respondent admits that a unit
so defined constitutes an appropriate 'unit for collective bargaining within the
meaning of the Act,
.In view of the formal Agreement for Pay Roll Check, the unit determination
made pursuant thereto, the respondent's acquiescence in such unit determination
as evidenced by its subsequent negotiation with the Union, and upon all evidence
in the record the undersigned finds .that all employees of the respondent working
as clerical workers on mill floors and in mill offices, as observers, junior and
senior chemists, and test runners in the Department of Metallurgy and Inspection,
at all times material herein constituted, and that they now constitute an appro-
priate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining and that said unit insures
to employees of the respondent the full benefit of their right to self-organization
and to collective bargaining and otherwise effectuates the purposes of the Act.
2. Representation by the Union of a majority in the appropriate unit
As rioted above; the parties on March-17, 1942,',entered unto a formal Agreement
for Pay Roll Check. On March 18'the Regioiial Director ieporIed that he found
GRANITE CITY .STEEL, COMPANY, :717
52 members of the Union within the appropriate unit which contained 90, em-
ployees and- certified rthat "a majority, of. the total, number,-of employees, whose
,names were included in the pay-roll check desire to be represented by the,Amal-
,gamated Association of Iron, Steel and Tin Workers of N. A.",
On the basis of the formal Agreement for ,Pay Roll Check, the check made
pursuant thereto, the Regional Director's certificate based thereon and the
entire record, the undersigned finds that on March 18, 1942, and at all times there-
after, the Union was and now is the duly designated representative of the majority
of the employees in the appropriate unit. Pursuant to Section 9 (a),of the Act,
the Union-was, and is, therefore, the exclusive representative of all the employees
in such unit for the purposes of collective bargaining with respect to, rates of pay,
wages; hours of employment, and other conditions of employment.
3. Attempts of the Union to bargain with the respondent
The Union made persistent attempts beginning in November 1941'and'extendi'ng
to April 10, 1942, to'negotiate with the respondent. Throughout these conferences
the positions of the respondent never varied. It was. explicitly stated by re-
spondent's counsel, of record at the opening of the hearing as follows: "We declined
to negotiate with the Union unless and until the foremen should be eliminated.
That was our position then, and that position has never been altered, and that
is our position today." a I
The earliest attempt by the union representatives'to open negotiations with the
companj' occurred on December 1, 1941, when Schuster, accompanied by a coin-
mittee of union representatives which included both Young and Ham; presented
a proposed contract to Fred Nichols, employment 'manager for the responden*
A few days later Nichols, acting upon the advice of M. D. Conroy 'assistant to
President Needringhaus, told Schuster that the contract had been improperly
presented. Schuster had followed the regular procedure of the established
lodges in presenting contracts to Nichols However, Nichols and Conroy felt
that inasmuch as Lodge No. 69 was a new organization its, initial contract should
have been presented not by local,represciutatives, but through file international
officers of the Amalgamated. When Shuster later phoned, Conroy explained the
respondent's attitude on this mattes and further told Schuster that the respond=
ent was not willing to negotiate with Lodge No 69 so long as it included foremen
in its membership -
The proposed contract presented on Decenibei I had attached to it a flyer which
read:
TO THE COMPANY :
It _is our wish that one scale committee shall serve to represent our organi-
zation in negotiation of a contract. However, if the Company so desires, we
will present one negotiating committee from Foremen for Foremen and one
negotiating committee from Clerks for Clerks, each to negotiate separately.
Schuster explained in his testimony at the hearing-that this proposal had been
advanced by the union representatives in an effort to meet the respondent's
objection to'the inclusion of foremen in the local. -
In an effort to meet the expressed wishes' of the respondent- that the proposals
of the newly created Lodge No. 69 be presented by the international., officers, of
the Amalgamated, officials of the Amalgamated through Louis Leonard, secretary-
treasurer, entered' into correspondence with President Niedringhaus and a con-
3 Ina preliminary statement made on opening the respondent s, presentation respondent's
counsel further stated "I stand here now with authority and,formally offer to, negotiate with
Lodge No. 69 if the foremen are eliminated." - -
718 DECISIONS`'OFI'NATIOIVAL -LABOR 'RELAT$ONS BOARD
ference,'was arranged for December 22,:1941. This conference was 'attended by
'Leonar`d;' Schuster' and a committee from Lodge No. 69; which included both
Young and Ham` The respondent was represented by Niedringhaus, Nichols,
Conroy and other officials. - Some discussion was held as to the character of the
proposed contract and the respondent's representatives reiterated their statement
on the exclusion of foremen.- It'*as agreed `tliat the general provisions of the
contract should be -,redrafted.
'."On January 2, 1942, the contract, as revised by the r international` officers of
Amalgamated, was' presented and a second conference was held. Niedringhaus,
Nichols; Conroy and other officials represented the, respondent Dwight D
Ingamells, counsel for' the corporation; was also present. The Union was repre-
sented by Schuster and a committee from Lodge No: 69 including Young and Ham.
All witnesses testifying as to events' at this conference were' in substantial' agree-
ment. The contract as drafted included' supervisory workers'in mill offices and
on mill floors in describing the, classification of workers to be covered. The
respondent's attitude toward this pi;oposal was summarized by Conroy' in his
testimony as follows : "We told them at that ,time they had foremen in their lodge
and as long as they had,foremen in their lodge we simply could not deal with them,
that we were willing to, deal with that group of men and had done so for many
years, and knew ,about all, there was to know about collective bargaining, but ,did
not know how we could deal with those men with foremen as part of the lodge,
and as long as they were we could not meet them."
After this rebuff the Union, on February 2, 1942, presented a petition for investi-
gation and certification of representatives to the Board. In this petition the
Union,included supervisory ,employees', in describing the appropriate unit. On
February 22, Conroy had a conference at the St. Louis Regional Office with Warren
A Silver, Field Examiner for the Board, as a result of which a further conference
was held on March 16 at the respondent's office ' These meetings were for the
purpose of arranging for a cross-check agreement. When Silver appeared, accom-
panied by Young and Walter Houston, an employee and chairman of Lodge No.
69's negotiating committee, Conroy who had, confused Houston with,his brother
'who was a foreman in the plant, refused to enter into a conference with foremen
present. The Union yielded to this demand of the respondent and a conference
was,held that,afternoon in the ,presence of Silver. Schuster accompanied by a
committee for the Union which included no foremen, met with Conroy, Nichols,
Ingamells and other representatives of the respondent At this time an under-
standing was reached as to the procedure to be followed in carrying out a pay-
roll check. As originally drawn up by Silver, and submitted 'to the respondent
'on March 17, 1942, this agreement for a pay-roll check carried provision' for its
signing by Young, the president of Lodge No. 69. Conroy 'objected inasmuch as
Young was a foreman. It was arranged that the agreement should be signed for
the Union by Schuster. The respondent's officials urged' no further modification
of the agreement and, after accord was reached on a list of employees to be
included in the unit, the draft as. drawn by Silver was executed by the parties.
After, the certification by the Regional Director that the Union was in, a
majority position Houston arranged with Conroy for a. conference on April
8. Conroy had insisted that one of the international ,officers of the, Amalga-
mated must be present. Accordingly the Union ,was. represented by Ward
Walcott, president of the Amalgamated, and a committee from the Union
not including any foremen. The-respondent was represented by Niedringhaus,
Conroy and other officials. . Walcott at Conroy's suggestion proceeded to read
the contract which had been presented on, January 2. 'Conroy interrupted
saying: `Ward is it true these foremen are still, part of this Lodge No. 69?"
'GRANITE CITY 'STEEL COMPANY 719
On being told that they were, Conroy further said : " So long as they are we
cannot sit down and meet them. That is the agreement we made with the
tabor. Board, 'and' that ' is the premise on which we signed the agreement-to
meet -this''other 'group of men you speak of here. But . . . we 'still have
just what I said, the president and vice president of the Lodge as foremen
in: our plant, and 'we cannot consistently meet with themThe union repre-
sentatives pointed out that they were not attempting to bargain for the fore-
men who would be represented in separate negotiations. They declined how-
ever to exclude foremen from membership in Lodge No 69. The parties
thereupon separated.
On- April 10, the respondent called in the union representatives stating
that they desired 'to state their position more fully. The company officials
present on April 8 and Shepley, the respondent' s counsel of record, were present.
Both Conroy and Shepley restated the position of the company but nothing
of material importance was added to the discussion held 'on April 8.
The parties are in substantial agreement as to the matters discussed' at
these various conferences with the single exception of the understanding
reached preceding the formulation of the agreement for a pay-roll check.'
Conroy and the other respondent's representatives understood that the premise
upon which this agreement was framed Was that foremen would be excluded
from Lodge ' No. 69. Conroy quoted Silver as saying to him over the phone
on March 17, "I had a hard job but I have eliminated these men from the
Lodge:" Conroy replied, "That is perfectly agreeable with us if they are
eliminated from the Lodge w6,, will deal with the other "men and have no
objection at all."
Silver has recently entered the Armed l of ces of the United States' and
was not available as a witness. However, the union men who participated
in the formulation of this agreement for a cross-check very positively' -testi-
fied to the effect that their understanding was that the agreement went no
further than a provision that the foremen were to be omitted from the' ap-
propriate unit and that they had repeatedly stated to the representatives of
the respondent that the foremen could not be excluded 'from the Lodge. After
considering the full record and the demeanor of the witnesses concerned, all
of whom testified frankly, in a straightforward manner and with obvious
conviction of the truth of their testimony, the undersigned finds . that this
was an honest misunderstanding growing out of the similarity of the words
union and unite ' '
4 This testimony by Conroy is in substantial agreement with that of the union representa-
tives present The undersigned finds it to be a true and correct statement
5 Nieduinghaus also testified referring to the "April meetings as follows : "I therefore told
Walcott and the committee that as long as these men were part of this union we could not
deal with them as we had a distinct agreement and understanding with Mr. Silver that the
foremen were eliminated from this union."
6 In the deposition of Niedringhaus , he testified under cross -examination as follows :
Q, When you were setting up this agreement for cross check the word "unit" was
referred to was it not?
A Not to my knowledge . Is it stated in here?
Q. Doesn't paragraph one, which sets up a unit of clerical workers in the Depart-
ment of Metallurgy and Inspection , refer to a unit, an appropriate unit?
A. That is the first time I have noticed it. That was the phraseology used by Silver.
When asked whether he had read . the agreement before authorizing the signing of iti
Niedringhaus replied :
"`Yes; but I still say that 'unit ' is a new word to me as far as our , relations in
this kind go "' ' '
720 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
4. Concluding findings
Although the undersigned finds that the respondent labored under an honest
misunderstanding to the effect that the Union had agreed to eliminate foremen
from Lodge No. 69 he notes that the parties read the Agreement for Pay-Roll
Check before signing it. Nothing in this instrument sustains this understanding
of the respondent. Moreover the respondent representatives may be held to have
been put on notice that foremen were still members of Lodge No. 69 since the
document when presented to them provided for its signing by Charles W. Young,
president of Lodge No. 69 and, as was well known to the respondent' s officials, a
foreman in the plant. Although respondent's representatives insisted that Young
should not sign the agreement they did not ask for the inclusion therein of a
statement embodying their understanding regarding the membership of foremen in
the Lodge. Under'these circumstances the written instrument must be held to
have defined the agreement reached on March 17, 1942.
Concerning the rights of the employees to determine eligibility to membership in
their own organizations and to designate their own representatives, there can be
no, question. The pertinent language of the Act is found in the declaration of
policy.which states that it is the purpose of the Act to protect "the exercise by
workers of full freedom of association, self-organization, and designation of repre-
sentatives of their own choosing, for the purpose of negotiating the terms and
conditions of their employment or other mutual aid or protection."
Since the employees possess "full freedom of association and self organization"
neither the employer nor the Board can deny their right to include foremen in their
organization since, for the purposes of collective bargaining, foremen are employees
within the meaning of Section 2 (3) of the Act.' Control of eligibility to member-
ship and of union organization resides exclusively in the employees.
Thisproceeding involves no controversy over the inclusion or exclusion of fore-
men in the appropriate unit. The Union explicitly stated its willingness to bargain
for the foremen in a separate unit from the other members of Lodge No. 69 when
the first proposed contract was presented to the respondent on December 1, 1941.
This position of the Union was maintained in all subsequent negotiations, and is,
in effect, incorporated in the Agreement for Pay-Roll Check and was restated
during the hearing. It must now be determined whether the respondent' s special
defense against the alleged refusal to bargain is valid. Does the fact that fore-
men are members in Lodge No. 69 justify the respondent in its refusal to negotiate
with the Union for a unit which includes no foremen? Such a unit per se is accept-
able to the respondent. The attitude, persisted in by the respondent throughout
the negotiations with the Union, plainly puts it in the position of attempting to
interfere with the legal right guaranteed to employees by the Act. The respondent
would make the acceptance of its conception of the proper limits of membership
in the Union a condition precedent to performance of its duty to bargain collec-
tively with the Union. Persistence in this attempt as shown by the record, con-
stitutes an unfair labor practice, being interference and coercion within the
meaning of Section 8 (1) of the Act. Accordingly the undersigned finds no merit
in the respondent's special defense.
The undersigned finds, therefore, that the respondent was not justified in its
refusal to bargain because of the inclusion of foremen in Lodge No.. 69 of the Union.
' See Matter of Union Collieries Coal Company, Oakmont , Pennsylvania and Mine Officials'
Union 'of America (Ind.) 41 N. L. R. B. 961. And cases cited therein. See also
Phelps Dodge Copper Products Corp. and United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers
pf America, Local No. 411,1,.afliatedwith the Congress of Industrial Organizations , 41 N. L.
R. B. 973 . Compare Harmony Short Line Motor Transportation Company and Division
106 of the Amalgamated Association of Street, Eleet?ie, Railway and Motor Coach Employees
of America, 42 N. L. R. B. 757.
t ' %•- ?..; GRANITE CITY _ STEEL • COMPANY 721
On April 8,,1942„ and at all times thereafter, the respondent refused, to bargain
collectively with the Union as the exclusive representative of the respondent's
employees in an appropriate unit, thereby interfering with, restraining and coerc-
ing its employees in the exercise' of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the
Act.
IV TIIR EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRAC7 ICES UPON COM iERCE
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
obstructing conanerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
Since the undersigned has found that the respondent has engaged in certain
unfair labor practices, it will be recommended that the respondent be ordered
to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative action designed
to effectuate the policies of the Act.
The undersigned having found that the respondent hasp refused to bargain col-
lectively with the Union as the representative of a majority of the employees
in an,appropriate unit,.it will be recommended that the respondent, upon request,
bargain collectively with the Union.
Since, as the undersigned has found, the respondent also engaged in other
unfair labor practices, it is recommended that the respondent be required to
cease and desist from interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees
in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The United Steel Workers of America is the successor of the Amalgamated
Association of Iron, Steel and Tin Workers of North America. These unions
and their subsidiary, Pioneer Lodge No. 69, are labor organizations-within the
meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. The clerical workers on mill floors and in mill offices, observers, junior and
senior chemists, and test runners in the Department of Metallurgy and Inspection
in the respondent's plant at all times material herein constituted and now con-
stitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining, within the
meaning'of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
3 The Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel and Tin Workers of North
America was from March 18, 1942, to July 1, 1942, and its successor organization,
the United Steel Workers of America, has at all times thereafter been, the exclusive
representative of all the employees in such unit, for the purposes of collective
bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act.
4. By refusing on April 8, 1942, and at all times thereafter, to bargain col-
lectively with the Amalgamated Association of Iron, Steel and Tin Workers of
North America, or its successor, the United Steel Workers of America, as the
exclusive representative of its employees in the appropriate unit, the respondent
has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning,of
Section 8 (5) of the Act.
5. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise
of'the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the respondent has engaged
in and is engaging in unfair labor practices, within the meaning of-Section 8 (1)
of the Act. ,
513024-43-vol. 47-46
722 DECISIONS - OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
G. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within 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 pursuant
to Section 10 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, the undersigned recoin-
mends that the respondent, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall:
1.. Cease and desist from : ,
(a) Refusing to bargain collectively N%ith United Steel Workers of America, as
the exclusive representative of the clerical workers on mill floors and in mill
offices, observers, junior and senior chemists and test runners in the,Department
of Metallurgy and Inspection in the respondent's plant ;
(b) In any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees
in the exercise of the rights of self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor
organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choos-
ing, or to engage'in concerted activities for the purpose 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 undersigned finds will
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with United Steel Workers of America,
as the exclusive representative of clerical workers on mill floors and in mill
offices, observers, junior and senior chemists and test runners in the Department
of Metallurgy and Inspection in the respondent's plant, in respect to rates of
pay, wages, hours of employment, and other conditions of employment ;
(b) Post immediately in conspicuous places in its plant at Granite City. Illinois,
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
paragraph 1 (a) and (b) of these recommendations; and (2) that the respondent
will take the affirmative action set forth in paragraph 2'(a) of .these recom-
mendations ;
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Fourteenth Region in witting within
twenty (20) days from the date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report what
steps the respondent has taken to comply therewith.
It is'further recommended that unless on or before twenty (20) days from the
date of the receipt of this Intermediate Report, the respondent notifies said
Regional Director in writing that it will comply with the foregoing reconinienda-
tions, 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-any party may within
thirty (30) 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 proceedings (including rulings upon
all motions or objections) as he relies upon, together with the original and four
copies of a brief in support thereof. As further provided in said Section 33,
should any party desire permission to argue orally before the Board, request
therefor must be made in writing to the Board within,twenty (20) days after
the date of.the order transferring the case to the Board.