United States Steel Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 12, 1971

192 N.L.R.B. 58 (N.L.R.B. 1971)

58 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
United , States Steel Corporation ?! ,and United Steel-
workers of America , AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case
6-RC-5704
July 12, 1971
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS BROWN
AND JENKINS
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hearing
was held before Hearing Officer Mark A. Rock,
Following the hearing and pursuant to Section 102.67
of the National Labor Relations Board Rules and
Regulations and Statements of Procedure, Series 8, as
amended, this case was transferred to the National
Labor Relations Board for decision. Briefs were
timely filed by the Employer and Petitioner.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel.
The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's
rulings made at the hearing and finds that they are
free from prejudicial error. They 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 Act, and it will effectuate the
purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
2. The labor organization involved claims to
represent certain employees of the Employer.
3. No question affecting commerce exists concern-
ing the representation of certain employees of the
Employer within the meaning of Sections 9(c)(1) and
2(6) and (7) of the Act for the following reasons:
At both the hearing and in its brief, Petitioner
described the requested unit as "all craft and
maintenance employees, including group leaders,2
employed at the Employer's Applied Research Labo-
ratory facilities located at Monroeville and Universal,
Pennsylvania, excluding all other employees, techni-
cians, laboratory assistants, draftsmen, illustration
artists, office clerical employees, plant clerical em-
ployees, professional employees, guards and supervi-
sors as defined in the Act." In its brief, however,
Petitioner further stated that "The employees who
would be included in this unit constitute the Employ-
er's Division 6-Shops and Maintenance-at its
Monroeville" and Universal facilities, thereby appar-
ently restricting the scope of the requested unit.
Subject to this modification, Petitioner does not seek
an alternative unit.
,Petitioner contends that the employees sought have
a sufficient community of interest to warrant. their
inclusion in,a separate appropriate unittbecause they
constitute a closely',,identifiable;,,functionally distinct
and homogeneous group since- their work , wand
interests differ from those of the employees in the
several research divisions of the Employer's research
center. More specifically, Petitioner argues basically
that the employees in issue are engaged primarily in
providing routine craft, janitorial, maintenance, and
utility services to all of the center's buildings,
equipment, and employees, and that the homogeneity
of those employees is not impaired even though
"some of [their] functions and duties" overlap with
those of the research technicians with whom "of
necessity" they must work in "close cooperation and
proximity" and "in some coordination" on research
projects.
The Employer argues that the requested unit is
inappropriate because it is not a distinct functional,
homogeneous, or even a traditionally departmental
grouping of employees, with a sufficient mutuality of
interests which would entitle them to separate
representation. The Employer further contends that
only a research centerwide unit is appropriate because
of the unique nature of its operation and the closely
integrated functional and operational interrelation-
ship between employees and among all areas of
research and all divisions at the center.
The Employer, a basic steel producer, is engaged in
both fundamental and applied research and develop-
ment (R and D) work at its research center which is
comprised of facilities located at Monroeville, Penn-
sylvania, where the major portion of its overall R and
D program is conducted, and at various other
facilities, including those located at Universal and
Murrysville, Pennsylvania, both of which are located
within 10-15 miles from Monroeville. No manufac-
turing or production work is carried on in any of these
facilities. The applied research segment of its center is
administratively organized into seven areas of re-
search with various divisions (chemical, mathemati-
cal, electrical, structural, etc.) thereunder. The basic
function and objective of the center is to research and
develop new equipment, new products, new processes,
and new concepts relating generally to the Employer's
products. These objectives are accomplished on the
task force principle of utilizing the particular and
individual skills of such employees as may be
necessary, regardless of the area or division to which
they may be assigned. The research and development
of a process, or a project, or a piece of equipment
therefore requires a coordinated effort between the
various divisions, including Division 6.
I The Employer's name appears as amended at the hearing . meaning of the Act.
2 The parties stipulated that group leaders are not supervisors within the
192 NLRB No. 12
UNITED STATES STEEL CORP. 59
Division 6 is categorized by the. Employer as Shops
and Maintenance, and there arevarious machine and
electrical shops which ,are utilized primarily by-the
employees in this division,' although technicians from
other divisions-also -use the,shops on occasion. The
division's _246 ,employees are, by and large, classified
by various maintenance and craft job titles, but there
is no evidence that the Employer requires craft status
for the-performance, of the duties -required by the
employees, of Division 6, or of -any division, or that
any employee was required to have achieved craft
status as a prerequisite for employment. Indeed, the
record shows that the Employer has no apprenticeship
training program, that the.three employees shown to
be craftsmen acquired that status while employed
elsewhere, and that. the. Employer uses the janitor
classification as an entry level J or many higher
positions, including , technicians' positions, . in _all,
divisions throughout the center. Moreover, although
Petitioner -,seeks -to represent craftsmen, it- has not
designated, nor does the record indicate, which job
titles or employees fall within that grouping. We must
conclude, therefore, that no craft grouping as such
exists at the center.
The record further shows that there is not a separate
group of maintenance employees within the tradition-
al industrial meaning employed at the center, that
while Division 6 employees perform maintenance
work, such work also is performed by technicians in
various divisions, and that maintenance work is but a
part of the total responsibilities of many, if not most,
of the Division 6 employees whose basic function is to
augment the R and D work by routinely participating
with technicians in various aspects of designing,
construction, maintenance, and repair of experimen-
tal research equipment. The record is replete with
instances of such close cooperation not only with
regard to experimental equipment, but also as to
experimental projects, i.e., a Division 6 welder and
Division 8 technicians jointly developed, fabricated,
and constructed a mine cable splicing unit; the sole
Division 6 fitter worked, on a daily basis, with
Division 2 technicians in identifying, laying out, and
flame cutting pipe specimen material. Moreover, the
maintenance tasks performed by Division 6 employ-
ees are limited in both degree and scope. Thus, those
classified as janitors perform normal janitorial and
housekeeping tasks, but not for the entire center nor
to the exclusion of technicians in the ceramics
laboratory, or those in the pilot coke oven area who,
for example, clean their own work areas, or the
technicians in the canning kitchen who maintain and
clean their equipment at the end of test runs, or the
storeroom attendants attached to the accounting
department who clean up their areas. In addition,
Division 4 employees perform all the construction,
installation, and maintenance of glass apparatus at
the center, using tools such as torches, pliers;.-files,
cutoff wheels, and soldering equipment. Division I 1
ceramics technicians mix and.form refracting materi-
als and, utilizing, a bricklayer's skill, lay-the brick into
simulated furnace walls. This, group also assists
Division 8 technicians in the replacement of refracto-
ry linings in various pieces of pilot equipment.
Further, Division 8 technicians have laid tile in the
center's lockerroom, and Division I I -technicians have
engaged in painting. Moreover, welding, soldering,
and brazing operations are, and' have been, performed
by technicians in Division"8 and ' 18 as'-well as by
Division 6 welders who, in addition to performing
routine maintenance welding work, also have worked
side by side, with, and under the, direction " of,
technicians on various experimental equipment; and
projects. In 'performing their - overlapping ' work,
moreover, the technicians and Division 6 employees
often perform the same type of work, utilize the same
tools, and work under common supervision.
The portion, of time which Division 6 employees
spend working on R and D'' equipment and/or with
technicians or professional employees on experimen-
tal processes or projects apparently varies according
to job classification and the type of experimental
work involved. The testimony of a Division 6
electrician reveals, for example, that he spends about
20 percent of his time working with technicians on
their projects, and that during this time, he makes
changes and adjustments on the equipment used for
those projects, and that he has collaborated with
technicians in making up drawings for such equip-
ment. On the other hand, a Division 6 pipefitter
testified that he has spent approximately 50 percent of
his time performing pipefitting work on R and D
projects for technicians or engineers. The 42 machin-
ists in Division 6, however, spend only 10-20 percent
of their time on pure maintenance work, while the
remaining 80-90 percent is involved in the design and
modifications of R and D equipment on various
projects.
The close coordination and cooperation which
exists between Division 6 employees and the techni-
cians also exists between the technicians in the various
divisions in the center, including those in the facilities
located at Monroeville, Universal, and Murrysville,
who also collaborate in the designing and construc-
tion of R and D projects and equipment which they
also maintain and repair without assistance from
Division 6 employees, using "craftsmen's" tools and
equipment.
The record further shows that the Employer has,
over the years, permanently transferred many Divi-
sion 6 employees to other jobs in other divisions and
locations throughout the center in addition to those
60 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
temporarily transferred or assigned forxthe purpose of
augmenting the technicians and professional employ-
ees of other divisions, While much of the R and D
work is performed at the Monroeville facility,
definitive projectsusing experimental equipment also
are conducted at' the nearby Murrysville facility,
where two Division 6 employees assist Division 5
technicians iii modifying and maintaining the equip-
ment used there, and at the Universal facility, where
nine Division 6'employees are located. Regardless of
location, `however, all of the center's approximately
1,500 employees share substantially the same working
conditions and`enjoy common conditions of employ-
ment and fringe benefits.
In ;view of the integrated functional and operational
nature,of the Employer's operation, the 'interchange
of work-'and personnel between technicians of the
various divisions, the routine contact with and
interrelationship of work duties between the,techni-
cians and Division 6yemployees who augment the R
and D work of; the former by ' participating in such
workat the three facilities named above, the perform-
ance of many of. the traditional mai'fiteriance func-
tions ' by technicians ` 1who utilize many of the same
procedures and tools' as, Division 6 employees, the
common supervision, then permanent transfers' of,
Division 6 employees °to other jobs in other divisions
throughout the center, and'the sharing- of common
conditions of, employment, we are persuaded that any
separate;i community of interest which the "craft" or
"maintenance" employees might., enjoy,, has been
largely submerged into the broader community of
interests which 'those employees share with other.
center employees.
.n Further,, we -find that the foregoing considerations
preclude the establishment of a separate appropriate
unit on either a maintenance or a departmental,basis,
and that the evidence has not sufficiently, established
a craft grouping of Division 6 or, other .employees,
thereby negating the constitution of a separate
appropriate unitonthat basis.
Based upon our evaluation of the facts of this case,
we conclude that the unit sought by Petitioner is not
composed of a. distinct and homogeneous group of
employees with interests, separate from.. those of other-
employees- and, therefore, is not anappropriate: unit.
Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petition. - I
11
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY -ORDERED that the petition filed herein
be, and, it hereby is, dismissed.