Bethlehem Steel Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 14, 1954

108 N.L.R.B. 241 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

BETHLEHEM STEEL COMPANY 241
APPENDIX B
NOTICE
TO ALL MEMBERS OF LOCAL 135, INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WARE-
HOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, AFL, AND TO ALL
EMPLOYEES OF HARGIS TRUCK LINE, INC.
Pursuant to the Recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations
Board , and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended
we hereby notify you that:
WE WILL NOT cause nor attempt to cause Hargis Truck Line, Inc., its officers,
agents, successors , or assigns , to discriminate against employees in regard to their
hire or tenure of employment , or any term or condition of employment , in violation
of Section 8 (a) (3) of the National Labor Relations Act.
WE WILL NOT restrain or coerce employees of Hargis Truck Line , Inc., in the
exercise of the rights guaranteed under Section 7of the Act, including the right to refrain
from engaging in any or all of the activities guaranteed thereunder , except to the extent
that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor
organization as a condition of employment , as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act.
WE WILL make whole Floyd M. Skiles for any loss of earnings suffered because of
the discrimination against him.
WE WILL notify Hargis Truck Line, Inc., in writing , that we have no objection to the
employment by said corporation of Floyd M. Skiles.
LOCAL 135„ INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD
OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSE-
MEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, AFL
Dated . ............... By.............................................................................. ............
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof and must not be altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
BETHLEHEM STEEL COMPANY, SHIPBUILDING DIVISION,
BEAUMONT YARD and PIPEFITTERS LOCAL UNION NO.
195, AFL, Petitioner. Case No. 39-RC-678. April 14, 1954
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 Clifford W.
Potter, 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 Act.
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 Employer within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. The
Employer's motion to dismiss is denied for reasons indicated
herein.
108 NLRB No. 51.
339676 0 - 55 - 17
242 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
4. The Petitioner seeks to sever from the existing plantwide
unit a separate craft unit of pipefitter leadermen , pipefitters,
pipe welders, and pipefitter helpers. The Employer and the
Intervenor oppose the requested unit and contend that only a
plantwide unit is appropriate , essentially on the following
grounds:
(a) The long bargaining history on an industrial basis at the
Beaumont Yard, at other shipyards of the Employer, and at
major shipyards of other employers on the "Gulf Coast"; (b)
the integrated nature of the Employer's ship building and re-
pairing operations , and the high degree of coordination in the
work of the various crafts employed; and (c) the mutuality
of interest of employees in all the crafts.
At its Beaumont Yard, the Employer is engaged in ship
building and repairing , which entails about 75 percent of its
operations , and in the fabrication of steel , which entails the
remaining 25 percent . From 1938, when it was certified by
the Board, until sometime in 1947, Beaumont Metal Trades
Council, composed of various AFL craft locals, was recog-
nized by and entered into collective -bargaining contracts with
Pennsylvania Shipyards , Inc., the Employer ' s predecessor, on
behalf of a plantwide bargaining unit. After the Employer ac-
quired the plant in 1947, this relationship was continued un-
changed: In 1950, Beaumont Metal Trades Counciland Local
No. 395, International Association of Machinists, jointly, herein
collectively referred to as the Intervenor, was certified by the
Board as joint bargaining agent for a plantwide unit , and has
held until the present successive bargaining contracts with the
Employer . The Petitioner has been one of the craft unions
comprising Beaumont Metal Trades Council and, as was
testified , will still be qualified to continue such membership
should it be certified hereinas the separate representative
of the pipefitters.
No contention has been made that the pipefitters in question
are not craftsmen. These employees thread, bend, and fabricate
pipe; they operate from blueprints and generally perform the
traditional functions of the pipefitter trade . As of the present
the Employer has no formal training program for pipefitters,
although such a program was in operation during the war.
The most recent contract provides for the formulation of a
program for apprentices and, as appears in the contract, there
is a program in effect for electricians. The Employer hires
journeymen pipefitters or experienced pipefitter helpers, whom
it later progresses to the full status of pipefitter. Journeymen
pipefitters receive an hourly wage commensurate with that paid
other skilled craftsmen of the Employer. The various crafts
employed in the plant are accorded separate recognition and
representation on the union committee which negotiates with
the Employer and in the grievance procedures practiced by
the contracting parties.
Pipefitters assigned to the pipe shop spend substantially all
their time fabricating pipe in the pipe shop, which is separately
BETHLEHEM STEEL COMPANY 243
located and supervised. Pipefitters assigned to the maintenance
department work together with other crafts on jobs around
the plant under the supervision of a maintenance supervisor
who is a machinist. Those assigned to ship building and repair
also work in crews made up of various crafts which operate
under a foreman who is himself in the boilermaker craft. It
was testified on the part of the Employer that a high degree of
coordination between the different crafts is necessary in the
work of the plant maintenance crews and the ship building
and repair crews.
Under the Board's recently issued comprehensive rulings
on the question of craft severance in the American Potash
case ,' the factors of a plantwide bargaining history and integra-
tion of production processes which are here asserted by the
Employer and Intervenor in opposition to the Petitioner's
severance request, are in any case not determinative of the
appropriate bargaining unit. In our opinion, the facts here
satisfy the affirmative criteria enunciated in American Potash
governing the appropriateness of a unit for severance purposes.
Thus, we find that the unit sought herein constitutes a true
craft, as that term has been defined in American Potash, and
that the Petitioner has traditionally represented the pipefitter
craft.
As above noted, the unit requested by the Petitioner includes
pipe welders. The record shows that employees generally
classified as welders are regularly assigned to work with the
pipefitters. These employees have been hired as experienced
welders or have had on-the-job training with the Employer.
Under the terms of the contract they receive full journeymen's
pay. On certain pipe welding jobs to be performed for the
Employer, these employees must qualify by taking standard
examinations testing their skill. Consistent with Board policy,
we shall include in the pipefitters' unit those welders who
are regularly assigned to work with this craft!
Accordingly, we shall direct that a separate election be
conducted among employees at the Employer' s Beaumont,
Texas, yard, in the following voting group:
All pipefitter leadermen; pipefitters, pipefitter helpers,
welders regularly assigned to work with pipefitters, ex-
cluding all other employees, guards, professional employees,
and supervisors as defined in the Act.
If a majority of the employees in the voting group vote for
the Petitioner, they will be taken to have indicated their desire
i American Potash & Chemical Corporation, 107 NLRB 1418.
2 See, e.g., Kennecott Copper Corp., 106 NLRB 390; Macon Craft Co., 100 NLRB 1509.
244 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to be represented in a separate bargaining unit . If a majority
of these employees vote for the Intervenor, the Regional
Director shall issue a certification of results of the election
to that effect and they will remain a part of the existing
plantwide unit.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
Member Beeson took no part in the consideration of the
above Decision and Direction of Election.
FRESH'ND-AIRE COMPANY, DIVISION OF CORY CORPORA-
TION and DISTRICT NO. 140, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIA-
TION OF MACHINISTS, AFL, Petitioner. Case No . 13-RC-
3190. April 14, 1954
THIRD SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION and
CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
On January 20, 1954, the Board issued its Second Supple-
mental Decision and Direction herein, directing the Regional
Director for the Thirteenth Region to open and count certain
ballots which had been challenged in the election held herein
on September 3, 1953, and to prepare and serve upon the
parties a revised tally of ballots.' Pursuant thereto, the
ballots in question were opened and counted, and a revised
tally of ballots was prepared and served: The revised tally
shows that 60 valid votes were counted, of which 42 were
cast for the Petitioner and 18 were cast against the Petitioner;
there were 10 void ballots; and there were 4 unopened chal-
lenged ballots.
On February 3, 1954, the Employer filed objections to the
conduct of the election and to conduct which affected the
results of the election. On February 5, 1954, the Regional
Director issued his report on the objections, recommending
that the objections be overruled and the Petitioner be certified
as exclusive bargaining agent for the employees in the unit
found appropriate. On February 26, 1954, the Employer filed
exceptions to the Regional Director's report.
The Board has considered the Regional Director's report,
the exceptions, and the entire record in the case , and hereby
adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the
Regional Director.
As indicated above, the election herein was held on Septem-
ber 3, 1953, and the Employer did not file its objections to
that election until February 3, 1954, 5 months later, We find,
therefore, as the . Regional Director did, that because the
1107 NLRB No. 183.
108 NLRB No. 56.