Gibbs Gas Engine Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 5, 1941

33 N.L.R.B. 1110 (N.L.R.B. 1941)

In the Matter of GIBBS GAS ENGINE COMPANY and JACKSONVILLE
METAL TRADES COUNCIL, AFFILIATED WITH THE AMERICAN FEDERA-
TION OF LABOR
Case No. R-2674.Decided August 5, 1941
Jurisdiction : shipbuilding and ship repairing industry.
Investigation and Certification of Representatives : existence of question : Com-
pany refused to accord union recognition until it had been certified by the
Board ; election necessary.
Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining : all employees, including leaders
and watchmen, but excluding supervisory and clerical employees.
Mr. G. W. Gibbs, Jr., of Jacksonville, Fla., for the Company.
Mr. Charles 0. Peyton, of Jacksonville, Fla., for the Union.
Mr. Armin Uhler, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On June 14 , 1941 , Jacksonville Metal Trades Council , affiliated
with the American Federation of Labor, herein called the Union,
filed with the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region (New
Orleans, Louisiana ) a petition alleging that a question affecting com-
merce had arisen concerning the representation of employees of
Gibbs Gas Engine Company, Jacksonville , Florida, herein called
the Company , and requesting an investigation and certification of
representatives pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, 49 Stat . 449, herein called the Act. On June 18,
1941 , the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board,
acting pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the Act, and Article III, Section
3, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series
2, as amended, ordered an investigation and authorized the Regional
Director to conduct it and to provide for an appropriate hearing
upon due notice.
On'June 19, 1941, the Regional Director issued a notice of hearing,
copies of which were duly served upon the Company and the Union.
Pursuant to notice , a hearing was held on June 26, 1941 , at Jackson-
ville, Florida , before Charles H. Kyle, the Trial Examiner duly
33 N. L . R. B., No. 190.
1110
GIBBS GAS ENGINE COMPANY
designated by the Chief Trial, Examiner. The Company and the
Union were represented by official representatives and participated
in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-
examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues
was afforded all parties. During the course of the hearing the
Trial Examiner made several rulings on motions and on objections
to the admission of evidence. The Board has reviewed the rulings
of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial errors were
committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. On July 12, 1941,
the Company submitted a brief which the Board has considered.-
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Gibbs Gas Engine Company, a Florida corporation, with its prin-
cipal office at Jacksonville, Florida, in the past has been engaged in
the construction and repair of small boats, both of the commercial
and pleasure type, at its yards at Jacksonville, Florida. More re-
cently, approximately 95 per cent of its business has consisted of the
construction' and conversion of boats for use by the United States
Government. Its gross receipts during its last fiscal year were in
excess of $200,000. Some 60 per cent of the raw materials used in
the Company's business, consisting chiefly of lumber, steel, and as-
sorted hardware, are shipped to the Company's yard from outside the
State of Florida. During the month of June 1941 the Company
employed approximately 700 employees.
H. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Jacksonville Metal Trades Council is a labor organization affiliated
with the American Federation of Labor admitting employees of
the Company to membership.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
Some time during, the month of May 1941 the Union requested
the Company to recognize it as the exclusive bargaining agent of the
employees in the Company's shipyard. The Company refused to,
grant such recognition to the Union until it had been certified by
the Board. A statement of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing
shows that the Union represents a substantial number of employees
in the unit alleged in its petition to be appropriate.'
'The Trial Examiner 's statement is to the effect that 398 authorization cards bearing
genuine signatures had been submitted to him by the Union. Three hundred sixty-two of
these signatures correspond to names on the Company 's pay roll for the week ending June
24, 1941, showing 621 employees in the alleged unit
1112 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
We find that a question has arisen concerning the representation
of employees of the Company.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION UPON
COMMERCE
We find that the question concerning representation which has
arisen, occurring in connection with the operations of the Com-
pany described in Section I, above, has a close, intimate, and sub-
stantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several
States and tends to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing
commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Union contends and the Company agrees that the unit appro-
priate for collective bargaining purposes should embrace all of the
Company's employees, including leaders 2 and watcirmen,3 but ex-
cluding supervisory 4 and clerical 5 employees. However, the parties
are in disagreement concerning the proper classification of certain
employees; viz: V. H. Jones, Florin D. Ebersold, Al Hammerstrom,
W. H. Aiken, and Alex N. Masters. The Union seeks to exclude
them from the unit on the ground that they are foremen, and thus
within the category of supervisory employees. The Company, how-
ever, contends that at most these employees are leaders and, therefore,
desires their inclusion. We shall consider each of them separately.
V. H. Jones is described by the Union as the foreman of some 15
men supervising the moving of heavy machinery at the yard. The
Company maintains that Jones is a leader with a constant crew of
from 6 to 8 men; that he does manual labor, is paid by the hour, and
neither hires nor discharges men. We find that V. H. Jones is a
leader and should be included in the unit.
Florin D. Ebersold's duties are conceded by the Company to be
supervisory under present conditions, although prior to the recent
3 The record is not entirely clear as to whether the Union has agreed to the inclusion of
Otho Jean Ebersold in the unit We find that this employee is a leader and we shall include
him in the unit.
3 As we read the record , the Union , in 'view of the testimony adduced by the Company,
is satisfied that all watchmen at the yard perform various kinds of manual labor in addition
to their protective functions , and the Union therefore has consented to their inclusion in
the unit
' The Union considers the following employees as supervisory • F. G Lloyd , George F
McGraw, E L . Bouchelle , Horace M Brandt , Richard Ward , Henry L. Hartley , William E
Hutchings , J. Roy Duggan , George L Roux , and George W. Gibbs , Jr. The Company did
not contest the exclusion of any of these individuals . The record shows , and we find, that
they are supervisory employees We shall exclude them from the unit
6 The Union considers the following employees as clerical : Francis M Reaves, Thomas
Lloyd Cely, Allen S Babcock , William 0 Stone , Garnett W . Seye, Jewel Marie Stelts , Ashley
B Campbell , Jane Powers , Hazel Armstrong , Barbara Pittman , Thomas A Sharpe , Robert
E Jones, Leslie J. Voelker , Alfred M Evans , Leo J . Ryan , and Arthur D Jones The
Company did not contest the exclusion of any of those individuals The records show,
and we find , that they are clerical employees . We shall exclude them from the unit.
GIBBS GAS ENGINE COMPANY 1113
upturn of business at the yard they were so in a much more limited
sense. He is paid on an hourly basis at a rate slightly higher than
that of leaders . We find that Florin D. Ebersold is a supervisory
employee and should be excluded from the unit.
Al Hammerstrom is classified by the Union as a painter foreman.
The Company describes him as a leader , managing a painting crew of
from 10 to 15 men, who is paid by the hour. We find that Al Ham-
merstrom is a supervisory employee and should be excluded from
the unit.
W. H. Aiken, according to the Union's testimony, is a pipefitter
foreman with strictly supervisory duties under present conditions and
with authority to discharge . However, the Company denies emphati-
cally that he is a foreman stating that he is engaged on installation
work, works with tools, and operates an engine . He has no leaders
under him. We find that W. H. Aiken is a leader and should be
included in the unit.
Alex N . Masters is described by the Union as a bull -gang foreman
who supervises the moving of lumber at the yard by a crew of some 25
laborers , with authority to discharge. The Company, however, in-
sists that "Masters is strictly a workman" and not "anything like a
foreman," but rather a leader who works along with his crew. We
find that Alex N . Masters is a supervisory employee and should
be excluded from the unit.
We find that all employees of the Company, including leaders
and watchmen , but excluding supervisory and clerical employees,
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargain-
ing and that such a unit will insure to the employees of the Company'
the full benefit of their right to self-organization and to collective
bargaining and will otherwise effectuate the policies of the Act.
VI. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
We find that the question concerning the representation of em-
ployees of the Company can best be resolved by an election by secret
ballot. The Company desires that a current pay roll be used to
determine eligibility to vote. The Union, on the other hand, re-
quested that eligibility io vote should be determined on the basis
of the pay roll as . of June 13, 1941, the date of its petition. The
president of the Union testified to his belief that discharges occur-
ring since that time at the Company's yard were intended to prevent
the particular employees from voting . The representative of the
Company testified that recent discharges were chiefly of a temporary
nature. Since our Direction will specifically entitle employees tem-
porarily laid off to,vote we find no reason for departing from our
usual practice . Accordingly, we shall direct that the employees of
the Company eligible to vote in the election shall be those in the
1114 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
appropriate unit who were employed during the pay-roll period im-
mediately preceding the date of the Direction of Election herein,
subject to such limitations and additions as are set forth in the
Direction.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire
record in the case, the Board makes the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. A question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the repre-
sentation of employees of Gibbs Gas Engine Company, Jacksonville,
Florida, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and
(7) of the National Labor Relations Aet.
2. All employees of the Company, including leaders and watch-
men, but excluding supervisory and clerical employees, constitute a
unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within
the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act.
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 Re-
lations Act, 49 Stat. 449, and pursuant to Article III, Section 8, of
National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2,
as amended, it is hereby
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation authorized by the Board
to ascertain representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining
with Gibbs Gas Engine Company, Jacksonville, Florida, an election
by secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later
than thirty (30) days from the date of this Direction, under the
direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Fifteenth
Region, acting in this matter as agent for the National Labor Rela-
tions Board, and subject to Article III, Section 9, of said Rules and
Regulations, among all the employees of Gibbs Gas Engine Com-
pany, Jacksonville, Florida, who were employed during the pay-roll
period next preceding the date of this Direction, including leaders
and watchmen, and employees who did not work during such pay-
roll period because they were ill or on vacation, or in the active
military service or training of the United States, or temporarily laid
off, but excluding supervisory and clerical employees and employees
who have since quit or been discharged for cause, to determine
whether or not they desire to be represented by the Jacksonville Metal
Trades Council, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor,
for the purposes of collective bargaining.