Todd Shipyards Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 25, 1945

63 N.L.R.B. 526 (N.L.R.B. 1945)

In the Matter of TODD SHIPYARDS CORPORATION ( Ei.IF. BASIN YARD)
and I . L. A., PIPE COVERERS LOCAL No. 1474, AFFILIATED WITH THE.
A. F. L.
Case No. 2-RD-352.-Decided August 25,19/5
Cullen & Dykman, by Mr. Robert B. Lisle, of Brooklyn, N. Y., for- -
the Company.
Mr. Ray N. Johnston, of New York City, for the A. F. L.
Rotlibard, Harris & Talisman, by Mr. Bernard Cherny, of Newark,.
N. J., for the C. I. O.
Mr. A. Sumvn,er Lawrence, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
I S-rATEIIENT OF THE CASE
Upon a petition duly filed by I. L. A., Pipe Coverers Local No. 1474,.
affiliated with the A. F. L., herein called the A. F. L., alleging that
a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representa-
tion of employees of Todd Shipyards Corporation (Erie Basin Yard),.
Brooklyn, New York, herein called the Company, the National Labor
Relations Board provided for an appropriate hearing upon due notice
before Jerome I. Macht, Trial Examiner . Said hearing was held at
Brooklyn, New York, on May 21, 1945. The Company, the A. F. L.,
and Industrial Union of Marine and Shipbuilding Workers of Amer-
ica, and its Locals 39 and 15, affiliated with the C . I. 0., herein called
the C. I. 0., 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 Examiner's-
rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are
hereby affirmed. All parties were afforded an opportunity to file briefs
with the Board.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
63 N. L . R. B., No. 82.
526
TODD SHIPYARDS CORPORATION
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF TIIE COMPANY
527
Todd Shipyards Corporation, a New York Corporation, having its
principal oflices at New York City, is engaged in the business of ship
repair and conversion, in the conduct of which business it maintains
shipyards in various parts of the United States. We are here con-
cerned only with its shipyard, known as the Brooklyn Division and
located at Brooklyn, New York. During the past year, the Company
purchased for use at its Brooklyn yard, raw materials valued in ex-
cess of $1,000,000, of which approximately 50 percent was obtained
from points outside the State of New York. During the same period,
the dollar volume of business handled by its Brooklyn yard was in
excess of $1,000,000, substantially all of which concerned the repair
and conversion of ships moving in interstate and foreign commerce.
The Company admits that it is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
I. L. A., Pipe Coverers Local No. 1474, affiliated with the American
Federation of Labor, is a labor organization admitting to member-
ship employees of the Company.
Industrial Union of Marine and Shipbuilding Workers of America,
and its Locals 39 and 15, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial
Organizations, are labor organizations admitting to membership em-
ployees of the Company.
III. THE ALLEGED APPROPRIATE UNIT
The A. F. L. contends that all employees engaged in the installation
and application of insulation material, otherwise known as pipe cov-
erers, in the Company's Brooklyn Division constitute an appropriate
unit.' The C. I. 0., whose position is generally supported by that
of the Company, maintains that the limited unit sought by the A. F. L.
is inappropriate. The C. I. O. argues in the alternative : (1) that the
appropriate unit should extend to all production and maintenance
employees at the Company's Brooklyn and Hoboken 2 Divisions; (2)'
that the appropriate unit should include all production and mainte-
nance employees at the Brooklyn Division; and (3) that if a separate
unit is to be established for insulation employees, such unit should
embrace all employees of this type at both the Brooklyn and Hoboken
Pipe coverers are classified by the Company as mechanics . first , second, third , and fourth
class , according to their experience and relative degree of skill in pipe covering operations
2 The Company's Hoboken Division consists of a shipyard located at Hoboken, New Jersey,
approximately 4 miles from the Brooklyn Division.
528 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Divisions. In support of its alternative contentions, the C. I. O. relies;
upon the history of collective bargaining as affecting the Company's-
employees at its Brooklyn and Hoboken Divisions.
So far as the history of collective bargaining is concerned, the record
reveals that Local 39 was certified in 1941 as bargaining representative
in a Board proceeding establishing a production and maintenance
unit for the Brooklyn yard,-' which was then operated by a subsidiary
of the Company. Thereafter, in 1942, the C. I. O. entered into a col-
lective bargaining agreement for the established unit of production
and maintenance employees covering the period from June 1942 to^
June 1943. Shortly after the execution of this agreement, the C. I. O.
was certified by the Board as bargaining representative for the pro-
duction and maintenance employees at the Hoboken yard 4 and entered
into an agreement covering such employees similar to that covering
the employees at the Brooklyn yard. Subsequent thereto, but not
later than June 1943, the C. I. O. locals herein concerned entered into,
joint negotiations with the Company 5 for a new collective bargaining
agreement covering as a single unit the production and maintenance
employees of both the Brooklyn and Hoboken Divisions. The nego-
tiations thus initiated upon a multiple-yard basis continued during
the fall of 1943 and were later extended to include the employees of
the Company's insulation department, which was established at both
the Brooklyn and Hoboken yards about October 1943. As a result
of these negotiations, which continued throughout 1944, the Company
and the C. I. O. arrived at a series of informal agreements on a number
of substantial provisions .6 These provisions, together with certain
° directives from the National War Labor Board on matters in dispute
between the parties,' were eventually incorporated in a formal written
agreement, executed on March 31, 1945.11
With respect to the relation between the history of collective bar-
gaining above referred to and the appropriateness of the unit claimed
by the A. F. L., it further appears that although the insulation em-
ployees ware not employed at the date of, the Board's Decision in 1941
3 See Matter of Robins Dray Dock & Repair Company, 37 N. L R. B 14;34N L. R B 864.
4 See Matter of Tiet,en & Lang Dry Dock Company, 37 N. L R. B. 310; 38 N. L. R. B. 935.
The Hoboken yard was then operated by a subsidiary of the Company.
5 Through merger of the subsidiaries in the parent corporation the Company came into
immediate control of both the Brooklyn and Hoboken yards.
9 The provisions in question become effective immediately upon agreement between the
Company and the C. I. O.
7 During the year 1944, directives covering the relations of the parties were issued by the
National War Labor Board on June 16, August 28, and November 17, respectively.
8 The agreement of March 31, 1945, between the Company and the C. I. O. locals embraced
the production and maintenance employees, including pipe coverers at both the Brooklyn
and Hoboken yards, and retroactively covered the period from June 23, 1943, to June 23,
1944. As of the date of the hearing, the Company and the C. I. O. were negotiating an
agreement covering the period from June 23, 1944, to June 23, 1945. Pending the com-
pletion of this agreement, the parties considered themselves bound by an indefinite extension
agreement executed in 1944.
TODD SHIPYARDS CORPORATION 529
establishing a production and maintenance unit for the Brooklyn yard,
the C. I. 0. requested and obtained from the Company within a few
months after the creation of the insulation department, recognition as
the bargaining representative for pipe coverers as part of the pro-
duction and maintenance unit already represented by the C. I. O.
Thereafter, in January of 1944, the C. I. O. submitted to the Company
a proposed wage scale with respect to pipe coverers. This wage scale
the Company considered too high, with the result that the Company
filed early in 1944 a Form 10 application with the Shipbuilding Com-
mission of the National War Labor Board, for the purpose of securing
approval of its prior unilateral application to pipe coverers of a wage
rate which was unacceptable to the C. I. O.
Although the subsequent negotiations during the summer of 1944
apparently did not have specific reference to employees in the insula-
tion department, the issue as to wage rates for pipe coverers was again
raised by the C. I. O. in the fall of 1944 in connection with other dis-
puted issues submitted to the Shipbuilding Commission of the Na-
tional War Labor Board, and was the subject of determination by the
latter agency under a directive issued on November 17, 1944.9 There-
after in late December 1944 or early January 1945, the Company and
the C. I. O. joined in a Form 10 application to the National War Labor
Board for approval of a wage increase for pipe coverers1° The pro-
posed wage increase was subsequently approved by a National War
Labor Board directive issued on April 24, 1945.11
In addition to the foregoing history of collective bargaining, the
evidence reveals that the C. I. O. has maintained a shop steward in the
insulation department of the Brooklyn yard since the summer of 1944
and has handled not less than 12 grievances for employees of the in-
sulation department up to and including May 1945. Although the
A. F. L. had members among the employees of the insulation depart-
ment at the Brooklyn yard prior to the negotiation and execution of
the C. I. O.'s 1945 contract there is nothing in the record- to indicate
that pipe coverers, as such, have maintained their identity as a group.
At no time before the filing of the present petition have they sought
to be represented by a craft organization, nor have they otherwise
evinced any protest against inclusion in the production and mainte,
nonce unit.
9 The directive of November 17, 1944, which so far as 1i age rates were concerned, was
retroactive to June 23, 1943, established the wage rate for pipe coverers in accordance
with the Company's original contention as set forth in its application undbr Form 10 filed
earlier in the same year.
10 The proposed wage increase represented a compromise between the rate urged by the
C. I. O. and the rate which the Company had originally sought in its Form 10 application
and which had recently been established by the directive of November 17, 1944.
n The wage increase approved by the directive of April 24, 1945, was retroactive to
December 21, 1944.
530 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The A. F. L. contends in substance that pipe coverers constitute a
group of craft employees who, despite a history of collective bargain-
ing on an industrial basis are nevertheless entitled to separate repre-
sentation under an exception to the American Can doctrine.12
The Board has applied exceptions to the case noted above, however,
only in instances in which the employees concerned constituted a recog-
nized craft as distinguished from a group of skilled employees.13 Al-
though the evidence in the present instance indicates that the pipe
coverers in the highest grade require a considerable period'of time to
attain the degree of skill requisite to such grade, we are of the opinion
that the record does not establish that pipe coverers as a group con-
stitute a craft within the usual meaning of the term 14 Moreover, as-
suming pipe coverers are a craft, it does not appear, as required under
established exceptions to the American Can doctrine that the pipe cov-
erers involved herein have, throughout the history of collective bar-
gaining at the Brooklyn yard, maintained or attempted to maintain
their identity as a group apart from the production and maintenance
employees. Aside from the question of permitting pipe coverers to be
represented in a unit apart from the production and maintenance em-
ployees, it would further appear, in view of the uniform duties, wages,
and working conditions," established for pipe coverers as the result of
recent collective bargaining and numerous directives of the National
War Labor Board, that any unit limited to pipe coverers would of
necessity have to include all employees in this classification at both the
Brooklyn and Hoboken yards. Yet the A. F. L. seeks only Brooklyn.
Accordingly, we find that the unit proposed by the A. F. L. is inappro-
priate for the purposes of collective bargaining.
IV. THE ALLEGED QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
Since, as we have held in Section III, above, the bargaining unit
sought by the A. F. L. is inappropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining, we find that no question affecting commerce has arisen
concerning the representation of employees of the Company within
the meaning of Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act.
We shall, therefore, dismiss the petition.
12 See Matter of Ameiican Can Co•npany, 13 N L. R B 1252 Cf. Matter of General
Electric Company (Lynn River and Everett Plant), 58 N L R. B 57
13 The Board has emphasized the fact that 'a group claiming separate representation under
this exception must demonstrate that it is a true craft. See Matter of General Electric
Company ( Lynn River and Everett Plant ), supra.
14 Our opinion in this respect is strengthened by the fact that the A F L , which seeks
to represent pipe coverers,'is admittedly not a craft organization and has, at the present
time, only 20 percent of its membership within the classification of pipe coverers
11 The existence of uniform duties, wages , and working conditions has made possible the
current practice of the Company of transferring pipe coverers to and from the Brooklyn
and Hoboken yards as required by the needs of either 3ard
TODD SHIPYARDS CORPORATION
ORDER
531
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and the entire record
in the case, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that
the petition for investigation and certification of representatives of
employees of Todd Shipyards Corporation (Erie Basin Yard), Bropk-
lyn, New York, filed by I. L. A., Pipe Coverers Local No. 1474, affili-
ated with the A. F. L., be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
MR. GERARD D. REILLY took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Order.
662514-46-vol. 63-35