Pacific States Steel Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 26, 1958

121 N.L.R.B. 641 (N.L.R.B. 1958)

PACIFIC STATES STEEL CORPORATION 641
Accordingly, we find that all professional employees at the Employ-
er's Air Brake Division and Industrial Products Division at Wilmer-
ding, Pennsylvania, including design engineers A and B, test
engineers A and B, staff engineers, junior engineers, and chemists A,
but excluding all other employees,14 artists A, equipment planning
engineers, plant engineers, tool standards engineers, metallurgist A,
foundry metallurgists, technical writers A and B, layout designers,
technical specialists, service engineers A and B, sales engineers A
and B, patent attorneys A and B, nurses, and supervisors as defined in
the Act constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of section 9 (b) of the Act
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication ]
27 At present the Employer has no incumbents in the classifications of accountant,
metallurgist B, chemist B, and instrument engineer These positions have been vacant
for some time and it is doubtful if they will be filled in the near future We therefore do
not make specific findings as to the above four classifications at this time
Pacific States Steel Corporation and Operating Engineers Local
Union No. 3, IUOE, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No f0-RC-
3519 August 26, 1958 '
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Paul A Cassady, hear-
mg officer The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed t
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Members Rodgers, Bean, and Fanning]
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds
1 The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act
2 The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
' At the hearing the Intervenor moved to dismiss the petition upon the ground that the
case presents a jurisdictional dispute not properly resolvable in a representation proceed
ing The Employer also moved to dismiss the petition contending that the General Box
Company doctrine (82 NLRB 678) does not justify directing an election We find no
merit in either of the motions The issue in this proceeding relates to the composition of
a unit sought by the Petitioner and is not a jurisdictional dispute in the statutory sense
The Petitioner has never been certified as bargaining representative although for many
years it has been recognized as the representative of crane operators , locomotive engineers,
and switchmen The Petitioner is willing to go to an election for such a unit and the
Employer does not dispute its appropriateness , In these circumstances, we find that a
question concerning representation exists under the holding in the General Box case
121 NLRB No 79
487926-59-vol 121-42
642 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
3 A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9
(c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4 The Petitioner seeks to represent a unit of all crane operators,
locomotive engineers, switchmen, including typewriter crane opera-
tors, tractor operators, bulldozer operators , roller operators, blade
operators, trenching machine operators , carryall operators, cleatrac
loader operators , backhoe shovel operators , and overhead loader
operators, excluding production and maintenance employees certified
to other labor organizations, pay loader operators, A-frame truck
operators , fork lift truck operators , guards, office clerical employees,
and supervisors Should the Board find some other unit appropriate,
the Petitioner seeks an election for that unit The Employer and the
Intervenor, United Steelworkers of America , AFL-CIO , contend that
the sole appropriate unit consists of locomotive crane operators, boom
crane operators, overhead cab crane operators, locomotive engineers,
and switchmen
The Employer is a corporation engaged in the production of steel
products at its plant in Niles, California The parties have stipulated
that the Employer is engaged in a basic steel operation
On August 31, 1944, following a Board-directed election, the Inter-
venor was certified as the collective. bargaining representative of the
production and maintenance employees at the Employer 's Niles, Cali-
forma, plant, excluding among others gall employees now represented
by" the Petitioner 2 The employees then represented by the Peti-
tioner included only cranemen, locomotive engineers, and switchmen
Since the certification, the Employer has bargained with both the
Petitioner and the Intervenor for employees in their respective units.
The contracts with the Petitioner have covered "all employees per-
forming work coming within its jurisdiction " In 1955 a dispute
arose between the Petitioner and the Intervenor as to whether forklift
operators, A-frame truck operators , {and water tenders were included
in the Petitioner's or the Intervenor's unit To resolve the disagree-
ment, the Employer filed a motion with the Board requesting clari-
fication or interpretation of the 1944 certificate to the Intervenor
After receiving briefs from the contending unions the Board decided
that only employees represented by the Petitioner in 1944 were ex-
cluded from the production and maintenance unit 3 The Board said:
We find nothing in the decision to indicate that the Board in-
tended that classifications of employees falling within the Engi-
neers' [Petitioner's] jurisdiction but not then employed by the
Employer were also to be excluded from the production and main-
tenance unit The use of the words "employees now represented
2 Paozfio States Steel Corporatson, 57 NLRB 1084 and 1220
a Pacific States Steel Corporation, 113 NLRB 222
PACIFIC STATES STEEL CORPORATION 643
by the Engineers" clearly shows 'a contrary intent. . . . The mere
fact the Employer, by contract, has recognized the Engineers for
all employees performing work coming within its jurisdiction
cannot affect the certification.
The Board then found that, as the disputed classifications had not been
in existence at the time of the Board's decision, they were included
in the unit for which the Intervenor was certified as bargaining
representative.
In view of the Board's 1955 decision, to which we adhere, the only
question is the extent to which the classifications sought to be included
in the Petitioner's unit are already included in the Intervenor's pro-
duction and maintenance unit.4
There is no dispute that crane operators, locomotive engineers, and
switchmen are excluded from the production sand maintenance unit,
have been represented by the Petitioner for many years, and may
constitute an appropriate unit.
Of the remaining employees in the proposed unit, the Employer
does not have job classifications such as bulldozer operator, carryall
operator, backhoe shovel operator, cleatrac loader operator, or over-
head loader operator. Nor does it have equipment which employees
in these categories would normally operate. Accordingly, the unit
found appropriate hereinafter will not include any such classifications.
Since July 1, 1956, the^Employer has purchased the equipment for,
and has established the classifications of, roller operator and blade
or scraper operator.' The Employer has bargained with the Inter-
venor for such job categories since their creation. As these j obs were
not in existence in 1944, we find that they are included in the pro-
duction and maintenance unit.
Although the. classification of trenching machine operator has been
in existence a long time, it has never been represented-by the Peti-
tioner. We therefore exclude it from the proposed unit.
In the Petitioner's current collective-bargaining contract with the
Employer, there is a classification of "loader operator (tractor)."
The Intervenor's contract includes the classification "payloader oper-
ator." Both classifications operate similar equipment. The only
difference between "tractor loader" and "payloader" machines is that
the former rolls on tracks and the latter on rubber tires. The "loader
operator (tractor)" was not one of the classifications represented by
the Petitioner at the time of the 1944 certification., Accordingly, -it
was included within the scope of the certified production and main-
tenance unit. The fact that the Employer subsequently by contract
* The parties have stipulated that the Employer is part of the basic steel industry.
Under the National Tube Company doctrine (76 NLRB 1199 ), as affirmed in the American
Potash A Chemical Corporation case (107 NLRB 1418 ), severance of additional em-
ployees from the production and maintenance unit is precluded.
5 The blade or scraper is also referred to as the "motor patrol."
644 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
recogmzed.tlle Petitioner as the representative of this job classification
cannot affect the scope of the certification 6 We shall therefore
exclude tractor operators from the unit
The Petitioner seeks to include typewriter crane operators There
is no such job classification A "typewriter" crane has its controls
hanging about shoulder high from the floor and with those controls
the crane is operated by hand from the floor In contrast, a "cab
operated" crane is manipulated by an operator stationed in a cab
alongside the crane, 20 or 30 feet above the ground No special per-
son operates the "typewriter" crane Any employee can operate one
of them in connection with his work- The Employer has had "type-
writer" cranes since long before the 1944 certification At no time
has the Petitioner been recognized as representative of employees
operating such cranes Only the Intervenor has been so recognized
We find that employees operating "typewriter" cranes are included in
the unit for which the Intervenor is the certified bargaining repre-
sentative We shall exclude them from the proposed unit
We find that the following employees of the Employer constitute a
unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act'
All locomotive crane operators, ladle crane operators, overhead
scrapyard crane operators, pit crane operators, rolling mill crane
operators, overhead, fabrication crane operators, 30" mill billet crane
operators, 30" mill ingot crane operators, 16" mill billet crane oper-
ators, supply crane operators, crane leadermen, locomotive engineers,
and switchmen at the Employer's Niles, California, plant, excluding
typewriter crane operators, tractor operators, roller operators, blade
or scraper operators, trenching machine operators, payloader oper-
ators, A-frame truck operators, fork lift truck operators, production
and maintenance employees, office clerical employees, guards, and
supervisors as defined in the Act
[Text of Direction of Election 8 omitted from publication ]
8 Pacific States Steel Corporation 113 NLRB 222
7 7 In view of the above, we find that the Employer 's and Intervenor's motion to dismiss
the petition upon the grounds that ( 1) An existing collective-bargaining contract be-
tween the Employer and the Intervenor is a bar, and (2) the Petitioner is seeking to
carve out a unit from a basic steel industrial unit contrary to the doctrine enunciated
by the Board in National Tube Company, supra, and in American Potash t Chemical
Corporation, supra, and the Employer 's motion to dismiss the petition on the ground that
the unit sought by the Petitioner is contrary to the certification in Pacific States Steel
Corporation, supra, are without merit Accordingly , the motions are denied
8 The Intervenor requests that its name be placed on the ballot The Petitioner does
not oppose the request but questions the sufficiency of the Intervenor 's showing of interest
for such purpose In the circumstances of this case , including the Intervenor's con-
tractual interest in other employees gf,,the Employer , and the fact that no party opposes
the request, we find that the Intervenor's showing of interest is sufficient to warrant its
participation in the election See St Regis Paper Company, 80 NLRB 570