The Ingalls Shipbuilding Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 20, 1944

55 N.L.R.B. 629 (N.L.R.B. 1944)

In the Matter of THE INGALLS SHIPBUILDING CORPORATION and METAL
TRADES DEPARTMENT, AFFILIATED WITH TIIE AMERICAN FEDERATION
OF LABOR REPRESENTED BY PASCAGOULA METAL TRADES COUNCIL 1
Case No. 15-R-1077.-Decided March 20, 1944
Mr. D. IV. Strickland, of Birmingham, Ala., and Mr. A. W. Krebs,
of Pascagoula , Miss ., for the Company.
Mr. 1V. W. Clements, Mr. Leroy A119 ed, and Mr. C. E. Alexander, all
of New Orleans, La., and Mr. J. C. Ncef, of Pascagoula , Miss., for the
Union.
Mr. William Strong, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
S'IATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a petition duly filed by Metal Trades Department, affiliated
with the American Federation of Labor, represented by Pascagoula
Metal Trades Council, herein called the Union, alleging that a ques-
tion affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation of
employees of The Ingalls Shipbuilding Corporation, Pascagoula,
Mississippi, herein called the Company, the National Labor Relations
Board provided for an appropriate hearing upon due notice before
Laurence H. Whitlow, Trial Examiner. Said hearing was held at
New Orleans, Louisiana, on February 18, 1944. The Company and the
Union appeared and participated. All parties were afforded full op-
portunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and
to introduce evidence bearing on the issues. The Trial Examiner's
rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are
hereby affirmed. The Company moved for dismissal of the petition.
For reasons stated more fully below, the motion is denied.2 All parties
were afforded an opportunity to file briefs with the Board.
1 The name of the Union was amended at the hearing
2 See Section III, infra.
55 N. L. R. B., No. 113.
629
630 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF TIIE COMPANY
The Company, a Delaware corporation, is engaged at Pascagoula,
Mississippi, in the production of ships for the United States Govern-
ment. At the present time the Company has under construction 10
ships, each valued in excess of $2,500,000. All steel and most other
raw materials used in the construction of ships is obtained by the
Company from sources outside the State of Mississippi.
The Company admits that it is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
IT. TIIE ORGA\ IZ XTTON INVOLVED
Metal Trades Department , affiliated with the American Federa-
tion of Labor , Represented By Pascagoula Metal Trades Council, is
a labor organization admitting to membership employees of the
Company.
ITI. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Company has refused to grant recognition to the Union as the
.exclusive bargaining representative of the Company's checkers.
The Company asserts that the Union should not be permitted to
represent the employees involved for the reasons that the Union rep-
resents the production and maintenance employees, that the checkers
were excluded from the production and maintenance unit, that the
checkers are part of the managerial forces, that the checkers exercise
powers and control over production costs and the pay checks of pro-
duction and maintenance workers, that, the interests of the checkers
are adverse to those of the production and maintenance employees,
and that representation of the checkers and the production and main-
tenance employees by the same labor organization "will immeasur-
ably increase the opportunities of collusion" between the two groups
of workers. The Company does not contend that the checkers have
no right to collective bargaining under the Act; it merely seeks for
the reasons given to bar the Union from acting as the checkers' rep-
resentative in that respect and moves for dismissal of the petition.
The Union does not ask the inclusion of the checkers in the pro-
duction and maintenance employees unit, but seeks their inclusion
in a separate unit. Neither the Union's prior position nor our exclu-
sion of the checkers from the production and maintenance unit 3 bars
their inclusion in a separate unit at present.'
' See -latter of The Ingalls Shipbuilding Corporation , 21 N L R B 789 In that case
we excluded the "cost department clerks and checkers " The Company asserts that the
checkers involved here were included in that phrase
4 See Matter of General Motors Corporation , 51 N L R B 1366 ; Matter o f Packard
Motor Car Company, 47 N L R B 932.
THE INGALLS SHIPBUILDING CORPORATION 631
While it is the duty of the checkers, who are employed in the Com-
pany's cost department, to gauge for size the welds produced by the
welders, to check the total amount of welding performed, and to make
appropriate record entries which are used as the basis for computing
the welders' pay, the checkers exercise no supervisory functions over
the welders in the sense of directing their work. It is clear, and the
Company does not dispute, that the checkers are not so closely re-
lated to management that a unit of checkers would be inappropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining.' Nothing in our experi-
ence leads us to conclude that the exercise of rights under the Act is
incompatible with full and honest performance of duties by em-
ployees. Nor are we persuaded that representation of checkers and
welders by the same labor organization will militate against such a
result. Moreover, the remedy for inefficiency, disregard or neglect of
duty, collusion or other improper acts on the part of checkers s or
other employees lies implicitly in the power of the Company to disci-
pline and discharge employees. We see no reason, therefore, why the
same labor organization may not, if chosen by these employees, rep-
resent both them and other employees of the Company.' None of
the Company's contentions present a bar to this investigation of
representatives.
A statement of a Board agent, introduced into evidence at the
hearing, indicates that the Union represents a substantial number
of employees in the unit hereinafter found appropriate."
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Company, within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Union seeks a Unit composed of all production checkers, ex-
cluding all supervisors. The Company asserts that an appropriate
unit should consist of all checkers employed by the cost department
to check welding, burning and chipping footages, excluding depart-
5 See Matter of New England Shipbuilding Corporation, 49 N L R B 480; Matter of
Cramp Shipbuilding Company, 46 N L R. B 115; Matter of Bethlehem Steel Company,
46 N L R B 1166; Matter of McDonnell Aircraft Corporation, 49 N L R B 897; Matter
of Bohn Aluminum cC Brass Corporation, 47 N L R B 1229, Matter of Bethlehem Steel
Company, 52 N L R B, No 29, Matter of General Motors Corporation, ete, 51 N L
R B 1366, Matter of United Aircraft Piodsicts, 41 N L R B 501; See also 111atter of
North American, Inc., 44 N L R B 1372; Matter of Union Parts Manufacturing Com-
pany, Inc, 41 N L R B 1173; Matter of Pierson Machine Company, 43 N L R B 1169;
Matter of Gardner-Denver Company, 44 N L R B 1192 ; Matter of Westinghouse Electric
& Manufacturing Company, etc, 44 N L It. B 1071
6 There is some evidence in the record of improper acts of some checkers
4 See Matter of Armour d Company, 54 N L Il B, No 230, Matter of Bethlehem Steel
Company, etc, 46 N L R B 1166; Matter of McDonnell Aircraft Corporation, 49 N L.
It. B 897
8 The Field Examiner reported that the Union submitted 63 menibeiship cards and that
there are 75 employees in the alleged appropriate unit.
632 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
mental clerks, tally clerks, rate setters, chief checkers, chief rate set-
ters, leadermen, and all other supervisory employees." There appears
to be no difference between the positions of the parties, the variation
being primarily a matter of language, since the Union is interested
in the checkers employed by the cost department who check the pro-
duction of welders, measure and gauge welds, and record the footages.
While the Company asserts that it does not dispute the right of
the checkers to engage in concerted activity under the Act, and that
the sole objection of the Company is to representation of the welder
checkers by the Union, the Company nevertheless also contends that
they are a part of management.
In brief, it is the duty of the checkers to gauge for size the welds
produced by the welders, to check the total amount of welding per-
formed, and to make appropriate record entries which are used as
the basis for computing the welders' pay. Each checker checks the
work of from 15 to 20 welders, but does not set rates for work; that
is the function of rate setters. Checkers exercise no supervisory
functions over the welders in the sense of directing their work. We
have heretofore had occasion to consider like contentions as to the
duties and functions of other categories of employees engaged in
generally similar work.1° Nothing in the instant case leads us to a
contrary conclusion. We find therefore that checkers do not exercise
functions or have powers which would make them ineligible to bar-
gain collectively in a separate unit.
We find that all production checkers employed by the Company,
excluding all other employees and all 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.
V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
We shall direct that the question concerning representation which
has arisen be resolved by all election by secret ballot among the em-
ployees in the appropriate unit who were employed during the pay-roll
period immediately preceding the date of the Direction of Election
herein, subject to the limitations and additions set forth in the Direc-
tion.
DAs stated above, the Company does not seek to deny collective bargaining rights to
the checkers It merely seeks to bar the Union from acting as their representative in that
respect.
10 See, for example, cases cited in footnote 5, supra.
THE IN GALLS SHIPBUILDING CORPORATION 633
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 Rela-
tions Act, and pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3, it is hereby
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to -ascertain representa-
tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with The Ingalls Ship-
building Corporation, Pascagoula, Mississippi, 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 Relations Board, and
.subject to Article III, Sections 10 and 11, of said Rules and Regula-
tions , among the employees in the unit 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 those employees who have since quit or been dis-
charged for cause and have not been rehired or reinstated prior to
the date of the election, to determine whether or not they desire to
be represented by Metal Trades Department, affiliated with the Amer-
ican Federation of Labor, represented by Pascagoula Metal Trades
Council , for the purposes of collective bargaining.