Brown Shipbuilding Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsJul 14, 1944

57 N.L.R.B. 326 (N.L.R.B. 1944)

i In-the Matter of BROWN SHIPBUILDING ,COMPANY ,=I*c. and INTERNA- TIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS , A. F. OF L. In ,the Matter of BROWN , SHIPBUILDING COMPANY , INC, and INTERNA- TIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BRIDGE , STRL&CTURAL AND ORNAMENTAL IRON WORKERS (AFL) ' - In the Matter of BROWN SHIPBUILDING COMPANY , INC. and INTERNA- TIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS , LOCAL UNION No. 450, AFL In the Matter of BROWN SHIPBUILDING COMPANY , INC. and UNITED ASSOCIATION OF PLUMBERS & STEAM FITTERS , MARINE LOCAL No. 682, A . F. OF L. ' In-the Matter of BROWN SHIPBUILDING COMPANY , INC. and INTERNA- TIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL No. 716, AFL In the Matter of BROWN SHIPBUILDING COMPANY, INC. and SHEET METAL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL ASSN , LOCAL UNION 54 Cases Nos . 16=1^-5.51, 16-R-860, 16-R-869 , 16-R-70, 16-R-896 and' 16-R-906 respectively .Decided July 14, 1944 Mr. A. J. Wirtz, of Austin, Tex., for the Company. Mr. W. L . Grant and Mr. C. C. Mitchell, of Houston , Tex., for the Machinists. - Mr. Clifton Brignac, of Fort Worth , Tex., and Mr. E. E . Knox, of Houston, Tex., for the Iron Workers. Mr. W. N . Askins and Mr. Arvil Inge, of Houston , Tex., for the Op- erating Engineers. Mr. W. C. Reed, of Houston , Tex., for the Plumbers. Mr. J. TV. Null and Mr. R. A. Todd, of San Antonio, Tex., and Mr. S. R. Smith and Mr. Steve Collins, of Houston, Tex., for the Electrical Workers. ,, Mr. Rene W. Schroeder, of 'Houston, Tex., for the Sheet Metal Workers. Mr. C. H. Smith, of Fort Worth, Tex., and Mr. J. G. Wells, and Mr. R. D. Jess, of Houston, Tex., for the Trainmen. Mr: Edward Dawley and Mr. Bliss'Daffan, of Houston;Tex., for the Welders. Mr. M. T. Wilson, of Houston, Tex., for the Boilermakers. Mrs. Augusta Spaulding, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon the separate petitions duly filed by International Association of Machinists , herein called the Machinists; by International Associ- 57 N. L. R. B., No. 60. 326 1 BROWN SHIPBUILDING COMPANY, INC. 327 ation of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, herein called the Iron Workers; by International Union of Operating Engi- neers, Local Union No. 450, herein-called the Operating Engineers; by United Association of Plumbers & Steam Fitters, Marine Local #682; herein called the Plumbers; by International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local No. 716, herein called the Electrical Work- ers; and by Sheet Metal Workers International Ass'n, Local Union 54, herein called the Sheet Metal Workers, each alleging that a question, affecting commerce had arisen concerning ,the representation of employees of Brown Shipbuilding Company, Inc., Houston, Texas, ,herein called the Company, the National Labor Relations Board pro- vided for an appropriate consolidated hearing upon due notice before Robert F. Proctor, Trial Examiner. Said hearing was held at Houston, Texas, on May 10, 1944. The Company;' the Machinists; the Iron Workers; the Operating Engineers; the Plumbers; the Elec- trical Workers; the Sheet Metal Workers; Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, herein called â€¢ the Trainmen; United Brotherhood of Welders, herein called the Welders; and International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, 'Iron Shipbuilders and Helpers of America, herein called the Boilermakers, appeared' and participated.2 All parties were afforded full opportunity to be 'heard, to examine and cross- examine witnesses, to introduce evidence bearing on the issues, and to file briefs with the Board. At the hearing and in its brief the Company moved that the Board dismiss this proceeding on the grounds that the Company is not an employer, nor engaged in commerce, within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. For reasons which appear in Saction I, below, the motion is denied. The Trial Exam- iner's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. The Company's request for oral argument is hereby denied. All parties were afforded opportunity to file briefs with the Board. ' 1 The Company- filed a limited - appearance ' for the purpose ' of contesting the Board's jurisdiction in this consolidated proceeding . After presenting its contentions with respect to this issue , the Company withdrew from the hearing and took no further part in the proceedings.' - 2 The Trainmen and the ' Welders claim to represent certain employees of the Company, subject to their respective jurisdictions . When it was disclosed during the course of the hearing that such employees weze not included within any of the amended units proposed by the petitioners herein, the Trainmen and the ' Welders withdrew and took no further part in the hearing. . A I 3328- DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY Brown Shipbuilding Company; Inc., ,is a corporation 3 exclusively ,enigaged'intlie 'construction of combat vessels for the United Statesv Navy at its yards in Harris County, near Hotiston, Texas. The Com- pany's yards consist of two attached sections called "A" yard and "B" yard. ' `,`A" yard is owned by the Company; "B" yard is owned by the United States Government and ]eased to the Company for $1 per year. Operations in both yards are under the `same supervision, direction, and control. The work of the yards consists of (fabricat- ing iron and steel and other products and the- manufacture of sea- going vessels. All material used by the Company is purchased exclu- sively for' the United States Government and remains the property of the United States Government during the period Â«'hen.'ork is per- foriried thereon by the employees of the Company. A substantial amount of material for ships is acqiired and shipped to the Company's yards from points outside Texas. Vessels completed by the Company are -delivered to the United States Navy at the Company's yards in Texas. The Company maintains an employment office where appli-' cants for employment are hired. The Company pays employees at the yards 'on its own checks and keeps Social Security records for them. All m aterials'purchased for use at the yards and all- operations at the yards are subject to the general supervision of the United States Gov- ernment. - The discharge of employees is vested in foremen and higher supervisors of the Company. The United States Navy can require the ;discharge of any employee. - - We find no merit in,the conteiitioii of the Company that it is neither engaged in commerce, nor functions as an employer, within the mean- ing of the Act. Upon the facts stated above, and the entire record herein, we find that the Company is engaged in commerce, and is an employer, within the meaning of the Act.4 - , II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED International Association of Machinists; International Association, of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers; International 'At the time when the original petitions were filed herein , the Company was a partner- ship composed of IIerman and George Brown The recent formal change from a partner- ship to it corporation involved no ' change in Ahe operation of the Company ' s business which affects the employees herein - 4 Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co ., et al v . N. L. R. B ., 101 F ( 2d) 841, 843 ; Matter of Houston Shipbuilding Corporation , 46 N L R B. 161 ; and Matter of Co- polymer Corporation , 52 N L R B 578 . Matter o f Brown if Root , lac, 51 N. L R. B 830, upon which the Company relies, has me hearing upon , the, jurisdictional issue herein . That decision related solely to the building construction Indus;r--y. .BROWN SHIPBUILDING COMPANY, INC. 329 -'lirlion'of Operating-Engineers, Local Union No. 450;'United Associa- tion of Plumbers & Steam Fitters, Marine Local #682; International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local No. 716; Sheet Metal Work'- ers International Ass'n, Local Union 54; and International Brother- hood'of Boilermakers, Iron Shipbuilders and Helpers of America are -labor organizations affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, admitting to membership employees of the Company. III. THE QUESTIONS ,CONCERNING REPRESENTATION The Operating Engineers by telephone asked the Company for' recognition as exclusive bargaining representative of a group of,craft employees among whom that organization claimed a majority. The Company refused the recognition, suggesting that the matter be placed before the Board. Each of the other petitioners in this -proceeding addressed a letter to the Company, therein claiming to represent a ,majority of employees within its proposed craft unit and requesting recognition as their bargaining representative. The Company declined to accept the letters sent by the Plumbers and the Sheet Metal Workers, and the letters were retu'rned''to the senders. The Company made no response to the requests from the other petitioners. A, statement prepared by a Field Examiner and other evidence, -received at the hearing indicate that the petitioners represent a sub- stantial number of employees in the respective units herein found appropriate.5 We find' that questions affecting commerce have `arisen concerning the representation of employees of the Company, within the meaning of Section 9 (c)-and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. IV. TIIE APPROPRIATE UNITS As noted in Section 'I, above, the Company operates a shipyard near Houston,-Texas, where it constructs combat ships for use by the United States Government. Its"operations extend over yards,A and B, which are subject to the same over-all control and supervision. Employees are regularly, assigned to one yard or to the other, and are sometimes transferred from one yard to the other. The several petitioners in this proceeding have organized employees in both yards in certain depart- ments characteristic of their respective craft jurisdictions, and contend that such groups in both yards respectively, constitute separate units appropriate for bargaining. The petitioners agree that, from their several units; plant-protection employees,' managerial employees, fore- 5 In support of their respective contentions to represent employees in the several pro- posed units , the Machinists submitted ,611 cards ; the Iron workers , 106 cards ; the Operat- ing Engineers , 36 cards ; the Plumbers , 583 cards ; the I B E. W., 465 cards ; and the -Sheet Metal workers, 411 cards. These cards were not checked against any - pay roll of the Company. 330 DECISIONS-OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD men, and all 'supervisory employees above foremen, should be excluded. Except as noted below, they would also exclude clerical employees. The Machinists would include in its unit machinists, helpers, and ap- prentices in the machinists' departments at the Company's yards; in- -cluding machinists in the maintenance department, machinists repair-' ing.small' tools, machinists working on boats engaged in a trial run, toolrobm clerks in the machinists' departments, and,welders regularly assigned to the machine shop. The Iron Workers would include in its unit all production employees in.the rigging departments at the Com- pany's yards who handle rigging equipment about the cranes. The 'Operating Engineers would include in its unit all employees engaged as operators of cranes, gantry cranes, locomotive cranes, bridge cranes,- air compressors, bulldozers, and maintainers, including helpers, oilers, and apprentices, but excluding locomotive engineers, firemen,- and Diesel engineers. The Plumbers would include in its unit employees in the pipe or pipe fitting departments at the yards, including pipe ,fitters, plumbers, apprentices, helpers,-and toolroom clerks and welders regularly assigned to the pipe department. The Electrical Workers would include in its unit inside and outside electrical workers in the electrical departments at the yards who are assigned to electrical con- struction, maintenance; and repair. The Sheet Metal Workers would include in' its unit all employees in the sheet metal departments at the yards, including toolroom clerks, apprentices, and helpers, but exclud- ing trainees not yet regularly' assigned as production workers to these -departments. - ' The Boilermakers intervened in this consolidated proceeding, con- tending that the unit proposed by the Iron Workers was not an appropriate bargaining unit, but that the appropriate bargaining unit for employees who handle rigging equipment in the rigging departments at the yards should include all riggers at the Company's yards and all other employees subject to the Boilermakers' general craft, jurisdiction in the many departments at the yards; and urging that a jurisdictional dispute had arisen between two labor organi- zations affiliated with the same parent body and that -the Board should therefore dismiss the petition filed by the Iron Workers herein. The Boilermakers did not designate the specific employees or the specific categories of employment at the yards which it would include in its proposed unit. The Boilermakers filed no petition herein, nor does it desire that the Board define a unit at this time'for such em- ployees as it may in the future desire to represent. â€¢ The Boilermakers submitted to the Trial Examiner 26 cards purporting, to be signed by riggers at the Company's yards. The record does not indicate that -employees signing these cards are in the rigging departments. There are approximately 250 employees in the rigging departments. There are riggers working in other departments in the yards. Since the Boil- ermakers does not claim to represent a, substantialt number of em= BROWN SHIPBUILDING COMPANY, INC. 331 ployees in any defined unit in this proceeding, and since , the Iron Workers has introduced evidence of its substantial representation among employees in its proposed unit, we are of, the opinion that no jurisdictional dispute exists between the Iron Workers and the Boil- -ermakers with respect to employees in the proposed unit which would warrant .the fdismiseal of the petition filed by the ,Iron Workers herein e Employees in the several proposed units are skilled employees with their helpers and apprentices engaged in well-recognized craft work. They constitute separate departments or sections of the Company's operations in the two yards. They wear badges and special insignia characteristic of the craft or department to which they are assigned. We have found departmental units appropriate for employees in other shipyards in this area ? We find on the basis of the entire record herein that the units proposed by the petitioners are appropriate for ;bargaining purposes. - The petitioners agree that foremen and all supervisory employees above foremen" should be excluded from their respective bargaining units. They would include leadermen. Leadermen have supervision over 4 to 12 employees; they assign work, check work, and report their findings to their foremen. They do-not regularly engage in the work performed by their crews. Leadermen make effective recommenda- tions concerning the employees working under them and are regarded' -as bosses by them. That the Company regards leadermen ap repre- sentatives of management is clearly indicated by the fact that leader- men as a group attended meetings called by the Company, and at such meetings were specifically warned that they should take no part in the organization conducted by the several labor organizations at the yards, but should permit "the men" to do as they pleased about joining or not joining such organizations. Since leadermen are supervisory em- ployees within ' our` usual definition of that term,8 we shall -exclude leadermen and all other supervisory employees from the-units which we find herein appropriate. - We find that all machinists, helpers, and apprentices in the machin-' ists' departments at the Company's yards, including machinists in the maintenance department, machinists repairing small tools, machin- ists on boats engaged in a trial run, toolroom clerks in machinists' departments, and welders regularly assigned-to the machine shop, excluding other clerical employees, plant-protection employees, man- agerial employees, leadermen , foremen, and all other supervisory em- ployees with authority to hire, promote; discharge, discipline, or other- Cf. Matter of Thomasville Chair , Company , 37 N. L R . B 1017, 1020. ' Matter of Waterman Steamship Company, 54 N. L. R. B . 267 ; and Matter of Houston Shipbuilding Corporation; supra. - i 8 Matter, of ,'Watermantsteamsh,ip Corporation, supra , and ,Matter of Douglas , Aircraft Company, 53 N. L. R. B. 486. 332 DECISIONS ' OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD' wise effect changes in the'status of-enployees ,, or effectively ,recom- mend such action, constitute â€¢a ,unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9 '(b) of the Act. We further find that all production employees in the rigging depart- ments at the Company's yards who handle rigging equipment ,about ,the'cranes , excluding clerical employees , plant-protection employees, managerial employees , leadermen , foremen, and all other supervisory employees , with authority to hire, promote, discharge ,. discipline, or otherwise "effect changes in--the status of .employees ,_or efeetively recommend , such action , constitute a unit appropriate for the pur- poses of collective bargaining , within the meaning of Section 9 (b) ,of the Act. We further find that all production employees engaged as operators of cranes , gantry cranes , locomotive cranes, bridge cranes , air com- pressors , bulldozers , and maintainers ; including helpers, oilers, and apprentices , but excluding locomotive engineers , - firemen, Diesel en- gineers, clerical employees , plant-protection employees , managerial employees , leadermen , foremen, and all other supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of â€¢eniployees ," or effectively recomuien(l ,such action , constitute a unit - appropriate for the purposes of collec- tive bargaining, withiri the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. Ave further find that al17'employees in'the pipe or pipe fitting de- partments at the Company's yards, including pipe fitters, plumbers, apprentices , Helpers, and toolroom clerks and.welders regularly as- signed to the pipe department, but excluding other clerical employees, plant-protection employees , managerial employees, leadermen, -fore- men, and all other supervisory employees with-authority to hire, pro- mote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees , or effectively recommend such action , constitute a unit appropriate for, ,the purposes of collective bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. We further find that 'all inside and outside-'electrical workers in the electrical departments at'the Company 's yards who are assigned to electrical construction , maintenance ,' and repair , excluding clerical employees, plant-protection employees, managerial employees , leader- men, foremen , and all other supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote , discharge , discipline; or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees , or effectively â€¢recommend such action , constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of_ collective ' bargaining , within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. We further find that all employees in the sheet metal departments at the Company's yards , including toolroom clerks , apprentices; and helpers ;' but excluding trainees not yet regularly assigned as produc- â€¢tion workers to these departments , other clerical employees , plant- "" BROWN SHIPBUILDING COMPANY, 11VC' 333 protection employees, managerial employees, leadermen, foremen, and all other supervisory employees with authority to liire, promote, dis- charge, discipline, or otherwise effect' changes in the status of em- ployees, or effectively recommend such action, constitute a unit appro- priate:fgr5tbe,purposes of collective bargaining, within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. V., THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES We find that the questions which have arisen concerning the rep- resentation of the Company's employees can best be resolved by sep- arate elections by secret ballot. Since the Bailermakers has produced little evidence of its organization among the Company's employees, and since' further it does not clearly appear that the Boilermakers desires to participate in an election among employees in a unit re- stricted to the rigging department; we shall make no provision for its appearance on the ballot. Those eligible to,,vote in'the several elections which we shall now direct shall be all employees of the Company in the respective units found appropriate in Section IV, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of the Direction of Elections herein, subject to the additions and limitations set forth in the Direction. DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National Labor Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations,Act, and pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3, it- is hereby DIRECTED that, as part of the. investigation to ;ascertain representa- tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Brown Ship- building Company, Inc., Houston, Texas, separate elections by secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later, than thirty 00) days from the date of this Direction, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region, acting in` this matter as agent ,for the National 'Labo'r Relations Board, and subject 'to Article III, Sections,10,and,11,, of said Rules,;ind Regula- tions, among the employees in the,groups described below, who were employed' during the pay-roll period immediately preceding, the date of this Direction, including employees who 'did not work during the said pay-roll period because they. were ill,or on vacation or tern= porarily laid off, and including -employee's in the armed forces of the United States who present themselves in,person at the polls, but ex- cluding, clerical employees, plant-protection employees, managerial employees, leaderien, foremen, and all other supervisory employees with authority to' hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect cliahges in the status of emplo'yees,-or effectively-recommendsuch 334 Â° DECISIONS OFâ€¢NATIONAL LABOR-RELATIONS BOARD action, and, also excluding. those employees who have since quit or been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or reinstated 11 11prior to the date of the elections : (1) All machinists, helpers, and apprentices -in the machinists' de- partments'at the;Company's_ yards-including maclii^inists in the main tenance department, machinists repairing small tools, machinist on, boats engaged in a trial run, toolroom clerks in-machinists' depart- ments, and welders regularly â€¢ assigned to-the machine'shop, to deter- mine whether or not they desire to be represented by International Association, of Machinists, affiliated with the American- Federation of Labor, for the purposes of collective bargaining; . (2) All production employees in the rigging. departments at 'the Company's yards who handle rigging equipment about the cranes, to, determine whether or not they desire to be represented by Interna- tional Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Work-' ers, affiliated withâ€¢the AmericanÂ°,Federation of ,Labor, for the purposes. of collective bargaining; (3) All production employees engaged as operators of cranes, gantry cranes, locomotive cranes, bridge cranes, air compressors, bulldozerg and maintainers, including helpers,â€¢oilers, and apprentices, but exclud- ing locomotive engineers, firemen, and Diesel engineers;-to determine' whether or not they desire to be represented by International Union of Operating Engineers, Local Union No. 450, affiliated with the Ameri- can Federation of Labor, for the purposes of collective bargaining; (4) All employees in the pipe or pipe fitting departments at the Company's yards, including pipe fitters, plumbers, apprentices, help- ers, and toolroom clerks and welders regularly assigned to the pipe department, to determine whether or not they, desire to be represented by United Association of Plumbers. & Steam Fitters, Marine Local #682, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, for the pur- poses of collective bargaining; (5) All inside and outside electrical workers in the electrical depart- ments at the Company's yards who are assigned to electrical constrbc- tionn, maintenance , and repair, to determine whether or not they desire to be represented by International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local No. 716, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, for the purposes of collective bargaining; and -(6) All employees in the sheet metal departments at the Company's yards, including toolroom clerks, apprentices, and- helpers, but exclud- ing trainees not yet regularly, assigned as production workers in these. departments, to determine whether'or not they desire to be represented by Sheet Metal Workers International Association, Local Union 54, affiliated 'with the American Federation of Labor, for the purposes of collective bargaining. [See infra, 57 N. L . R. B. 1082 for Amendment. to Direction of Elec- tion.]