Craig Shipbuilding Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 29, 1945

65 N.L.R.B. 97 (N.L.R.B. 1945)

In the Matter of CRAIG SHIPBUILDING COMPANY and INDUSTRIAL UNION
OF MARINE AND SHIPBUILDING WORKERS OF AMERICA, C. I. O.
Case No. 21-B-2998.-Decided December 29, 1945
Messrs. O'Melrveny & Myers, by Messrs . W. B. Carman and John
Whyte, both of Los Angeles , Calif ., for the Company.
Mr. Alexander Turoczy, of Wilmington , Calif ., and Mr. Wm. T.
Howell, of San Pedro, Calif., for the Union.
Mr. David V. Easton, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a petition duly filed by Industrial Union of Marine and Ship-
building Workers of America, C. I. 0., herein called the Union, al-
leging that a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the
representation of employees of Craig Shipbuilding Company, Long
Beach, California, herein called the Company, the National Labor
Relations Board provided for an appropriate hearing upon due notice
before Maurice J. Nicoson, Trial Examiner. The hearing was held
at Los Angeles, California, on September 17, 1945. The Company
and the Union appeared and participated. All parties were afforded
full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses,
and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues. At the hearing, the
Company moved for dismissal of the petition. The Trial Examiner
reserved ruling thereon for the Board. For reasons stated in Section
IV, infra, the motion is denied. The Trial Examiner's rulings made
at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
All parties were afforded opportunity to file briefs with the Board.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
Ir THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Craig Shipbuilding Company, a California corporation, is engaged
in the repair of ships. For this purpose, it operates a yard located
65 N. L. R B., No. 23.
97
98 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
at Long Beach, California, with which we are concerned herein. At
this yard it repairs ships belonging to the United States Navy and
to other government agencies , as well as privately owned vessels.
During the past year, the Company purchased materials and equip-
ment valued at approximately $500,000, of which about 50 percent
was obtained from sources outside the State of California. During
the same period, the Company received more than $1,000,000, for
its services, the greater portion of which was performed upon gov-
ernment vessels operating beyond the territorial waters of California.
We find that the Company is engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing of The National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Industrial Union of Marine and Shipbuilding Workers of Amer-
ica is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial
Organizations, admitting to membership employees of the Company.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Company has refused to grant recognition to the Union as
the exclusive bargaining representative of certain of its employees
until the Union has been certified by the Board in an appropriate
unit.
A statement of a Field Examiner for the Board, introduced into
evidence at the hearing, indicates that the Union represents a sub-
stantial number of employees in the unit hereinafter found appro-
priate.'
We find that a question affecting commerce has 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. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Union, which currently represents the Company's production
and maintenance employees at its Long Beach, California, yard, seeks
a separate unit of all plant-protection guards employed at this yard,
excluding supervisory employees. The Company, in support of its
motion to dismiss, contends, in effect, that the unit sought is inappro-
priate because (a) guards are not "employees" within the meaning
of the Act, since they are actually representatives of management and
have duties which are incompatible with representation for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining by a national labor organization; (b)
' The Field Examiner reported that the Union submitted 8 application cards, of which
5 bore the names of employees listed on the Company ' s pay roll of August 17, 1945. There
are approximately 12 employees in the appropriate unit.
CRAIG SHIPBUILDING COMPANY 99
were the guards to be represented for these purposes, they would
have divided loyalties and conflicting interests, especially if the
Union herein is successful, since that organization already represents
the production and maintenance workers; and (c) the Union, in ex-
plicitly agreeing to the exclusion of guards in its contract with the
Company covering the production and maintenance employees, im-
plicitly agreed not to seek to represent them. In addition, the Com-
pany asserts that two of the persons listed as "guards in the employ
of the [Company]," Dailey and Zborowski, are actually employees
of another employer.
The record indicates that the Company's guards are armed and
uniformed, and that several of them are deputized. They are charged
with the responsibility of protecting the Company's property from
damage by fire, theft, or violence, and with keeping order within the
confines of the yard. It is evident from the record that their duties,
although clearly monitorial, are in nowise confidential, supervisory,
or managerial.
In other cases we have had occasion to pass upon contentions similar
to those advanced by the Company with respect to the general ap-
propriateness of the unit sought, and have found them not to be per-
suasive.2 We shall, consequently, permit the Company's plant
protection guards to be represented for collective bargaining pur-
poses in a unit separate from all its other employees.
As to Dailey and Zborowski, the record indicates that they are the
permanent resident watchmen employed on property leased by the
Company on a part-time basis from the Standard Gypsum Company.
It further appears that the Company considers the Standard Gypsum
Company as having a priority on their services, and that these two in-
dividuals do not enjoy the same privileges of employment available to
regular employees of the Company. Under these circumstances, we
shall exclude them.
Accordingly, we find that all plant protection guards of the Com-
pany, excluding Dailey, Zborowski, and all supervisory employees
with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise
effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively recommend
such action, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collec-
tive bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
2 Matter of Standard Steel Spring Company, 62 N L. R B. 660; Matter of Aluminum
Company of America, 63 N. L. R. B . 828; Matter of Muskegon Piston Ring Company, 63
N. L. R B 885 Matter of Granite City Steel Company, 63 N. L. R. B. 898; Matter of Alle-
gheny Ludlum Steel Corporation, 64 N. L. R. B. 1284, and cases cited in,these decisions.
See also Matter of Consolidation Coal Company, 63 N L. R. B. 169, and cases cited therein
with respect to the union's alleged implicit agreement not to represent the plant guards.
Matter of Briggs Indiana Corporation, 63 N. L. R. B. 201, does not apply, as the contract
contained no express conimitinent by the union not to seek to represent guards in the
immediate future.
100 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
We shall direct that the question concerning representation which
has arisen be resolved by an election by secret ballot among employees
in the appropriate unit who were employed during the pay-roll period
immediately preceding the date of the Direction of Election herein,
subject to the limitations and additions set forth in the Direction:
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National
Labor Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, and pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3, as amended, it is
hereby
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain represent-
atives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Craig Ship-
building Company, Long Beach, California, an election by secret
ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later.than sixty
(60) days from the date of this Direction, under the direction and
supervision of the Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region,
acting in this matter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board,
and subject to Article III, Sections 10 and 11, of said Rules and Reg-
ulations, among employees in the unit found appropriate in Section
IV, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately
preceding the date of this Direction, including employees who did
not work during said pay-roll period because they were ill or on vaca-
tion or temporarily laid off, and including employees in the armed
forces of the United States who present themselves in person at the
polls, but excluding those employees who have since quit or been dis-
charged for cause and have not been rehired or reinstated prior to
the date of the election, to determine whether or not they desire to be
represented by Industrial Union of Marine and Shipbuilding Work-
ers of America, C. I. 0., for the purposes of collective bargaining.
MR. JOHN M. HOUSTON took no part in the consideration of the
above Decision and Direction of Election.