Marine Iron & Shipbuilding Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 6, 1954

108 N.L.R.B. 172 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

172 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
MARINE IRON & SHIPBUILDING COMPANY and DISTRICT
LODGE 133, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHIN-
ISTS, A.F. OF L., Petitioner . Case No . 18-RC-2051. April
6, 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 Hjalmar
Storlie, hearing officer . The hearing officer's rulings made at
the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby
affirmed. 1
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 cer-
tain employees of the Employer. -2
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.
4. The Petitioner seeks to sever from an existing plantwide
unit a unit of all machinists, apprentices , helpers , and machin-
ist welders employed in the Employer ' s machine shop. The
Intervenor and the Employer both contend that the unit sought
by the Petitioner should not be severed from the existing
plantwide unit because of a history of bargaining on a plantwide
basis, because the nature of the Employer ' s business requires
frequent assignment of employees outside their classifications
in order for the Employer to retain its competitive business
position , and because the existence of more than one unit in
the Employer ' s plant would lead to jurisdictional disputes.'
The Employer is engaged in shipbuilding , ship repair, steel
fabrication and machine - shop work. Shortly before the petition
in this case was filed , the Employer purchased the Abernathy
Iron Works, which performed machine - shop work similar to the
Employer ' s. The Employer moved most of the Abernathy equip-
ment to its own plant and transferred the Abernathy employees
to its plant and payroll . At the time of the petition , all operations
were being carried on at the Employer ' s plant and the Abernathy
plant was no longer in use . For the past several years the em-
ployees of the Employer have been represented in a plantwide
unit by the Intervenor , which is their certified representative.
'The Intervenor contends that the petition should be dismissed because it states the
Employer 's address incorrectly . However , as the Employer was served with the petition
and notice of hearing we find no merit in this contention.
2 International Brotherhood of Boiirnakers , Iron Ship Builders , and Helpers of America,
Lodge 647 , A.F. of L., intervened on the basis of a current contractual interest.
3 The Intervenor and Employer failed to introduce any evidence which explains or supports
this contention. Furthermore, we do not consider the possibility of jurisdictional disputes
as sufficient ground for denying craft severance where otherwise appropriate. Accordingly,
we find no merit in this contention . The Atlantic Refining Company , 92 NLRB 651 at 653.
MARINE IRON & SHIPBUILDING COMPANY 173
The employees transferred from Abernathy were formerly
represented by the Petitioner at Abernathy.
The Employer has approximately 12 machinists and 1 machin-
ist apprentice in its machine shop, of whom about 7 formerly
worked for Abernathy. It appears from the record that the
machinists have served an apprenticeship qualifying them for
journeyman status. They operate a variety of machine tools and
are required to exercise the usual skills of the machinist's
craft in the course of their employment. While the Employer
contends that it does not observe strictly the classifications
of its employees and must assign them to jobs outside of their
classifications to maintain its competitive position, the Em-
ployer gave no specific instance in which machinists have
worked outside their classification.
The Employer also employs machine operators and repair-
men, and mechinics who are assigned to the machine shop. It
appears from the record that none of the employees in these
classifications are craftsmen, nor are they in training to be-
come machinists. There are also two tool-crib attendants in
the toolroom who are not craftsmen.
In accordance with our recently announced policy in American
Potash & Chemical Corporation, s we find that the machinists
are true craftsmen 5 who may be represented as a separate unit
by a union which traditionally represents them, notwithstanding
their previous inclusion in a bargaining unit of broader scope.
As the Petitioner is such a union, we will direct an election
among the machinists to determine whether they wish to be
separately represented by the Petitioner. We will include the
apprentice in the unit, but will exclude the machine operators
and repairmen, the mechanics, and the tool-crib attendants as
they are not craftsmen nor are they in the direct line of suc-
cession to the machinist classification.
The Petitioner also seeks to include machinist welders and
helpers in the unit. It appears from the record that no em-
ployees are employed in these classifications. It is inferred
that the Petitioner has reference to two employees who trans-
fered from the Abernathy plant and were working temporarily
on a doughnut cutter assembly project in the machine shop.
Neither of thernwas working as a machinist's helper and neither
has any craft skills. At the time of the hearing the Employer
did not know how they would be employed after the doughnut
cutter job was finished. Under these circumstances, we will
exclude them.
Accordingly, we will direct that an election be held in the
following group of employees of the Employer at its Duluth,
Minnesota, plant:
All machinists and machinist apprentices, excluding all
other employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the
Act.
4107 NLRB 1418, at pp. 6-8.
5 Charleston Shipyards, Inc., 97 NLRB 379.
174 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
If a majority vote for the Petitioner , they will be taken to
have indicated their desire to constitute a separate unit, which
the Board finds, under the circumstances , to be appropriate
for purposes of collective bargaining ; and the Regional Director
is instructed to issue a certification of representatives to the
Petitioner for such unit . If a majority vote for the Intervenor,
they will be taken to have indicated their desire to remain a
part of the existing appropriate plantwide unit and the Regional
Director is instructed to issue a certification of results of
election to that effect.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
Member Beeson took no part in the consideration of the
above Decision and Direction of Election.
CHICAGO PNEUMATIC TOOL COMPANY and INTERNA-
TIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, AFL, Petitioner
and UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO
CHICAGO PNEUMATIC TOOL COMPANY and LOCAL UNION
116, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL
WORKERS, AFL, Petitioner and INTERNATIONAL ASSO-
CIATION OF MACHINISTS and UNITED STEELWORKERS
OF AMERICA, CIO. Cases Nos. 16-RC-1420 and 16-RC-
1425. April 6, 1954
DECISION , ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the Act and
thereafter consolidated , a hearing was held before John F.
White, a hearing officer of the National Labor Relations Board.
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 co mmerce within the meaning
of the National Labor Relations Act.
2. The labor organizations named below claim to represent
certain employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the re-
presentation of certain employees of the Employer within the
meaning of Section 9 ( c) and Section 2 (6) and ( 7) of the Act.
4. The Employer ' s Fort Worth , Texas, plant , here involved,
was constructed in 1953 to manufacture rock bits. To this
plant the Employer plans to transfer the rock bit department
of its Franklin , Pennsylvania , plant. At the time of hearing
about 200 production and maintenance employees of a contem-
plated employee complement of 500 were employed at Fort
Worth with all classifications represented and all production
108 NLRB No. 36.