Bath Iron Works Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsFeb 11, 1953

102 N.L.R.B. 1263 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

BATH IRON WORKS CORPORATION 1263 other supervisors as defined in the Act,is constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Sec- tion 9 (b) of the Act. 5. Because the seasonal employment peak at the plant has passed, we shall not direct that an election be held at this time. In accord- ance with the usual practice in seasonal operations, we shall direct that the election be held at or about the time of the employment peak of the next canning season, on a date to be determined by the Regional Director, among the employees in the appropriate unit who are em- ployed during the payroll period immediately preceding the date of the Notice of Election by the Regional Director?' [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this volume.] 10 As previously indicated , temporary and part -time employees are also excluded from among those eligible to vote. 1T American Fruit Grow ers, Ino., 101 NLRB 740; Arena-Norton, Inc., et aL, 93 NLRB 375. BATH IRON WORKS CORPORATION and INDUSTRIAL UNION OF MARINE AND SHIPBUILDING WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER. Case No. 1-RC-3063. February 11, 1953 Decision and Direction of Election Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Robert E. Greene, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. 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-mem- ber panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Murdock]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent employees ,of the Employer. 3. International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders and Helpers of America, AFL, and its Local 168, herein called the Intervenor, urges its current contract with the Employer, effective until September 25, 1953, as a bar to this proceeding. The current term of this contract was established on March 20, 1951, when the In- tervenor and the Employer prematurely extended an earlier agree- ment. (Bath Iron Works Corp., 101 NLRB 849, in which the 102 NLRB No. 135. 1264 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Board found the same contract to bar an election sought by the Peti- tioner, because 2 years had not yet elapsed after its execution.) It is clear, as the Board found in its earlier decision, that in this industry contracts of more than 2 years' duration are not customary. It is argued here, however, that the Board's 2-year contract bar rule ought not to be applied, in deference to the Employer's past practice of nego- tiating contract renewals in the fall of the year, and because the par- ties intended, and would have been privileged, to add 2 years to their contractual agreement in August 1951, before expiration of the cer- tification issued by the Board on August 11, 1950. Cf. Quaker Maid Co., Inc., 71 NLRB 915. We find no merit in these contentions. We also reject the Intervenor's assertion that a June 1952 amend- ment to the agreement supplanted the March 1951 contract. By this amendment the parties altered certain wage and holiday provisions of the contract, and reaffirmed the existing duration clause by specify- ing anew that the contract should expire as already scheduled. The document is clearly an amendment to the existing agreement and therefore did not constitute a new contract. To hold that the mere restatement of a set termination date in a contract modification creates a new contract would jeopardize the right of employees to challenge the incumbent bargaining agent at predictable intervals. As the Intervenor's contract does not bar a present determination of representatives, 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. In accordance with an agreement of the parties we find that all production and maintenance employees of the Employer at its plants at Bath and Brunswick, Maine, including apprentices, truckdrivers, janitors, janitresses, storekeepers, toolmakers, toolkeepers, and those working in stores for the purpose of supplying the men with tools, supplies, or other equipment or things, but excluding executives, office and clerical employees, timekeepers, counters, ship calendar men, ship checkers, ship expediters, ship technicians, draftsmen, technical engi- neers, salaried employees, first aid employees, any individual employed as a guard, watchman, or security patrolman to enforce against em- ployees and other persons rules to protect the safety of persons on the Company's premises, professional employees, and all 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 National Labor Relations Act. 5. The Employer opposes any election at this time on the ground that its present complement of employees is not representative of its INDUSTRIAL COTTON MILLS 1265 regular staff. The number of employees in the unit varies as the volume of the Employer's production orders changes. The Employer expects a decline, possibly to the extent of 50 percent of present em- ployment, starting in March and reaching a low point in June or July. On the strength of present orders the number of employees will rise again towards the end of the year. Type of work and job classi- fications do not change during such variances in overall employment which are normal at this shipyard. Depending upon the length of service, laid-off employees retain seniority rights in recall. On these facts, we find no merit in the Employer's contention that no election should be held until the low point of employment is reached.' We shall therefore direct an immediate election in accordance with Board policy. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this volume.] I Owen Steel Co., Inc., 92 NLRB 1334. INDUSTRIAL COTTON MILLS ( DIVISION OF J. P. STEVENS Co.) and TEx- TILE WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA , CIO . Case No. 11-CA-513. February 11, 1953 Decision and Order On November 12,1952, Trial Examiner Arthur Leff issued his Inter- mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Re- spondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) and (3) of the Act, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent filed exceptions to the Inter- mediate Report and a supporting brief. The Board 1 has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter- mediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the Trial Examiner's findings, conclusions, and recommendations 2 1 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 [ Chairman Herzog and Mem- bers Houston and Murdock]. 2 The Trial Examiner found that the evidence did not support the complaint allegations of unlawful discrimination as to Dorothy Alton, Thomas Crouch, Naomi Baker, Roy T. Collins , and Alexander West. As no exceptions have been filed to these findings, we adopt them pro forma. 102 NLRB No. 126.