The American Shipbuilding Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 5, 1954

110 N.L.R.B. 798 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

7 98 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
evidence that a number of these leadmen were previously excluded
from the unit as supervisors by agreement of the parties.
Finally, we view as particularly unfortunate the implication that
the Board's previous decision was responsible for the continuance of
labor disturbances at this plant. As a matter of fact, those disturb-
ances antedated the Board's previous decision. Their continuation in
the interim between that decision and the present is hardly attributable
to the Board in view of the fact that at any time during this period,
nonsupervisory employees of the Employer or the Employer itself
could have filed a petition for a representation election. The fact
that this Board prevented one individual from doing so at a time when
he was a supervisor, and therefore not entitled under the Act to file
a petition, is hardly pertinent.
MEMBER RODGERS took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Election.
THE AMERICAN SHIPBUILDING COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIA-
TION OF MACHINISTS, AFL, PETITIONER. Case No. 8-RC-2260.
November 5,1954
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 W. R. Griesbach,
hearing officer. 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 commerce within the meaning of
the National Labor Relations Act.
2. The following labor organizations claim to represent certain
employees of the Employer : Petitioner, International Association of
Machinists, AFL; Intervenors-International Brotherhood of Boiler-
makers, Iron Shipbuilders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers, AFL;
Pattern Makers' League of North America, AFL; United Brother-
hood of Carpenters & Joiners of America, AFL; International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL; Brotherhood of Painters,
Decorators & Paperhangers of America, AFL; International
Brotherhood of Firemen & Oilers, AFL; International Union of
Operating Engineers, AFL; Sheet Metal Workers International As-
sociation, AFL; and United Association of Journeymen & Appren-
tices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States
and Canada, AFL.
110 NLRB No. 114.
THE AMERICAN SHIPBUILDING COMPANY 799
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9
(c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Employer operates shipyards in Buffalo, New York; Lorain
and Toledo, Ohio; and South Chicago, Illinois, and is engaged in the
manufacture, repair, and conversion of steamships.
The Petitioner seeks to represent in a separate unit, individually, a
multiplant unit of machinists, apprentices and helpers, and those em-
ployees (the mover or hooker-on, the machine shop craneman, and the
toolroom clerk) who work with and service the machinists. However,
Petitioner states it will represent a pure craft unit but believes the
additional three classifications should be a part of the unit. The
Intervenors and the Employer object to Petitioner's election to pursue
an individual course of bargaining and contend that only a multi-
plantwide unit is appropriate relying on (1) the long bargaining
history of joint representation, (2) the integrated nature of the Em-
ployer's shipbuilding and repairing operation, (3) the mutuality of
interest and close association of employees in all crafts, and (4) the
proposed unit's lack of true craft or true departmental characteristics.
As far back as 1919, the Employer began its contractual relations
with the Metal Trades Department of the AFL, covering all employ-
ees at Employer's shipyards. After a few years, contractual relations
were terminated. In 1939, the Employer was approached by a group
of AFL affiliates desiring to reestablish the former relationship. Ne-
gotiations culminated in an agreement dated March 8, 1940. How-
ever, in 1941, the AFL representation was challenged and the
Employer filed a petition with the Board for determination of repre-
sentatives. On October 6, 1941, the Board certified certain unions
affiliated with the AFL, including the Petitioner, as the bargaining
representative of the production and maintenance employees at the
Employer's shipyards located in Buffalo, New York; Cleveland,
Lorain, and Toledo, Ohio; South Chicago, Illinois; and Superior,
Wisconsin.
In the 1952 contract, and apparently in the earlier contracts, the
Employer recognized the various labor organizations jointly as the
appropriate and exclusive representative for the purpose of collective
bargaining. Neither the contracts, nor the 1941 certification, specified
the jurisdiction of the union signatories. Evidently, each union in-
volved represented the employees in their agreed areas of jurisdiction.
The various crafts employed by Employer are accorded separate
recognition and representation on the union bargaining committee
which negotiates with the Employer. All agreements have been
embodied in. single contracts jointly executed by the Employer and
by all the interested labor organizations.
800 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Evidence at the hearing was largely confined to the Employer's
Lorain, Ohio, operation, but there was testimony that its operations
at other yards were substantially comparable. At this time the Em-
ployer owns only the four yards shown above. The total number of
production and maintenance employees in the employ of the various
shipyards at the time of the hearing was approximately 1,400, with
approximately 100-110 employees in the unit claimed by the
Petitioner.
The Employer's machinists are divided into two groups : the inside
machinists who operate lathes, boring mills, shapers, planers, drill
presses-the usual gamut of machine tools in the machine shop, and
the outside machinists who are primarily engaged in installation of
machine parts and do not have the ability to operate the machines.
Both groups of machinists work out of the machine shop which is
a separate building where machinists have their lockers. In the
machine shop, in addition to the inside and outside machinists, are
the crane man and the hooker-on who works with the craneman, and
in some of the machine shops, janitors and possibly toolroom clerks.
The Employer stated that no classification of machinist leadmen
existed at the Lorain operation and that it did not believe there was
such a classification at the other three yards.
The top supervisor of the machinists is the master mechanic who
also supervises the licensed firemen who operate the pressure boilers
in a building known as the forge shop. Two general foremen assist
him : one who with a subforeman supervises the inside machinists, and
the other who with several subforemen supervises the outside ma-
chinists. This same organization structure applies to the other yards
of Employer with the exception of firemen being under the master
mechanic's supervision.
The shipyard trades, including the machinists, are supervised by
their own foremen or subforemen when working out in the yard in
conjunction with other crafts. For convenience of operations, various
crafts, other than the machinists, may perform tasks in the machine
shop. Pipefitting is sometimes performed by the pipefitters in the
machine shop ; boilermakers, as well as carpenters, occasionally per-
form duties relating to their crafts in the machine shop. During the
war when the Employer was engaged in manufacturing tank treads
for Army tanks, approximately 50 welders worked in the machine
shop for a period of approximately 6 months.
No apprenticeship program is maintained by the Employer. Dur-
ing the war, the Employer hired learners who were advanced at
90-day intervals to the time when they became machinists. In filling
a machinist vacancy, the Employer's employment office selects an
applicant to meet the requirement of the vacancy and sends him to
THE AMERICAN SHIPBUILDING COMPANY 801
the master mechanic for approval. It is not deemed necessary that
the applicant has worked a certain number of years in the trade, but
only that he be qualified to fill the vacancy. An applicant claiming
to be a qualified journeyman is given a 30-day period to prove his
ability. By contract, craft seniority prevails in the reduction and
restoration of employees in each yard.
It appears from the above facts that the larger group of employees
sought by the Petitioner constitutes essentially the Employer's ma-
chine shops. As machine shops have been considered traditional de-
partmental units entitled to severance from production and main-
tenance units if the employees so desire, we find such severance to be
appropriate here. Although the Petitioner did not ask for janitors,
we find those janitors who work in the machine shop a part of the
departmental unit. As for the toolroom clerk, the record fails to
clearly establish that he is a part of the machine shop. If he is, he
shall be a part of the unit which may hereinafter be found to be ap-
propriate; otherwise, he shall be excluded. We find that the Peti-
tioner is a labor organization which has traditionally served the
special interests of machine shop employees, and therefore, shall
permit the machine shop employees to determine whether they desire
to be represented separately by the Petitioner.
Accordingly, we shall direct an election at this time among the
following group of employees of the Employer at its Buffalo, New
York;, Lorain and Toledo, Ohio; and South Chicago, Illinois, ship-
yards:
All employees of the machine shop, including inside and outside
machinists, machinist apprentices and helpers, the machine shop
craneman and hooker-on, the machine shop janitors, and the tool-
room clerk,' excluding all other employees, guards, and supervisors
as defined in the Act.
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 col-
lective 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 Intervenors, they will be taken to have indicated
their desire to remain a part of the existing appropriate multiplant
unit of production and maintenance employees, 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.]
' Subject to the preceding qualification.
338207-55-vol 110-52