Colorado Fuel & Iron Corp. v. National Labor R. Board

• Decision Date: 23 June 1941
• Docket Number: No. 2097.,2097.
• Citation: 121 F.2d 165
• Parties: COLORADO FUEL & IRON CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit

121 F.2d 165 (1941)

COLORADO FUEL & IRON CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD.

No. 2097.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

June 23, 1941.

Fred Farrar, of Denver, Colo. (Donald C. Swatland and W. T. Stewart, Jr., both of New York City, Farrar & Martin, of Denver, Colo., and Cravath, De Gersdorff, Swaine, & Wood, of New York City, on the brief), for petitioner.

A. T. Stewart, of Pueblo, Colo., for intervenor, Employees' Representative Organization.

Leonard Appel, of Washington, D. C. Atty., National Labor Relations Board (Robert B. Watts, Gen. Counsel, Laurence A. Knapp, Associate Gen. Counsel, Ernest A. Gross, Asst. Gen. Counsel, and Bertram Edises, Atty., National Labor Relations Board, all of Washington, D. C., on the brief), for respondent.

Before PHILLIPS, HUXMAN, and MURRAH, Circuit Judges.

PHILLIPS, Circuit Judge.

The Colorado Fuel and Iron Company filed a petition for reorganization under § 77B of the Bankruptcy Act, 11 U.S.C.A. § 207. The reorganization was effected and the Colorado Fuel and Iron Corporation was organized under the laws of Colorado. On July 1, 1936, it took over all the assets and property of the Colorado Fuel and Iron Company.¹

Petitioner filed its petition herein to review an order of the National Labor Relations Board.² In its answer the Board sought enforcement of the order.

Petitioner is engaged in the manufacture of iron and steel products, the quarrying of limestone, and the mining of iron ore and coal. It owns an iron and steel mill at Pueblo, Colorado, known as the Minnequa Plant, a number of coal mines in Colorado, an iron ore mine at Sunrise, Wyoming, and other iron ore mines in Colorado, New Mexico, California, and Utah.

On June 17, 1938, the International Union of Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers, Local 442,³ filed an amended charge alleging that petitioner had committed unfair labor practices at the Sunrise Mine. Local 442 is affiliated with the Committee on Industrial Organization.⁴ On the same date, the Steel Workers Organizing Committee,⁵ also affiliated with the C. I. O., filed an amended charge alleging that petitioner had engaged in unfair labor practices at the Minnequa Plant. The Board ordered the charges consolidated and filed its complaint against petitioner charging that it had dominated and interfered with the formation and administration of a labor organization at its Minnequa Plant, known as the Employees' Representatives' Organization,⁶ and had dominated and interfered with the formation and administration of a labor organization at its Sunrise Mine, also known as Employees' Representatives' Organization, and had contributed financial and other support to such organizations in violation of § 8(1) and (2) of the National Labor Relations Act,⁷ 49 Stat. 449, 29 U.S.C.A. § 158(1, 2), and had discouraged membership in the S. W. O. C. and in Local 442, and had refused to bargain collectively with Local 442 in violation of § 8(5) of the Act.

On June 28, 1938, the petitioner filed its answer denying the alleged unfair labor practices. On June 25, 1938, the Employees' Organization at the Minnequa Plant intervened in the proceeding and filed its answer denying the unfair labor practices at the Minnequa Plant.

A hearing was had in July, 1938, before an examiner. On October 22, 1938, the examiner filed his intermediate report, finding that petitioner had engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint. The petitioner and the Employees' Organization at the Minnequa Plant filed exceptions which were argued orally before the Board. On March 29, 1940, the Board entered its decision and order. The order directed the petitioner to cease and desist from dominating or interfering with the two Employees' Organizations or the formation or administration of any other organization of its employees, and from contributing financial or other support to such Employees' Organizations or to any other labor organization of its employees; from giving effect to contracts entered into between the petitioner and the two Employees' Organizations; from refusing to bargain collectively with Local 442 as the exclusive representative of the production and maintenance employees at the Sunrise Mine; from in any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in § 7 of the Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 157; to withdraw recognition from and completely disestablish the two Employees' Organizations as representatives of any of its employees for collective bargaining purposes; and upon request to bargain collectively with Local 442 as the exclusive representative of the production and maintenance employees at the Sunrise Mine.

I. The Minnequa Case.

The evidence adduced at the hearing established these facts: In 1916, an employees' representation plan⁸ was put into effect at the Minnequa Plant. A similar plan had been adopted at the petitioner's mines in October, 1915.⁹ The plan was initiated by John D. Rockefeller, Jr., a large stockholder in petitioner, in order to provide a procedure by which dissatisfied workers could present their grievances to the management and thus improve industrial relations. It was submitted to a vote of the employees at the Minnequa Plant and approved by a large majority of such employees. The plan divided the Minnequa Plant into divisions and subdivisions and provided for the annual election in such units of employees' representatives from and by the employees. All non-supervisory and nonsalaried employees in the service of petitioner for three months or more were entitled to vote. Only employees in the service of petitioner for one year or more were eligible to serve as representatives. The tenure of an employees' representative automatically terminated if his employment with petitioner ceased. The plan was based on a system of joint representation of employees and management. There were four principal committees, namely the Joint Committee on Industrial Cooperation and Conciliation, the Joint Committee on Safety and Accidents, the Joint Committee on Sanitation, Health and Housing, and the Joint Committee on Recreation and Education. On each committee there were six persons selected by and from the employees' representatives and six persons selected by the management. At committee meetings an official of petitioner presided and an employees' representative acted as secretary. The first of the above-named committees had jurisdiction over terms and conditions of employment and the settlement of industrial disputes. The functions of the three remaining committees are indicated by their titles. Under the procedure established respecting grievances, an employee believing himself aggrieved was first required to take up his grievance with his immediate superior and unless and until the matter was adjusted with higher offcials, in the order of their rank, up to the president of petitioner. Thereafter, an appeal could be taken to the Joint Committee on Industrial Cooperation and Conciliation. The plan also provided for arbitration if mutually agreed to by the parties to the dispute. It also provided for joint conferences at four-month intervals, called and presided over by petitioner's president.

The plan was wholly financed by petitioner. There were no initiation fees and no dues. Petitioner also bore the expenses of the annual election of employees' representatives, reimbursed employees' representatives for expenses incurred on trips to the Eastern industrial section of the country to study comparative wage rates, and bore the cost of printing and distributing to the employees of the monthly Industrial Bulletin and the plan booklets.

The plan provided that petitioner's president should call the elections and decide all questions concerning the validity of the nomination or election of any employees' representatives. However, in practice the employees were in full charge of the election procedure. The elections were conducted in the plant during working hours and petitioner furnished the ballots and ballot boxes. The plan could be amended by a majority vote at a joint meeting at which all employees' and management representatives were present.

The plan made no provision for general meetings of the employees. The direct participation of the employees in the plan was limited to voting at the annual election. The plan expressly provided that there should be no discrimination by the petitioner on account of membership or nonmembership in any union. The plan was accompanied by a memorandum of agreement by which the petitioner agreed to maintain wage rates and working conditions conforming substantially with those of its competitors.

The Board found that the plan was dominated and controlled by petitioner and this, petitioner does not deny.

In September, 1935, the employees' representatives appointed a committee to revise the plan. On September 10, 1936, the revised plan which had been prepared by the employees' representatives was presented separately to the employees' representatives and the management representatives and unanimously approved by each group. The principal changes were these: (a) Control of election procedure was formally vested exclusively in the employees' representatives, as had long been the practice; (b) amendment of provisions relating to election procedure or relating exclusively to the employees could be made by the vote of a majority of the employees' representatives; (c) the plan could be terminated by a majority vote of the eligible employees at any annual election; (d) arbitration was made compulsory at the instance of either party. Expenses of the employees' organization were still to be borne by petitioner.

Election of employees' representatives under the revised plan was held in January, 1937. In such election, 23 representatives were re-elected and 11 representatives were chosen to replace former incumbents.

Following the decision of the Supreme...