Steamship Trade Assoc. of Baltimore, Inc., Etc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsOct 14, 1965

155 N.L.R.B. 232 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

232 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD (c) Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 20 days from the receipt of this Decision, what steps it has taken to comply herewith.8 'If this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, the words "20 days from the receipt of this Decision" shall be stricken, and the words "10 days from the date of this Order" shall be substituted therefor. APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Rela- tions Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that: WE WILL, upon request, bargain with United Industrial Workers of North America of the Seafarers International Union of North America, Atlantic, Gulf, Lakes & Inland Waters District, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of all employees in the bargaining unit described below with respect to wages, hours, and other working conditions, and if an understanding is reached, put it in a signed agreement. The bargaining unit is: All powerhouse employees employed in the plant at 5000 Richmond Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, including the powerhouse operators, water system operators, utility operators, powerhouse firemen, shift oper- ating engineers , and coal unloaders, but excluding all other employees, including instrument mechanics, guards, and supervisors as defined in the National Labor Relations Act. ROHM & HAAS COMPANY, Employer. Dated------------------- By------------------------------------------- (Representative) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 1700 Bankers Securities Building, Walnut and Juniper Streets, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Telephone No. 735-2612. Steamship Trade Association of Baltimore , Inc.; Alcoa Steam- ship Co., Inc.; American Stevedores, Inc.; Atlantic & Gulf Stevedores , Inc.; Baltimore Stevedoring Co., Inc. ; Chesapeake Operating Company; The Cottman Company; Fidelity Ship Ceiling Company, Incorporated ; Robert C. Herd & Co., Inc.; Hopkins Stevedoring Company, Inc.; Jarka Corporation of Baltimore , Inc.; Nacirema Operating Company, Inc .; Patapsco Ship Ceiling & Stevedoring Company; Ramsey Scarlett & Com- pany; Terminal Shipping Company; United States Lines Com- pany; John T. Clark & Son of Maryland, Inc.; Rukert Terminals Corporation ; United Fruit Company and Interna- tional Longshoremen 's Association , AFL-CIO, and Local No. 953, International Longshoremen 's Association , AFL-CIO, Peti- tioner . Case No. 5-RC-5043. October 14,1965 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended , a hearing was held before Hearing Offi- 155 NLRB No. 21. STEAMSHIP TRADE ASSOC. OF BALTIMORE, INC., ETC. 233 cer Leonard R. Miller. The Hearing Officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Briefs have been filed by the Employer 1 and by the Petitioner. Upon the entire record in this case, the National Labor Relations Board finds : 1. Steamship Trade Association of Baltimore, Inc., is an incorpo- rated Association representing for purposes of collective bargaining employers providing longshore services in the port of Baltimore. During the year immediately preceding the hearing, each individual member of STA performed services valued in excess of $50,000 for customers outside the State of Maryland. Neither STA nor the indi- vidual employer-members contest the Board's jurisdiction in this case. Accordingly, we find it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. 2. The petitioning labor organization claims to represent certain employees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion of certain employees of the Employer within the meaning of Sec- tions 9(c) (1) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The Petitioner seeks an election to determine whether timekeepers employed by the Employers named in the caption wish to be repre- sented as part of the existing portwide, multiemployer unit of check- ers, ship runners, and ship planners. STA contends that the petition should be dismissed as it is not for an appropriate unit, since STA has never been authorized to bargain with respect to the timekeepers as part of the present portwide, multiemployer unit of checkers, ship runners, and ship planners? The record establishes that since 1959, STA, acting through its trade practices committee, has engaged in multiemployer bargaining on behalf of its constituent members with various ILA locals represent- ing the several classes of operating employees, bargaining with Peti- tioner as the representative of employees in the classification of check- ers,3 ship runners, and ship planners.4 There are about 25 employees performing timekeeping functions for the various employer-members of STA. The record establishes that their duties, although varying somewhat, are, generally speaking, 1 Steamship Trade Association of Baltimore , Inc. (designated herein as STA), filed a brief on its own behalf and on behalf of certain individual employer -members . Chesa- peake Operating Company filed, in addition , a separate brief. The requests of Petitioner and Chesapeake Operating Company that the Board hear oral argument in this case are hereby denied as the briefs, the Hearing Officer's report, and the transcript of the testimony and exhibits adequately present all the issues involved herein. e The individual employer -members contend that timekeepers do not constitute appro- priate separate units, but are properly part of units of office clerical employees. 8 Checkers are also referred to as tallymen. 4 The classification of ship planner was not covered by the contracts between Petitioner and STA until September 1964, when such employees were included under the agreement negotiated by STA and Petitioner. 234 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD clerical in nature, consisting of keeping longshore and/or commodity time and the preparation of time sheets and payrolls, as well as other records, such as tonnage analysis reports, labor vouchers, detentions, extra labor, overtime, and accident reports. In almost all cases the timekeepers work either at separate offices maintained by the com- panies at the piers or directly on the ships. Their hours of work, rates of pay, places of work, and supervision are different from those of the office clericals. In Andes Fruit Company,5 the Board held, on the basis of facts very much like those set forth above, that timekeepers are like plant cleri- cals, and as such might properly be included in an existing unit of checkers such as Petitioner seeks herein.6 In the instant case, the checkers, ship runners, and ship planners are represented in a portwide, multiemployer unit. As heretofore indi- cated, STA claims that as the representative of its member-companies it has never bargained for timekeepers as part of the existing unit; that it has never specifically been granted, and in fact has been denied, authority by its employer-members to represent them in bargaining with respect to such employees.7 STA contends that as multiemployer bargaining can be established only by mutual consent of the parties, and as the individual employer-members have not specifically con- sented to such bargaining as to timekeepers, the unit sought by Peti- tioner is inappropriate and the petition should be dismissed.8 It is true that mutual consent is required to establish multiemployer bargaining. But it is clear that the element of consent relates to the formation of the multiemployer unit and not to the scope of the duty to bargain once the multiemployer unit is formed, a duty which is measured by the requirements of the Act, one of which is that bargain- ing must be conducted in an appropriate unit. To hold otherwise would lodge all authority over the composition of the unit in the parties and, in effect, deprive the Board of its duty under Section 9 to decide in each case the appropriate unit that will assure to employees the fullest freedom in exercising the rights guaranteed by the Act. In the instant case, we are not confronted with the question of whether the parties have consented to bargain on a multiemployer basis as to operating employees in the port of Baltimore, for that is undis- 6124 NLRB 781. 6 See Andes Fruit, supra, 785-790. 7 On February 9, 1965, the employer-members of STA held a meeting to consider a representation petition ( the petition was subsequently withdrawn on February 12, 1965), wherein the Union sought a portwide , multiemployer unit of timekeepers . The employer- members adopted a resolution at that meeting denying STA the authority to represent them with respect to such employees. 8 To support its contention , STA relies on Andes Fruit , supra. We do not, however, view that case as a controlling precedent . Although there is some language in Andes Fruit which may appear to support STA's position , it is clear that the Board 's sole reason for refusing to order an election on a multiemployer basis in that case was that the par- ties had not established any multiemployer-bargaining unit. To the extent that the dictum in Andes Fruit tends in a different direction , we do not follow it. STEAMSHIP TRADE ASSOC. OF BALTIMORE, INC., ETC. 235 putecl. Rather, the sole question before us is whether the employer- members, once they have agreed to bargain in a portwide, multiem- ployer unit of operating personnel, may restrict the authority of their Association with respect to a particular classification of operating employees, to wit, the timekeepers. We hold that to permit this in the particular circumstances here present would be inconsistent with the policies of the Act. The timekeepers are the only unrepresented plant clericals employed by STA's employer-members. The individual employer-ineiribers do not dispute the right of timekeepers to be represented for purposes of collective bargaining, but seek only to exclude them from the unit which includes all other plant clericals. It is clear, however, that the timekeepers' work is integrated with that of the checkers, and that the timekeepers have a substantial community of interest with the check- ers, ship runners, and ship planners who comprise the existing unit. Where, as here, there is an unrepresented group of employees which in appropriate circumstances may be allocable to an existing multiem- ployer unit, the Board in the past has held that the scope of the unit covering the unrepresented employees should be coextensive with the existing appropriate unit of represented employees.9 Under these circumstances, we believe that if the timekeepers desire to be represented by the Petitioner, then in order "to assure [them] the fullest freedom in exercising the rights guaranteed" by the Act, it is appropriate that they should not be isolated from, but, rather, should form part of the existing unit of plant clericals with whom they are closely allied in job function and interests. Accordingly, we find that the timekeepers involved herein consti- tute an appropriate voting group, and we shall direct an election among them for the purpose of determining whether they wish to be represented as part of the existing unit of checkers, ship runners, and ship planners.1° If a majority of the employees in such voting group vote for Petitioner, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to be included in the existing checkers, ship runners, and ship planners units of employees. If a majority of the employees in such group vote against representation by Petitioner, they will be taken to have indi- a The Los Angeles Statler Hilton Hotel, 129 NLRB 1349 , 1351-1352. The holding in Pggly Wiggly California Company, 144 NLRB 708 , does not require an opposite result here, for in that case the separate single -employer unit of snackbar employees in which an election was sought and directed was also an appropriate bargaining unit. See also Crlimley Hotel, Inc, d /b/a Holiday Hotel, 134 NLRB 113. 30A problem arises as to the eligibility of certain employees. The record reveals that employees Thomas Bowen , John Holman , Mike Zatzs , and Thomas Benewicz spend less than 25 percent of their time engaged in the performance of timekeeping duties. In our opinion, such employees have an insufficient community of interest with the timekeepers, checkers, ship runners, and ship planners, and, therefore , are not eligible to participate in the election . Cf. Cab Operating Corp ., 153 NLRB 878. 236 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD cated their desire to remain outside such existing unit. In either event, the Regional Director is instructed to issue a certification of the results of the election to such effect. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] MEMBERS FANNING and JENKINS took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Direction of Election. San Francisco Metal Products Company, d/b/a O 'Hara Metal Products Co., Petitioner and International Association of Ma- chinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, Local Lodge No. 68, and Tool and Die Craftsmen , National Federation of Inde- pendent Unions. Case No. 20-RM-751. October 15,1965 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hearing was held on June 28, 1965, before Hearing Officer Walter L. Kintz, Jr. The Hearing Officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. The Employer and Tool and Die Craftsmen, National Fed- eration of Independent Unions, herein called Tool and Die Union, have filed briefs. Pursuant to Section 3 (b) of the Act, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three- member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Jenkins and Zagoria]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act and it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. 2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain employees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Sections 9 (c) (1) (B) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Tool and Die Union contends that an existing collective-bargaining agreement with California Metal Trades Association, herein called CMTA, is a bar to this proceeding. Arrow Tool and Die Works, herein called Arrow, was a partnership consisting of two partners, Reno Bottano and Albert Hill, engaged in tool-and-die work. It had two employees. Arrow was a member of the CMTA and was represented for collective-bargaining purposes by 155 NLRB No. 27.