Reading Tube Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 23, 1958

120 N.L.R.B. 1604 (N.L.R.B. 1958)

1604 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Since the Respondents have refused to bargain with the Union, the Trial Examiner
will recommend that they bargain with the Union, upon request, and if an under-
standing is reached embody such understanding in a signed agreement.
Because the Respondents have been found to have discriminatorily discharged and
refused reinstatement to 13 named employees, it will be recommended that the
Respondents offer them immediate and full reinstatement to their former or sub-
stantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their seniority or other rights
and privileges, and make them whole for any loss of pay they may have suffered by
reason of the discrimination against them, by payment to each of them a sum of
money equal to that which he or she would normally have earned between January
21, 1957, and the date of offer of reinstatement, less his or her net earnings during
said period, such back pay to be computed in the manner established by the Board
in F. W. Woolworth Company, 90 NLRB 289.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Respondents are an employer within the meaning of Section 2 (2) of
the Act.
2. Since January 10, 1957, the Respondents have been and are engaged in com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
3. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of
the Act.
4. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of the 13
individuals listed in schedule A, attached hereto, thereby discouraging union mem-
bership and activity, the Respondents have engaged in and are engaging in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
5. All employees of Respondent Dunkirk (and since April 16, 1957, of Respondent
Lake Shore), excluding all professional employees, guards, 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.
6. At all times since September 5, 1956, the Union has been the exclusive repre-
sentative of all employees in the above unit for the purposes of collective bargaining,
by virtue of Section 9 (a) of the Act.
7. By refusing, on and after January 10, 1957, to bargain with the Union as the
representative of all employees in the aforesaid unit, the Respondents have engaged
in and are engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (5)
of the Act.
8. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act , the Respondents have engaged in and are
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
9. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
SCHEDULE A
Bernard Goodrich Fred Loeb Anthony Sedota
James Grace Daniel Neaverth Robert Spaulding
Margarita Jagoda Donald Novelli Henry Stranz
Anthony James Larry Sands Patricia Tworek
Virginia Kaltenbach
Reading Tube Corporation and United Steelworkers of America,
AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 4-RC-3501. June 23, 1958
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Morris Mogerman,
hearing officer . The hearing officer 's rulings made at the hearing are
free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
120 NLRB No. 206.
'READING TUBE CORPORATION 1605
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, Jenkins, and Fanning].
Upon the entire record hi this case, the'Board finds,:,
1. The Employer is engaged inr commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.'
3. Questions affecting commerce exist concerning the representation
of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1)
and Section 2-(6) and (7) of the Act, for' the following reasons:
Among the employees sought to be represented by the Petitioner in
the instant proceeding are production and maintenance employees at
Reading Tube Corporation. The ' Employer and the Intervenor urge
that, as to these employees, a contract bar exists?
On October 9, 1955, the Employer and the Intervenor entered into
a collective-bargaining• agreement covering all production and 'main-
tenance employees' at Reading Tube Corporation, to remain in force
until October 8, 1958. This contract was extended to October 8, 1959,
by a supplemental agreement dated October 9, 1956. The Petitioner
contends that the Intervenor's contract is not a bar because, among
other things, it contains unlawful union-security provisions.
Article III, which sets forth the union-security terms of the contract,
provides inter alia:
Upon notification from the Union to the Company that an em-
ployee is in bad standing for nonpayment of dues, such employee
shall be discharged from work within' seven (7) days after such
'notification, and shall not be recalled to work unless the Union
requests his reinstatement within thirty (30) days from date of
discharge: No employee shall be entitled' to receive any of ther
privileges or benefits provided in this Agreement while being in
bad standing with the Union. [Emphasis supplied.]
Thus, the contract provides for the discharge of members in bad
standing on account of nonpayment of dues, plus the further penalty,
enial of allagainst members "while being in bad standing," of denial'
privileges and benefits of the contract. It is well settled that an
obligation attaches to the exclusive bargaining representative, as well
as to the employer, to treat all employees in the bargaining unit im-
partially and without discrimination .3 The union-shop proviso to
I Steel Workers Federation was permitted to intervene on the basis of its contract cov-
ering production and maintenance employees at Reading Tube Corporation.
2 Since the filing of the petition , the Employer signed a separate contract with the In-
tervenor covering the Reading Metals Refining Corporation employees , whom the Peti-
tioner also seeks to represent here. This contract , however, is not alleged as a bar.
s Beater William Steele v. Louisville & Nashville Co., etc., 323 U. S. 192 , 203-204;
The Wallace Corporation v. N. L. R . B., 323 U. S. 248 , 256; Krambo Food ' Stpres, Incor-
porated, 106 NLRB 870 , 877-79.
1606 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Section 8 (a) (3) allows as the sole exception to the statutory ban
against discrimination, the discharge of members not in good standing
for failure to "tender the periodic dues and the initiation fees uni-
formly required as a condition of acquiring or retaining' member-
ship." 4 Under the contract here, the provision for denial of contract
privileges and benefits requires an additional and supplemental dis-
crimination beyond the permissive limits of Section 8 (a) (3) e .Ac-
cordingly, as the contract contains an illegal union-security clause, we
find that it cannot constitute a bar to these proceedings.6
4. The Petitioner seeks to represent a three-plant unit consisting of
all employees of Reading Tube Corporation, Reading Metals Refining
Corporation, and Readi-Fin Manufacturing Company, hereinafter
referred to as Tube, Metals, and Readi-Fin, respectively. The Em-
ployer and the Intervenor contend that only separate bargaining units
are appropriate.
Metals and Readi-Fin are wholly owned subsidiaries of Tube.
Metals, which was organized in April 1956, is a refinery converting
copper and raw materials into copper billets. Tube, the parent, is
a manufacturer of copper tubing and brass pipe. Readi-Fin converts
ordinary tubing into either finned or bent tubing, for various spe-
cialized uses. Metals has heretofore sold all its copper billets to Tube,
although it anticipates eventually acquiring other customers. Readi-
Fin, which is still on an experimental basis, purchases tubing solely
from Tube.
The three corporations have common ownership and management .7
The industrial relations director of Tube, with the aid of two assist-
ants, advises the other plants on labor relations matters. New em-
ployees for all three plants are screened initially by Tube. Identical
signatures appear on paychecks for all three companies. As noted
above, the operations of the three plants are interrelated in that Metals
sells principally to Tube, and Readi-Fin purchases from Tube. All
these factors support Petitioner's contention that a three-plant unit
may be appropriate."
' ' Other factors, however, support the appropriateness of separate
plant units,, as urged by the Employer and the Intervenor.' The
three plants are distinctly separate geographically : Readi-Fin and
Metals are 21/2 and 8 miles distant, respectively, from Tube. There
4' See Union Starch d Refn+.ng Company, 87 NLRB 779, enfd. 186 F. 2d 1008 (C. A. 7),
cert. denied 342 U. S. 815.
8 K ambo Food Stores, Incorporated, supra.
6Nataonal Malleable and Steel Castings Company, 99 NLRB 737, 739. In view " of'our
determination herein, we find it unnecessary to pass upon the Petitioner's other conten-
tions that the contract is no bar.
1 On the record in this case , we find that Tube, Metals and Readi -Fin constitute a single
employer for purposes of the representation issues _ herein involved . See Gates Engineer-
ing Company, 115 NLRB 1528, 1531.
8 See -Lumber Fabricators, Inc., 110 NLRB 1817; Simplex Tool and Die ' Corporation, 107
NLRB 750 ; May d Bailey Manufacturing Company, etc., 106 NLRB 210.
9 Id. ' - '
READING TUBE CORPORATION 1607
is a substantial variation in the skills exercised by the respective em-
ployees of each plant.- Each plant has its own superintendent, who,
with the advice of Tube, acts autonomously in regard to hiring, firing,
and labor policies. Nor do we find on this record that the Metals
and Readi-Fin plants constitute an accretion to the Tube plant.lo
As we find that either a three-plant unit, or separate plant units,
may be appropriate, we shall make no final unit determination at this
time, but shall direct that the questions concerning representation
which exist be resolved by separate elections among the employees in
the following voting groups, including watchmen, but excluding all
salaried employees, clerical employees, engineers, laboratory tech-
nicians, guards, and all supervisors as defined in the Act :
A. All production and maintenance employees employed by Reading
Tube Corporation at its Reading, Pennsylvania, plant.
B. All production and maintenance employees employed by Reading
Metals Refining Corporation at its plant in Ontelaunee Township,
Pennsylvania.
C. All production and maintenance employees employed by Readi-
Fin Manufacturing Company at its Reading, Pennsylvania, plant.
If a majority of employees in any one of the three voting groups
select the Intervenor, they will be taken to have indicated their desire
for separate representation, and the Regional Director is instructed
to issue a certification to the Intervenor for such unit, which we find,
in the circumstances, to be appropriate for purposes of collective bar-
gaining. In such event, the Board finds that groups A, B, and C con-
stitute separate appropriate units, and the votes in each group shall
be counted, and the results certified, separately. If the Intervenor
is not selected by any of the voting groups for separate representation,
the votes in all three groups shall be pooled." If a majority of em-
ployees in the pooled group select the Petitioner, the Regional Director
is instructed to issue a certification of representatives to such labor
organization for a unit of the combined voting groups, which we find
under such circumstances to be appropriate for the purposes of collec-
tive bargaining. In all other events, the Regional Director is in-
structed to issue certification of representatives '12 or a certification of
results of elections, as appropriate in the circumstances.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.]
10 See, e. g., Illinois Malleable Iron Company, et al., 120 NLRB 451.
11 In the event the votes are pooled, they shall be accorded their face value.
12 The Petitioner has not indicated on the record that it is unwilling to represent the
employees in separate units in the event the employees vote for separate representation.
Therefore, if it receives a majority of the votes in any of the voting groups, it may be
certified for such separate plant. However, if the Petitioner does not wish to represent
the employees in a separate unit or units, it may notify the Regional Director to that
effect within ten (10) days of the date of this Decision and Direction of Elections.