Metropolitan Stevedore Co. of California

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 11, 1946

66 N.L.R.B. 514 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

In the Matter of METROPOLITAN STEVEDORE COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA*
and MARINE CLERKS ASSOCIATION, LOCAL 63, I. L. W. U., CIO
In the Matter of OUTER HARBOR DOCK AND WHARF COMPANY and
MARINE CLERKS ASSOCIATION, LOCAL 63, I. L. W. U., CIO
In the Matter Of OCEAN TERMINALS and MARINE CLERKS ASSOCIATION,
LOCAL 63, I. L. W. U., CIO
In the Matter, of LONG BEACH STEVEDORING TERMINALS COMPANY and
MARINE CLERKS ASSOCIATION, LOCAL 63, I. L. W. U., CIO
In the Matter of ASSOCIATED-BANNING CO.* and MARINE CLERKS
ASSOCIATION, LOCAL 63, I. L. W. U., CIO
In the Matter of MARINE TERMINALS CORPORATION (OF Los ANGELES)
and MARINE CLERKS ASSOCIATION, LOCAL 63, I. L. W. U., CIO
Cases Nos. 21-R-2985, 21-R-2986, 21-R-2993, 21-R-2994, 21-R-3017,
and f21-R-3018, respectively.--Decided March, 11, 1946 < <
Messrs. Brobeck, Plaeger & Harris, by Mr. Richard Ernst, of San
Francisco, Calif., for the Companies.
Messrs. Katz, Gallagher of Margolis, by Mr. John W. Porter,, of
Los Angeles, Calif., and Mr. Bill Gettings, of Los Angeles, Calif., for
the Union.
Mr. David V. Easton, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon six separate first amended petitions duly filed by Marine
Clerks Association , Local 63, I. L. W. U., CIO, herein called the
Union, alleging that questions affecting commerce had arisen concern-
ing the representation of employees of Metropolitan Stevedore Com-
pany of California , Wilmington , California , herein called Metro-
* At the hearing the Trial Examiner granted a motion to correct all papers in the
proceeding to reflect the true name of the employer, as set forth above.
66 N. L. R. B., No. 67.
514
METROPOLITAN STEVEDORE COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA S I S
politan; Outer Harbor Dock and Wharf Company, San Pedro, Cali-
fornia, herein called Outer Harbor; Ocean Terminals, East Terminal
Island, California, herein called Ocean Terminals; Long Beach
Stevedoring Terminals Company, Long Beach, California, herein
called Long Beach; Associated-Banning Co., Wilmington, California,
herein called Banning; and Marine Terminals Corporation (of Los
Angeles), Wilmington, California, herein called Marine Terminals;
all hereinafter referred to collectively as the Companies, the Board
consolidated the proceedings by an Order dated September 27, 1945,
and provided for an appropriate hearing upon due notice before
Charles M. Ryan, Trial Examiner. The hearing was held at Los
Angeles, California, on October 11 and 15, 1945. The Companies 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. The Trial Ex-
aminer'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. On November 5, 1945, the Companies re-
quested an opportunity to argue orally before the Board. 'This re-
quest is hereby denied. On November 13, 1945, the Companies moved
to reopen the record for the purpose of introducing evidence showing
that, in San Francisco, California, the Union is attempting to erase
all lines of demarcation between various groups which it represents.
The Companies seek to utilize this evidence in support of the conten-
tion that the clerical units here sought are inappropriate. Inasmuch
as we contemplate that the units herein found appropriate shall be
separate in fact as well as form, and the Companies may so insist
should we certify bargaining representatives in such units, we hereby
deny the motion.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF TIIF COMPANIES
All the Companies, except Ocean Terminals, which is a partner-
ship, are corporations. They are all engaged in the performance of
stevedoring work in the Los Angeles-Long Beach harbor area of Cali-
fornia, loading and unloading vessels that are engaged in foreign,
interstate, and intrastate commerce. During the period between
January 1 and October 1, 1945, each of the Companies loaded and
unloaded cargo on more than 100 vessels, handling a, total tonnage
exceeding 100,000 tons.
516 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
We find that the Companies are engaged in commerce with the
meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.'
11. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Marine Clerks Association, Local 63, International Longshore-
men's and Warehousemen's Union, affiliated with the Congress of
Industrial Organizations, is a labor organization admitting to mem-
bership employees of the Companies.
III. THE QUESTIONS CONCERNING REPRESENTATION; THE ALLEGED
QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
Each of the Companies has refused to grant recognition to the
Union as the bargaining representative of certain of its employees,
contesting the appropriateness of the units proposed by the Union.
Statements of a Field Examiner, introduced into evidence at the
hearing, indicate that the Union represents a substantial number of
employees in the units alleged by it to be appropriate.2
We find that questions affecting commerce have arisen concerning
the representation of employees of Metropolitan, Outer Harbor, Long
Beach, Banning, and Marine Terminals within the meaning of Sec-
tion 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
However, in view of our conclusion in Section IV, infra, that the
unit of employees of Ocean Terminals sought by the Union is at this
time inappropriate, we find that no question affecting commerce has
arisen concerning the representation of these employees within the
meaning of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNITS; THE ALLEGED APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Union seeks six separate units composed generally of all
timekeepers and office clericals employed by each of the Companies,
excluding supervisory employees. The Companies contend generally
that the proposed units are inappropriate in that the employees
See Matter of Bull Insular Line Inc, et al, 63 N L. R B. 154.
The following chart indicates the findings of the Field Examiner with respect to
the Union 's showing of interest :
Case No.
21-R-2985 ... .......... .. ........
21-R-2986 .... .... .. ... . .......
21-R-2993 .. ..... ... . . .. .. .... ......
21-8-2994 .... ........ ............ ......... .......
21-R-3017 . .. ..... ....... ...........
21-R-3018 .... . . . . .... .. ... .. .... . ........
Number of
designations
Number submitted
in Unit by Union
9 6
16 18
4 4
8 11
24 15
11 8
0
METROPOLITAN STEVEDORE COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA 517
sought have "duties, responsibilities and obligations to the employer"
which make it improper for them to be represented in any collective
bargaining unit, particularly by a labor organization which, through
other of its locals, represents the longshoremen or so-called "produc-
tion" workers of the Companies. In addition, the Companies which
employ timekeepers assert that, in any event, these employees should
be represented in a unit separate from the office clerical employees.
Except for those workers whom we find to be confidential or super-
visory, the employees sought by the Union perform purely clerical
functions. Consequently, we reject the first contention raised by
the Companies.3
Moreover, inasmuch as the record indicates that timekeepers are
clerical employees and that their duties require close cooperation
with the other clerical employees sought by the Union, we perceive
no impropriety in including both groups within the same unit.
We turn, therefore, to a consideration of the specific composition
of the various units.
Metropolitan-(Case No. $1-R-2985)
At the time of the hearing, Metropolitan employed four time-
keepers under the supervision of a superintendent, and four office
clerical employees under the supervision of the Company's secretary
and treasurer.
The timekeepers "check" the work of longshoremen, as well as
the time it takes to complete the jobs, and prepare reports con-
taining this information for use by the Company. In addition, they
are required to have a knowledge of the contracts under which the
various jobs performed by the Company are authorized. However,
there is no evidence that; in the normal course of their duties, time-
keepers have access to confidential information directly pertaining
to the Company's labor relations. Inasmuch as the record clearly
indicates that these employees exercise no supervisory functions,
we shall include them.
On the other hand, the record indicates that the four office clerical
employees of this Company have access, in the normal course of
their duties, to files which include confidential correspondence relat-
ing to labor relations, and that these employees prepare the data
used by Metropolitan in arbitration matters. We shall consequently
exclude them.
We find that all clerical employees of Metropolitan, including time-
keepers, but excluding the office clerical employees, and all supervisory
employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or
$ Matter of Bethlehem Steel Company , 63 N. L. B. B. 1230, and cases cited therein.
S 18 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively
recommend such action, constitute a unit appropriate for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining within the meaning of, Section 9 (b)
of the Act.
Outer Harbor- (Case No. 21-R-2986)
Outer Harbor employs no timekeepers, this 'function being divided
between the production foremen, who keep the time of their sub-
ordinates, and the office clerical employees who perform the paper
work of the Company. The office clerical employees are divided
between the general office and the freight office, but are inter-
changeable. The general office employees are under the supervision
of the confidential secretary to the manager, and the freight office
employees are supervised by a senior clerk.
The parties have agreed upon the exclusion of the confidential
secretary to the manager, who, the record discloses, possesses super-
visory authority. However, the record indicates that the senior clerk
in charge of the freight office and the secretary to the auditor have
authority to make effective recommendations with respect to sub-
ordinates' Under these circumstances, we find that these two em-
ployees are also supervisory employees, and we shall exclude them.
Other than the employees previously discussed, Outer Harbor
employed at the time of the-hearing the following individuals : a
billing clerk, an assistant billing clerk and typist, a comptometer
operator and statistician, a senior pay-roll clerk, an assistant pay-
roll clerk, a car clerk, a demurrage clerk, a bookkeeping machine
operator, a general clerk, a P. B. X. operator and mail clerk, a clerk
who handles service sheets, and three other clerks who Work in the
freight offiee. Outer Harbor adduced general evidence to the effect
that all clerical employees have access to its files and thus to the
information contained therein, some of which pertains to labor re-
lations, and that they prepare the exhibits used by the employer
in arbitration proceedings and negotiations. But specific testimony
with respect to the duties of these employees counteracts the effect
of this, general evidence. Thus, the general clerk and the bookkeeping
machine operator assist the secretary, to the auditor in the prepara-
tion of the employer's tax reports, and other reports to various
governmental agencies. The billing clerk and her assistant handle
invoices and bills. The comptometer operator and statistician pre-
pares statistical reports. The two pay-roll clerks prepare the pay
rolls. The car clerk concerns herself with "per diem and reclaim
* The secretary to the auditor supervises the work of a general clerk and the book-
keeping machine operator.
METROPOLITAN STEVEDORE COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA 519
from the various railroads on shipping operations." Another clerk
is in charge of demurrages. The P. B. X. operator attends the
switchboard, and seals, stamps, and mails letters. The service sheet
clerk makes up the service sheets from information prepared by
production foremen as to the hours worked by his gangs. And the
three other clerks assist the senior clerk in the freight office in the
preparation of the freight reports. It is apparent that these em-
ployees are engaged in routine clerical functions. The information
to which they have access is, apparently, that which is normal to
office clerical employees and cannot be considered confidential as we
customarily define the term. That these employees cannot be con-
sidered as confidential is further borne out by the fact that, at one
time, the Company bargained collectively with a labor organization
with respect to them, recognizing that organization as the representa-
tive of all its office employees, except office managers, assistant office
managers, chief accountants, chief clerks, and chief bookkeepers. The
record indicates that the Company considers the confidential secre-
tary to the manager as the office manager, the secretary to the
auditor as the chief accountant, and the senior clerk at the freight
office as the chief clerk; that it does not now engage an assistant
office manager; and that the bookkeeper no longer has any super-
visory powers. Inasmuch as there has been little change in the office
operations of Outer Harbor since that time, under all the circum-
stances, we see no reason for not including these employees.
Accordingly, we find that all clerical employees of Outer Harbor,
excluding the confidential secretary to the manager, the secretary
to the auditor, the senior clerk in charge of the freight office, and
all other 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 collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
Ocean Terminals-(Case 21-R-f993)
Ocean Terminals employs no timekeepers. As of the date of the
hearing, this Company employed a senior typist and a PBX operator-
typist in its office.
The senior typist acts as secretary to the superintendent and takes
all his dictation, including matters relating to labor relations. Under
these circumstances, we find that she is aconfidential employee.
The PBX operator-typist operates a switchboard and types records
dealing with the receipt and delivery of cargo. This employee is
not, in our opinion, confidential.
520 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
But, as previously indicated, Ocean Terminals employed only two
office clerical workers as of the date of the hearing, one of whom we
have found to be a confidential employee. Inasmuch as there is
but one employee whom we would include, we find the unit of em-
ployees of Ocean Terminals sought by the Union to be inappropriate,
and we shall dismiss the petition in this case.'
Long Beach-(Case No. 01-R-2994)
Long Beach employs two timekeepers and two pay-roll clerks, all
under the supervision of a chief timekeeper,6 and three other office
clerical employees who perform their duties under the supervision
of the secretary of the Company.
The record indicates that the timekeepers and the pay-roll clerks
perform duties usual to these classifications; and there is no evidence
indicating that they have access to confidential information directly
pertaining to the Company's labor relations. We shall include them.
The remaining clericals employed by the Company consist of a
senior billing clerk, an auditing and bookkeeping clerk, and a cost
clerk who work in the main office. The record indicates that although
each of these employees could obtain access to the Company's files,
there is no need for them to do so in the ordinary course of their
duties. However, the record further discloses that the cost clerk
takes dictation from the Company's secretary, including dictation
relating to confidential labor, relations data. In view of these cir-
cumstances, we shall exclude the cost clerk as a confidential employee,
but include the other two clerical workers.
We find that all clerical employees of Long Beach, including time-
keepers, pay-roll clerks, the senior billing clerk, and the auditing and
bookkeeping clerk, but excluding the cost clerk, the chief timekeeper,
and all other supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote,
discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of em-
ployees, or effectively recommend such action, constitute a unit appro-
priate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9 (b) of the Act.
Banning--Case No. 21-R-3017)
Banning employs 10 timekeepers under the supervision of a chief
timekeeper, 3 general clerks who are located at the piers under the
s Matter of Steamer Service Company, 58 N. L. R. B. 632 , and cases cited therein.
Although there is evidence that this Company intends to employ another office cleri-
cal worker , and that the duties of this employee will not be such as to warrant a
finding that he is confidential , we cannot now assume on the present state of the
record that this Company employs more than one worker whom we would include.
9 The record clearly indicates that the chief timekeeper is a supervisory employee,
and the parties have agreed to exclude him as such
METROPOLITAN STEVEDORE COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA 521
supervision of a pier superintendent, and approximately 10 main office
clerical employees under the supervision of an office manager?
The timekeepers perform duties usual to their classification and
similar to those described in our discussion of the employees of
Metropolitan. There is nothing in the record which indicates that
they possess supervisory authority, or that they have access to confi-
dential information directly pertaining to labor relations. We shall,
therefore, include them.
The three general clerks working under the supervision of a pier
superintendent are located in terminal offices at the piers, and per-
form clerical duties pertaining to dock operations. Because of the
nature of their work, these employees are not interchangeable with
file Company's main office employees, and there is no evidence which
would indicate that they have access, in the regular course of their
duties, to confidential information directly concerning labor relations.
We shall, accordingly, include them.
The main office employees of this Company consist of an account-
ant, a bookkeeper, a billing clerk and assistant billing clerk, a statis-
tician, several pay-roll clerks, a telephone operator, and a messenger.
Although the record indicates that all main office employees could
have access to the Company's files which contain confidential infor-
mation pertaining to the Company's labor relations, it further indi-
cates that the assistant billing clerk would be the employee who, as
part of her normal duties, would usually be required to examine con-
fidential correspondence pertaining to such matters. We shall, there-
fore, exclude only the assistant billing clerk as a confidential
employee, and include all other main office employees.
We find that all clerical employees of Banning, including the time-
keepers, general clerks, and main office clerical employees, but ex-
cluding the assistant billing clerk, the chief timekeeper, the office
manager, and all other 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 collective bargaining within
the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
Marine Terminals--{Case No. 21-R-3018)
Marine Terminals employs two timekeepers and two senior typists
under the supervision of a chief timekeeper , and four main office
clerical employees ( two bookkeepers and two senior typists) under
the supervision of this Company 's assistant secretary.
7 The record indicates that the chief timekeeper and the office manager are super-
visory employees , and the parties have agreed to their exclusion.
522 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The record indicates that the chief timekeeper can effectively
recommend the hire and discharge of his subordinates. Accordingly,
we find that he is a supervisory employee within the meaning of our
customary definition, and we shall exclude him.
The timekeepers perform the duties usual to this classification,
which are similar to those previously described, and the senior typists
who are under the supervision of the chief timekeeper have routine
clerical functions. It does not appear that any of these employees
have access, in the normal course of their duties, to confidential in-
formation pertaining to the Company's labor relations. We shall
include them.
There is general evidence that as part of their duties the two book-
keepers and the two senior typists engaged at this Company's main
office have access to all files of the Company, including those con-
taining information with respect to its negotiations affecting griev-
ances of longshoremen and marine clerks. They may be compared to
the four office clericals of Metropolitan. Under these circumstances,
we find that the two bookkeepers and the two senior typists engaged
at the main office are confidential employees within the meaning of our
customary definition, and we shall exclude them.
We find that all clerical employees of Marine Terminals, including
timekeepers and senior typists under the supervision of the chief
timekeeper, but excluding bookkeepers and senior typists engaged at
the Company's main office, the chief timekeeper, and all other super-
visory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, disci-
pline, 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.
V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
We shall direct that the questions concerning representation which
have arisen be resolved by five separate elections by secret ballot
among the employees in the units found appropriate, who were em-
ployed during the pay-roll period immediately preceeding the date of
the Direction of Elections herein, subject to the limitations and addi-
tions 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 Re-
lations Act, and pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3, as amended, it
is hereby
METROPOLITAN STEVEDORE COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA 523
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representa-
tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Metropolitan
Stevedore Company of California, Wilmington, California; Outer
Harbor Dock and Wharf Company, San Pedro, California; Long
Beach Stevedoring Terminals Company, Long Beach, California;
Associated-Banning Co., Wilmington, California; and Marine Ter-
minals Corporation (of Los Angeles), Wilmington, California; five
separate elections by secret ballot shall be conducted as early as pos-
sible, but not later than thirty (30) days from the date of this Direc-
tion, 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 Regulations, among the employees in 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 and have not been re-
hired or reinstated prior to the date of the election, to determine
whether or not they desire to be represented by Marine Clerks Asso-
ciation, Local 63, I. L. W. U., CIO, for the purposes of collective
bargaining.
ORDER
-Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the petition for investigation and
certification of representatives of employees of Ocean Terminals,
East Terminal Island, California, Case No. 21-R-2993, be, and it
hereby is, dismissed.