Cramp Shipbuilding Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 18, 1942

46 N.L.R.B. 115 (N.L.R.B. 1942)

I
In the Matter Of CRAMP SHIPBUILDING COMPANY and INDUSTRIAL UNION
OF MARINE & SHIPBUILDING WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL No. 42
In the Matter of CRAMP SHIPBUILDING COMPANY and INDUSTRIAL UNION
OF MARINE & SHIPBUILDING WORKERS OF AMERICA, AND LOCAL No. 42
THEREOF
In the Matter of CRAMP SHIPBUILDING COMPANY and INDUSTRIAL UNION
OF MARINE R'. SHIPBUILDING WORKERS OF AMERICA, AND LOCAL No. 42
THEREOF
In the Matter Of CRAMP SHIPBUILDING COMPANY and INDUSTRIAL UNION
,OF MARINE & SHIPBUILDING WORKERS OF AMERICA, AND LOCAL No. 42
THEREOF
Cases Nos. R-4514 through R-4517, respectively.Decided December
18, 194,2
Jurisdiction : shipbuilding industry
Investigation and Certification of Representative : existence of question : stipu-
lation as to ; election necessary.
Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining : following individual units found
appropriate: (1) all timekeepers and piece-work counters, excluding the chief
timekeeper, and the supervisory piece-work counters ; (2) all, employees of the
medical , staff,,,including first-aid attendants, orderlies, and clerical, employees,
but excluding doctors, registered nurses, and the first-aid attendant supervisor ;
(3) all quartermen, excluding chief quartermen ; (4) all leadingmen-Company's
objections to units (1), (3), and (4) on the ground that they were not "em-
ployees" because they exercised managerial and supervisory. functions and
.,.were represented by the same organization as the previously designated repre-
sentative for production and maintenance employees,. held without merit-
argument of res adjudicate because of prior determination excluding these
groups from production and maintenance, unit held without merit, since ques-
tion, of what units would be appropriate for such groups' was not before 'the
Board at that'time--separate units for quartermen an&leadingmen held proper
when both occupied different levels of supervisory 'functions and' one occupied
substantial degree of supervision over the other.
'Drinker, Biddle e^ Reath, by Messrs. Henry $.'Drinker, Leslie M.
Swope, and_ Hayward H. Coburn, -of Philadelphia, Pa., for the
Company.
Mr. M. H. Goldstein, of Philadelphia, Pa., for the Union.
.•;Mr.,Robert E. Tillman,. of counsel to the Board..
46 N. L R. B., No. 19.
115
116 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon four petitions duly filed by Industrial Union of Marine & Ship-
building Workers of America, Local No. 42, herein called the Union,
each alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning
the representation of employees of Cramp Shipbuilding Company,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, herein called the Company, the National
Labor Relations Board consolidated the cases and provided for an
appropriate' hearing upon due notice before Robert Ii. Kleeb, Trial
Examiner . Said hearing was held at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on
November 3, 4, and 11, 1942. The Company and the Union appeared,
participated, and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to ex-
amine and cross-examine witnesses , and to introduce evidence bearing
on the issues.
During the hearing three motions were made by the Company on
which the Trial Examiner reserved ruling.' The Company first moved
to dismiss all four petitions filed by the Union on the ground that the
respective issues presented by the petitions had been previously decided
in substance by a prior decision of the Board involving the Union and
the Company;' the Company- moved- further to dismiss the petition
for a separate unit of quartermen and leadingmen on the grounds that
the gharterman and -leadingmen are not employees within the meaning
of the National Labor Relations Act, and that the Union failed to make
a showing of 'substantial interest as respects, them; the third notion
asked that the. record of the above-mentioned prior decision be incor-
porated into the present record to aid the Board in'determining whether
or not the prior decision had already decided the issues of the instant
proceeding's. • Since we.did not, in our previous decision, have before
us for„consideration the question of whether or,not the groups of em-
ployees whom the Union now seeks , to- represent constituted separate
units appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining, that decision
cannot be regarded as having determined the issues presented by the
petitions in these proceedings. The motion of the Company to dismiss
the four petitions on the ground of res judicata is therefore denied.
In view of our findings set forth in Sections III and IV, infra, the
second of the above-mentioned motions is hereby denied. Since the
Matter of Cramp Shipbuilding Company and American Federation of Labor , 37 N. L.
R. B. 146. '
CRAMP SHIPBUILDING COMPANY 117
decision in the earlier case amply sets forth the issues presented therein,
we have found it unnecessary to refer to the evidence adduced at the
hearing of that case. Accordingly, the third of the above-mentioned
motions is hereby denied. The Trial Examiner's rulings made at the
hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. On
November 17 and 20, 1942, respectively, the Company and the Union
filed briefs which the Board has considered.
Upon the entire record in, the case,2 the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACTS
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Cramp Shipbuilding Company, a Pennsylvania corporation, ^ main- .
tains its principal office and place of business in Philadelphia, Pennsyl-
vania, where it is engaged in the construction of naval vessels for the
United States' Navy and in the repair of cargo ships for the ,United
States Maritime Commission: During the past. year a substantial
percentage of the raw materials and supplies used by the Company was
shipped to the Company from points outside the State of Pennsyl-
vania. During the same period the construction and repair work
performed by the Company was valued in excess of $200,000. The
Company admits that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning
of the Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Industrial Union of Marine &^Shipbuilding Workers of America,
Local No. 42,'is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress of
Industrial Organizations , `admitting to membership employees of the
Company.
III. THE QUESTIONS CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The parties stipulated that at various dates between_ July 10 and
October 15, 1942, the Company declined to recognize the Union as the
exclusive bargaining representative of the employees in any of the
four'units petitioned for until the Union was certified by the Board.
A statement of the Regional Director, introduced in evidence at
the hearing, and a statement of the Trial Examiner made at the hear-
2 On November 28, 1942, the parties filed with the Board an agreement providing for
the correction of certain typographical errors in the, record The agreement is hereby
made`a part of the record, and the corrections provided for therein are hereby ordeed to
be made
118 , ' DECISIONS--OF NATIONAL-LABOR- RELATIONS BOARD
ing, indicate that the. Union represents a substantial number, of em-,
ployees in each of the units hereinafter found appropriate.3
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. THE APPROPRIATE UNITS
OIi November 29, 1941, the Board issued its decision -in Matter of
Cramp Shipbuilding Company and American Federation of Labor,4
finding a production and maintenance unit to be appropriate, and
directing an election-among the employees in that unit. Subsequently,
the Union was certified as the exclusive bargaining representative of
the employees in the production and maintenance unit: In this earlier
case, the parties stipulated to exclude quartermen and medical staff
employees from the unit; the Board decided in addition that leading-
men, timekeepers, 'and piecework counters, among others, should be
excluded from the . unit of. production; and maintenance employees.
In the present proceedings, the Union is petitioning for four additional
separate units of employees of the Company who were excluded from
the production and maintenance unit : namely, a unit of,timekeepers,
one of piece-work counters, 'one of medical staff employees, and one
of quartermen and leadingmen. The -position of the parties as re-
each of the proposed units is given independent treatmentspects
below.
A. The timekeepers and the piece-work counters
The Union petitioned for one unit of timekeepers and another unit
of piece-work counters. At the hearing it took the position .that a
unit 'combining both groups of employees might also be appropriate.
The Company advances identical objections to the proposed units of
its, timekeepers, and its piece-work counters. It contends' that these
employees are part of management and therefore not employees within
the meaning of the Act; and that they cannot be represented by the
,3 The statements of the Regional Director and the Trial Examiner may be summarized as
follows : '
Unit Cards sub-mitted
Employees
in unit
Cards in
unit
Piece-work counters ------------------- _________ -___________ 121 66 58
Timekeepers------------------------------------------ ------- 41 69 37
Medicalstaff------------------------------------ 21 25 181
First-aid attendants and orderlies ________________________ (18) (15)
Clericalemployees___ _________ _____________ _________ ______ (7) (3)
Quartermen and Leadmgmen--------------- ---------------- -- 270 351 153
4 37 N. L. R. B. 146.
-CRAMP, SHIPBUILDING - COMPANY 119,
Union because the Board has previously excluded them from the unit
of production and maintenance employees.
The record indicates that there are roughly three types of time-
keepers among the approximately 60 employed in that capacity by the
Company. One type, to which we shall refer as regular timekeepers,
-is engaged part of the working day in examining the employees'-time
cards to,ascertain the number of hours worked on the preceding day
and in estimating the hours to be worked on the -ensuing day. An-
other group of timekeepers, so-called field checkers, check the work
of employees in the yards and on the ships for the purpose of estimat=
ang the, labor costs of building or repairing the ships. The third
group of timekeepers performs functions of both regular timekeepers
and field- checkers. It is clear, as we found in our previous decision,
that the' Company's timekeepers perform work of a clerical nature.
The Board has, as a general rule, excluded timekeepers from units
of production and maintenance workers on the grounds that their
work either was of a clerical nature and therefore they would have
greater mutual interests with employees in, units other than 'those in-
cluding production and maintenance employees, for example, in a unit
including 'office employees, or because in respect to production em-
ployees they exercised managerial functions. We have not, however,
determined, in any case that timekeepers are not "employees" within
the meaning of the Act. The Company's contention that timekeepers
are not employees within the meaning of the Act is therefore without
merit, although it may be that their duties are to some extent con-
fidential and that, therefore, they are in a sense instruments of man-
agement.5-
Of the 11,000 production employees employed by the Company on
November 4, 1942,'1,000 to 1,500 were employed on, a piece-rate basis.
To compute the amount of work performed daily by its piece-work
employees, the Company employed at that time approximately 70
piece-work counters. The work of a typical piece-work counter may
be summarized as follows : Each morning he takes a list of employees
whose work of the preceding day he is assigned to count. He checks
with various production supervisors to determine the location of the
prior day's work of the listed employees and proceeds there to make
his check. Estimates of the work and its location are entered on a
pad of paper bearing the worker's name and his approval or disap-
proval of the estimates. Later in the day, the counter returns to his
office, transfers his data to form slips for each workman counted, signs
his name thereto, and turns the slips over to the accounting depart-
ment where the daily earnings are computed from the information on
eCf Matter of Chrysler Corporation and United Protective Workers of America, 36
N. L R.,13. 593, where we found the members of the plant protection force to be an appro-
priate unit although their duties in effect constituted them instiuments of management
120 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL -LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the slips. From the accounting office the slips are returned to the
counter and then go to the respective workman's leadingnlan for his
signature evidencing approval: Finally, the rate-setting department,
which spot checks the work of piece workers, must' approve the slip.
In addition to the "double checking" process utilized by the Compan'y, '
the Navy has spotters in the yard to spot check the work of piece
workers. It would appear, therefore, that-there is little basis in the
record for the Company's fear that piece-work counters, if represented
by the Union, would be inclined to raise their count in favor of the
piece workers.
In our previous decision we excluded piece-work counters from the
production and maintenance unit because their work was managerial
and administrative. We did not rule then, nor do we find now, that
piece-work counters are not employees within the meaning of the At.
They, like timekeepers, have been included in bargaining units in the
pasts We find the Company's contention that piece-work counters
are not employees within the meaning of the Act to be without merit.
There is-considerable similarity in the nature of the work performed
-by the timekeepers and the piece-work counters, since both groups of
employees occupy clerical positions and the bulk of each group perform
work that to a certain extent has a bearing upon the amount of wages
received by the Company's employees. Members of the two groups
are in daily contact, both in the actual performance of their work
and in the fact that they check-in and out of the plant at the same spot.
Both groups are under the supervision of the accounting office. In
view of these facts, we find that the timekeepers and the piece-work
counters should be combined in a single unit.?
The record indicates that there is a supervisory counter over each
ship, who instructs the piece-work counters where to go to perform
their work. The Company did not indicate its position as` respects
the inclusion of these employees in the unit. The Union desires their
inclusion. Because of their supervisory functions, and in the absence
of any evidence indicating that they, are engaged in the actual count-
ing of piece work, we shall exclude the supervisory piece-work counters
from the unit. The parties agreed, and we find, that the chief time-
keeper should be excluded from the unit.
B. Medical staff employees
The medical staff of the Company, at the time of the hearing, con-
sisted of doctors, nurses, first-aid attendants, orderlies, clerks, typists,
°Matter of Mueller Brass Company and United Automobile, Auciaft and Agricultural
Implement Workers (U.,A W.C. I. C ), 39 N. L' R. B 167.
7 See Matter of Great Lakes Engineering Works aid Local 46, Industrial Union of
Marine and Shipbuilding Workers of America, C . I 0., 40 N L. R. B. 1254, where a similar •
unit was found appropriate.
CRAMP SHIPBUILDING COMPANY • • 121
and, a stenographer. The Union requested a unit of first-aid attend-
ants, orderlies, and clerical employees of the'medical staff, excluding
doctors and registered nurses. The Company contends that this, pro-
posed unit is inappropriate for collective bargaining purposes because
the employees sought to be included in the unit comprise a heteroge-
neous group.
The work of the medical staff is carried on in five dispensaries located
in scattered spots throughout the shipyard, where injured or sick
employees report for treatment and/or medical advice. First-aid
attendants make checks on insanitary and unhygienic conditions about
the yard, distribute medical supplies between dispensaries, perform
'-simple medical functions such as taking temperatures, and do clerical'
work. Orderlies are engaged in clean-up work in the dispensaries.
The clerical staff is, generally speaking, engaged in filing cards, re-
cording case data, and making up daily reports on cases'treated. The
one stenographer is in effect secretary to the medical, director. She
handles the bulk of'the correspondence of the medical department.
There is no evidence that her work is of such a confidential nature as
•to warrant her exclusion from a unit of medical staff employees.
While it is true that the various above-mentioned employees in the
medical staff are not performing identical functions, nevertheless they
are cooperatively engaged in the specialized function of providing
medical service for the Company's employees. There" can be little
question that, since they constitute the non-professional' employees
of this specialized department, they have many interests in common
from the standpoint of wages, hours, and working conditions. In the
light of these circumstances, we find that a unit of medical staff,
employees is appropriate. '
There is a single first-aid attendant supervisor over the first-aid
attendants. The Company asks that this employee be excluded. One
of his duties is to make a weekly work schedule (approved by the
medical director) for all medical staff employees, excepting doctors
and nurses. He also participates in first-aid work. He possesses the
power to recommend the hiring or discharging of erhp'loyees under
his supervision. In view of these facts, we shall exclude him from
the unit of medical staff employees.
Quartermen and Leadingmen '
'At the time of the hearing the Company's supervisory hierarchy
over production and maintenance employees was, in order of rank, as
follows : a production manager, a number of superintendents, 17 fore-
men, 7 or 8 assistant foremen, 7 chief quartermen, approximately 84
_quartermen, and approximately 267 leadihgmen.
122 DECISIONS,-OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Union petitioned for a single supervisory unit of quartermen
and leadingmen, but at the hearing it stated that it did not object
to the Board's finding an appropriate unit of quartermen only and
another unit of, leadingmen only. The Company contends that quar-
termen and leadingmen are not employees within the meaning of the
Act, and, even if employees, should not be represented by the same local
which presently represents the production and maintenance employees,
since that would result in a` breakdown in the supervisory control of
the management over the workers. The Company contends further
that the issue as to whether quartermen and leadingmen constitute' an
appropriate unit- has already been decided in the previous decision
,of the Board, and that for the Board to find such a unit- appropriate
now would-be to permit circumvention by labor organizations of the
prior decisions of the Board.. The argment of res judicata, as we have
.previously indicated, has no merit. In our prior decision we 'did not
have before us for consideration the appropriateness of a unit com-
posed of supervisory employees; the principal issue in that case'was
the "composition of a production and maintenance unit. We found
that quartermen and leadingmen should not be in the same unit with
production,,and maintenance employees. because of their supervisory
.functions; we did not determine whether or not they could constitute
.a separate unit of supervisory employees.
We have determined in recent cases that supervisory employees are
,equally entitled with production and maintenance employees to enjoy
,the benefits conferred on employees by the Act." A review of the facts
respecting quartermen and leadingmen in the instant proceedings,, as
set forth in the subsequent paragraph, indicates -that no substantial
difference in factual set-up is presented by this case. It is true that, in'
Matter of Godchaux Sugars, Ir^c.,9 the petitioning union was a differ-
ent local of the same parent organization than the local acting as the
representative of the production and maintenance employees, whereas
in the present case the petitioning union is the local which represents
.the.production and maintenance employees. However, the reasoning
of our decision in that case is equally applicable to a situation where
.the -same local seeks to represent employees in a supervisory unit and
in a production and maintenance unit. We stated then that "In de-
ciding, in each case, the unit appropriate for collective bargaining it
is the statutory objective, hence our function, `to insure to employees
the full benefit of their rights to self-organization and to collective
bargaining, and otherwise to effectuate the policies' of the Act (Sec-
tion 9 (b) ). The desire of employees, whether supervisory or not `is
8 Matter of Union Collieries Coal Company, Oakmont, Pennsylvania, and Mine Ofcials'
Union of America (Ind ), 41 N L. R. B 961; Matter of Godchaux Sugars, Inc. and United
Sugar Workers, Local Industrial Union No. 1186, C I. 0., 44 N L R B 874.,
9 44 N. L. R B. 874.
CRAMP SHIPBUILDING ' COMPANY .123,
a' fact which has a bearing on the determination of the appropriate.
unit."' Moreover, we have recently rejected a similar argument
-advanced in cases involving the question whether .'plant •protection
.employees could be represented by the same union that was the
bargaining agent of production and maintenance employees.10
In the Company's supervisory hierarchy the quartermen and lead-
ingmen perform those functions generally attributed to minor super-
visors. They assign work, prepare and follow up jobs', and see that
production standards are maintained both as to quantity and quality
of output. Their supervisory powers are not extensive. Thus, they
only recommend disciplinary action, promotions or advancement, and
discharge. ''Quartermen and leadingmeh are paid by the hour at rate
differentials above that of the highest rated mechanic, whom, they
supervise. ,
The Company contends that if quartermen and leadingmen should
be found entitled to representation by the Union, they should be set
up in two separate units and not combined in one 'Unit. At the hear-
ing the Union stated that it had no objection tora finding of two such
separate units. The record indicates that the number of leadingmen
under a ,single quarterman ranges from 0 to 7. Leadingmen lead
from 20 to 50 men. Accordingly, the number of men under a quarter-'
man will depend largely upon how many leadingmen report.to him.
Quartermen transmit instructions to leadingmen. They determine
whom to promote to the rank of leadingmen, and wherever quartermen
and leadingmen. supervise in the same department or group of crafts-
men the pay rates of the quartermen exceed that of leadingmen.
Under all the circumstances we shall not • include quartermen and
leadingmen in the same unit."
The seven chief quartermen were described by the Company as
being in effect assistant foremen, although not on a salary basis. The
Union has no objection to their exclusion from a unit of quartermen
and leadingmen. We conclude that the interests of the chief quarter-
inen are more closely allied to-those of foremen and assistant foremen
than with those of quartermen. We shall exclude them from the unit
of quartermen. '
We find that the following groups of the Company's employees,
constitute units appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act :
'Matter of Bethlehem Steel Company, Sliipbwildang Division , Baltimore, Yard and
Local 24, Industrial Union of Marine and Shipbuilding Workers of America, affiliated with
the C. I. 0 , 45 N. L. R. B. 92; see also Matter of Chrysler Corporation cited in foot.
note 5, supra
11 Compare Matter of Boeing Aircraft Company and Association of Aircraft Supervisors
of Seattle, Washington , 45 N. L. R B 630; Matter of Stanley Company of America
et al. and United Office & Professional Workers of America, affiliated with the Congress
of Industrial Organizations , 45 N. L. 'R. B 625.
124 DECISIONS, OF, NATIONAL"I:ABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(1) All timekeepers and piece-work counters, excluding the chief
timekeeper, and-the supervisory piece-work counters ; • '
-(2)' All employees of the medical staff, including first-aid -at-
tendants, orderlies, and clerical employees, but excluding doctors,
registered nurses,, and the first-aid attendant supervisor;
(3) All quartermen, excluding chief quartermen;
(4) All leadingmen.'
V. DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
We shall direct that the questions concerning representation which
have • arisen be resolved by elections by secret ballot among the em-
ployees in the appropriate units who were employed during the, pay-
roll period immediately preceding the date of the Directionof Elec-
tions herein, subject to the limitations and additions set forth therein.
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 NationalLabor Rela-
tions Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2, as amended, it is
hereby ` •
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representa-
tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Cramp Shipbuild-
ing Company, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, elections'by secret ballot
shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than thirty (39)
days from the date of this Direction of Elections, under the direction
and supervision of the Regional Director'for the Fourth Region, acting
in this matter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and
subject to Article III, Section' 10, of said Rules and Regulations, among
the emplo^ees in each of the units 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 vacation
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 any who have since quit or been discharged for cause,
to determine in respect to'each group whether or not they desire to be
represented by Industrial Union of Marine & Shipbuilding Workers
of 'America, Local No.-42; for the purposes of collective bargaining.
MR. GERARD D. REILLY took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and'Direction of Elections.