Reynolds Metals Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 6, 1951

93 N.L.R.B. 721 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

REYNOLDS METALS COMPANY 721
ing and storing yard at 1651 Marietta Street, Atlanta, which is about
6 miles from the Decatur Street address. All of the operations are
under the general supervision of a general manager as well as the
plant superintendent who is also the immediate supervisor of the
fabricating shop.
The fabricating shop has about 37 employees of w'lroni approxi-
mately 13 are skilled,' 12 are semiskilled, and 12 are common laborers.
There are 7 common laborers in the warehouse, 5 in the Decatur and
7 in Marietta Streets yards. The common laborers of the fabricat-
ing shop spend about 50 percent of their time working either with
the common laborers in the warehouse or the yards. At times the
common laborers from the warehouse and the yards assist the com-
mon laborers in the fabricating shop.
For a group of employees to constitute an appropriate bargaining
unit, such group must be at least a readily identifiable and honwgene-
ous group apart from other employees. Because of the interchange
here present, these elements are obviously lacking. Nor could the
unit be sustained upon a craft basis, as it consists of not only a uuilti-
craft grouping of skilled production and maintenance employees but
also includes unskilled laborers. The only other basis for finding the
requested unit appropriate would be the extent of the Petitioner's
organization among the employees at the Employer's plant.' How-
ever, Section 9 (c) (5) of the Act forbids our remaking a unit finding
on that factor alone. Accordingly, as the unit sought is inappro-
priate, we shall dismiss the petition herein.
Order
Upon the basis of the entire record in this case and for the reasons
set forth above, the National Labor Relations Board orders that the
petition filed herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
I These consist of the classifications of blacksmiths, layout men, machinists, punch and
shear men, set-up men, and welders.
2 Compare Bushnell Steel Company, 93 NLRB 669, wheiem the same Petitioner here
involved sought an over-all unit in a similar operation
REYNOLDS METALS COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
FIREMEN AND OILERS, A. F. OF L., PETITIONER . Case No. 5-RC-650.
March 6,1951
Decision and Direction of Election
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National La-
bor Relations Act, a hearing was held before John J. A. Reynolds, Jr.,
93 NLRB No. 100.
943732-51-47
722 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing
are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
National Labor Relations Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent employees
of the Employer?
3. The Intervenor contends that no question affecting commerce
exists because its current agreement with the Employer is a bar to
this proceeding. On May 31, 1949, the Intervenor was certified as
the exclusive bargaining representative for a unit of production and
maintenance employees employed at the Employer's Bellwood, Vir-
ginia, plant. It thereupon entered into an agreement with the Em-
ployer effective May 31, 1949, for a period of _1 year with provisions
for reopening and modification upon giving 60 days' prior notice. In
accordance with this provision of the agreement, the 1949 agreement
was reopened by the Intervenor on March 28, 1950. Pursuant to
negotiations thereunder, Lodge No. 10, International Association of
Machinists and the Employer entered into the current agreement
dated June 26, 1950. The current agreement excludes from its scope
the employees herein sought by the Petitioner until such time as the
Board shall have determined the rights of these employees to separate
representation. The petition herein was filed on May 4, 1950.
Because the current agreement does not at present cover the em-
ployees whom the Petitioner seeks to represent, the agreement cannot
constitute a bar to this proceeding.2 Moreover, the agreement cannot
bar this proceedi ng,. even assuming coverage of the group sought to
be represented, as the agreement was executed after the filing of the
petition herein.3
We find that a question affecting commerce exists 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.
4. The Petitioner seeks to sever a unit of boiler room operators
from the established unit of production and maintenance employees
currently represented by the Intervenor.4
The Intervenor contends that the boiler room operators may not
properly be severed from the existing unit of production and mainte-
nance employees because the operations of the Employer at the Bell-
International Association of Machinists and its Lodge No 10, herein called the
Intervenor, were permitted to interven6 on the basis of their contractual interests.
2 Gabriel Steel Company, SS NLRB 201.
New England Contasner Company, 92 NLRB 1430.
S At the present time there are approximately 50 to 60 employees in the unit represented
by the Intervenor
REYNOLDS METALS COMPANY 723
wood plant are part of basic operations in the aluminum industry.
In this connection, it relies on our decision in the case of The Per-
inanente Metals Corporation.5 The Employer takes no position as to
the applicability of the Permanente decision to the facts and circum-
stances in the present case.
The Employer is a Delaware corporation engaged in the processing
and fabrication of aluminum and aluminum products: It operates 52
plants in 19 States. The only plant involved is the Bellwood plant.'
It is located approximately 6 miles from the city limits of Richmond,
Virginia, where the Employer has other plants. The Bellwood plant,
which was constructed and. placed in operation in the latter part of
1948, is engaged in the reclamation of the aluminum and the paper
from scrap generated in the manufacture of laminated aluminum foil I
at the Richmond plants and other plants.8 Unlike conventional
methods of reclaiming aluminum scrap by melting in furnaces, the
aluminum (and the paper) is reclaimed by subjecting the aluminum
scrap to the action of chemicals through a reclamation process which
is apparently novel to the entire aluminum industry.
The process consists of passing the scrap aluminum through a ma-
chine known as a dynapulper. The pieces of aluminum scrap are
reduced in size by grinding, and then there is added to the scrap a
chemical agent which separates the paper from the aluminum and
defiberizes it. The resultant mixture is pumped into a stock chest
controlled by an employee known as a vortrap operator who also con-
trols the flow of material into a consistency regulator and then into
separation tanks. Here all particles of aluminum are removed from
the defiberized paper. The separated pulp is passed on to what is
known as a decker and then to a wet lap machine. At the point in
the process where the aluminum is separated from the pulp, the
aluminum is conveyed to a dry baler where the particles of aluminum
are dried and compressed into briquettes. There is little in the record
to show integration of the work of craft employees with the
production process.
The reclaimed aluminum is practically of the same quality as the
6 89 NLRB 804.
'As indicated above, the history of collective bargaining at this plant is brief, dating
only from the certification of the International Association of Machinists on May 31,
1949 , as the exclusive bargaining representative of the unit of production and maintenance
employees.
4 Laminated foil is essentially thin gauge aluminum foil with a paper backing affixed
to the metal by adhesives.
6 The Employer operates two plants in the city of Richmond designated as the South
and North plants. The South plant is essentially a rolling mill, processing heavy coils
of aluminum received from the heavy metals plants of the Employer. In addition to the
laminated aluminum foil, which the North plant also manufactures, the South plant
manufactures pure aluminum foil, a variety of embossed foils, and lead foil.
724 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
virgin aluminum from which the foil was initially made. Apparently
all the reclaimed aluminum is shipped to plants of the Employer other
than those manufacturing the laminated foil. Part of the reclaimed
aluminum is used for processing into aluminum powder, part for ex-
trusion into aluminum rod, and part is remelted and cast into ingots.
It appears that in ingot form the recovered aluminum has all of the
potential uses of the virgin aluminum. The record discloses that the
Employer plans to install a remelt furnace at the Bellwood plant so
that the aluminum recovered there may be cast into ingots at the
same place.
As noted above, the primary issue is whether the reclamation process
at the Bellwood plant falls within basic aluminum operations. In the
Permanente case, the Board had under consideration the problem as to
whether aluminum reduction and rolling mill operations were basic
operations in the aluminum industry, calling for a denial of separate
craft representation in accord with the principles enunciated in the
National Tube Company 9 case. Largely because of the similarity be-
tween the operations there under consideration and basic operations
in the steel industry, the Board concluded that the operations in the
Permanente case were basic to the aluminum industry. Accordingly,
in view of a showing of complete integration in the industry and a his-
tory of collective bargaining therein of a predominantly industrial
type, the Board found in the basic aluminum industry, as it had pre-
viously found with respect to other like industries," that separate
representation for electricians and other craft groups was
inappropriate.
The present operations, however, are totally unlike the basic opera-
tions considered in the Permanente case. Unlike operations involving
the conversion of bauxite ore into alumina," the present operations
are not an essential link in the flow of production leading from the
initial step of ore conversion to the end process in the rolling mill.
From an over-all viewpoint, it is apparent that the reclamation process
with which we are here concerned is merely ancillary to a manufac-
turing process which in turn is not clearly encompassed by the basic
industry operations 12 Moreover, the record fails to disclose that in
the present operations there is an inseparable integration of craft
function and production processes of the type required to establish the
0 76 NLRB 1199
10National Tube Company, supra , TPeyeihaeusev Timber Company (Spiinyfield Laiaber
Division), 87 NLRB 1076.
11 See Reynolds Metals Company (Hurricane Creek Plant), 92 NLRB 156
12 The Board has in numerous instances held that manufacturing processes which are
conducted for the purpose of fabricating commercial products are not within basic indus-
try operations See Donovan, Incorporated, 91 NLRB No 180; Standard Steel Spring Com-
pany, 90 NLRB 1805.
REYNOLDS METALS COMPANY 725
unity of interest among all employees as was shown to exist in the
Permanente case. Nor do we have here present a bargaining history
of such duration as would warrant a finding that the history of col-
lective bargaining reflected the predominantly industrial pattern of
bargaining in the industry generally. In view of the foregoing, we
find nothing in the operations of the type conducted at the Bellwood
plant which would preclude the establishment of craft groups.
The employees here sought to be represented are assigned to the
boiler room 13 which is located in a separate building at a slight
distance from the main area devoted to the reclamation process 14
The primary function of the boiler room is to furnish steam for the
production process which is dependent upon an uninterrupted flow of
such steam. Apart from such dependency, there is nothing in the
record to show integration of the work of the boiler room employees
with the production process generally. The parties agree that these
employees perform the duties customarily assigned to and performed
by boiler room operators in industry generally. Under the circum-
stances set forth above, we are of the view that, unlike the situation
in the Permanente case, collective bargaining in the present instance
will be best served by permitting separate representation to a group
of boiler room employees who, by the usual standards, are entitled
to such representation 15 We find, therefore, that the employees in
the proposed unit may, if they so desire, constitute a separate bar-
gaining unit. However, we shall reserve final determination in this
respect until the outcome of the election hereinafter directed.
We shall direct an election among all boiler room operators em-
ployed by the Employer at its Bellwood, Virginia, plant, excluding
all other employees and supervisors as defined in the Act. If a ma-
jority of the employees in this group vote for the Petitioner, they
will be taken to have indicated their desire to constitute a separate
bargaining unit.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
"The boilci room operates on a three-shift basis with one employee in attendance on
each shift. -
14 Although the process is said to be continuous , the record discloses that operations
proceed on a 5-day basis with essential maintenance and repairs performed on Saturday
and Sunday
35 Mere dependency of the production process on the operations of the boiler room does
not in and of itself suffice to deny separate representation to a conventional group of
boiler room employees See The American Box Poaid Company, 90 NLRB 122