American Dredging Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 16, 1970

180 N.L.R.B. 800 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

800 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
American Dredging Company and International
Union of Operating Engineers, Local 627,
AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case 16-RC-5132
January 16, 1970
DECISION AND CERTIFICATION OF
REPRESENTATIVE
BY MEMBERS FANNING, BROWN, AND JENKINS
On March 20, 1969, pursuant to a stipulation for
certification upon consent election entered into by
the parties hereto, an election by secret ballot was
conducted in the above-entitled proceeding, under
the direction and supervision of the Regional
Director for Region 16. At the conclusion of the
election, a tally of ballots was furnished the parties
in accordance with the Rules and Regulations of the
National Labor Relations Board which showed that
of approximately 19 eligible voters, 19 cast votes for
International Union of District 50, United Mine
Workers of America, the Intervenor, 1 cast a vote
for the Petitioner, and 2 cast votes against the 2
participating labor organizations. There were no
challenged ballots. Thereafter, on March 26, 1969,
the Petitioner filed timely objections to conduct
affecting the results of the election.
On August 26, 1969, the Regional Director issued
his report on objections and notice of hearing in
which he found that the investigation of Petitioner's
Objection 21 raised substantial and material issues of
fact and law requiring resolution on the basis of
record testimony. A hearing was held before
Hearing Officer Sharon S. Boles on September 16,
1969, at Sallisaw, Oklahoma. The Hearing Officer's
rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial
error and are hereby affirmed. In her report the
Hearing Officer recommended that Objection 2 be
sustained and that the election be set aside.
Thereafter, the Employer filed exceptions to the
Hearing Officer's report and a supporting brief.
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.
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 organizations involved claim to
represent certain employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists
concerning the representation of employees of the
'Objection No 2 states
The Employer, through its Management and its Agents , did engage in
certain activities , including promises of monetary benefits over and
above their present rate -of-pay, that deprived its Employees of free
choice in the election.
Employer within the meaning of Sections 9(c)(1)
and 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. As stipulated by the parties, the following
employees constitute a unit appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9(b) of the Act:
All employees of the Company engaged in
dredging operations afloat and ashore and work
incidental thereto in the State of Oklahoma,
excluding all office clerical employees, guards,
supervisors within the meaning of the National
Labor Relations Act.
5. The Hearing Officer found that at various
times during the critical period between the filing of
the petition (February 10) and the date of the
election (March 20) the Employer told a number of its
employees that when the task of assembling the
dredge was completed and actual dredging
operations commenced, the employees could look
forward to a raise in pay which would put them at
least on a par with the employees of other dredging
companies in the area. She concluded that these
announcements, in the absence of any evidence that
they were governed by factors other than the
pendency of the election, interfered with the
employees' free choice in the selection of a
bargaining representative. We do not agree.
The record shows that hiring of men for the work
of assembling the dredge began in late January
1969. Superintendent Chappel testified that he told
about 75 percent of the men at the time of their
hire, or shortly thereafter, that after the dredge
"started pumping sand" they could expect to receive
higher wages. Chappel's testimony was corroborated
by employee Hight who testified that on or about
February 1 Chappel stated to a group of about eight
employees that when the dredge got in the water
and started pumping "we would make a lot more
money. He told us we'd probably be making more
money than we had ever made in our lives, I believe
was that he stated, and working seven days a week,
and it'd be a good paying job." Hight further
testified that within 2 or 3 days all the employees
had heard of and were discussing the February 1
conversation and that it remained a prime topic of
discussion amongst the employees on the job up to
the time of the election.
Chappel explained that in the dredging business
the task of assembling a dredge requires lower paid
unskilled labor whereas when dredging operations
begin, the work becomes skilled and employees
become qualified to receive the higher wage rates
applicable to skilled classifications. Thus, he
testified, the reason he told the men at the time they
were hired they would be paid more after the dredge
started pumping was because "several of them
would be skilled at that time, levermen , engineers,
electricians" and because he "wanted to keep the
dredge going and for them to stay with American
Dredging Company . . . ." There is no evidence on
the record that management, either before or after
180 NLRB No. 122
AMERICAN DREDGING COMPANY 801
February 10, coupled its remarks regarding the
prospective wage increases with any references,
adverse or otherwise, to either of the contending
labor organizations.
In view of the foregoing , and particularly in light
of the facts that (I) the inital announcements to the
employees were made prior to the filing of the
petition during the inception of the dredging project;
(2) the announcements were made to newly hired
employees for the plausible business purpose of
encouraging the employees to remain with the
company throughout the entire dredging operation;
and (3) the lack of evidence that the promised wage
increases were in any way related to the victory or
defeat of either of the competing unions, we find
that the announcements of wage increases by the
Employer prior to the election were not made for
the purpose of influencing the votes of the
employees in the election. Accordingly, as the tally
shows the Intervenor has obtained a majority of the
valid ballots cast, we shall certify it as the
collective-bargaining representative in the
appropriate unit.
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVE
It is hereby certified that International Union of
District 50, United Mine Workers of America, has
been designated and selected by a majority of the
employees in the unit found appropriate herein as
their representative for the purposes of collective
bargaining and that, pursuant to Section 9(a) of the
Act, the said labor organization is the exclusive
representative of all employees in such unit for the
purposes of collective bargaining with respect to
rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other
terms and conditions of employment.