Bethlehem Pacific Coast Steel Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 1, 1951

93 N.L.R.B. 588 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

588 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and activities on behalf of the Union; and (4) by discriminatorily revising plant
rules in March 1049, for the purpose of interfering with and discouraging the
concerted activities of its employees. Having found as immediately set forth
above, the undersigned recommends that the Respondent be ordered to cease
and desist from such conduct.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record
in the case, the undersigned makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAw
1. Deena Products Company, an Illinois corporation, is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
2. United Service Employees Union, Local 329, of the Building Service Em-
ployees International Union, affiliated with the A. F. L, is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
3 By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise-
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged
in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a)
(1) of the Act.
4. By discriminatorily discharging 11 employees, and by discriminatorily
selecting employees in the art department for layoff during the month of
April 1949, and by refusing to reinstate them when work was available, except
as to 3, -%Nho are named in that section of the Intermediate Report entitled
"The remedy," the Respondent violated and is violating Section 8 ( a) (1) and
(3) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
6. The General Counsel did not establish by reliable, probative, and substantial
evidence that the Respondent discriminatorily discharged Phillip Uhl.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication in this volume.]
BETHLEHEM PACIFIC COAST STEEL CORPORATION , SHIPBUILDING DIVI-
SION, SAN FRANCISCO YARD and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
MACIIINISTS , LOCAL LODGE No. 68 , PETITIONER . Case No. 2O-RC-
969. March 1, 1951
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 Eugene K. Kennedy,
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are
free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Members Houston, Murdock, and Styles].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
93 NLRB No 76
BETHLEHEM PACIFIC COAST STEEL CORPORATION 589
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 Section 9
(c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The appropriate unit :
The Employer is engaged in the operation of ship repair yards.
These proceedings are concerned solely with the Employer's shipyard
at San Francisco, California.
The Petitioner, Local Lodge No. 68, International Association of
Machinists, seeks a unit composed mainly of machinists. The Em-
ployer and the Intervenor, Bay Cities Metal Trades Council, AFL,
contend that the only appropriate unit is the over-all production and
maintenance unit which was previously certified by the Board and
has been represented by the Intervenor since 1941.
The unit sought by the Petitioner is composed of machinists, tool
and die makers, cranemen within the machine shop, their riggers,
helpers, and apprentices. The employees within this proposed unit
are employed in several departments of the Employer's shipyard.
At the time of the hearing, the inside machine shop, or Department M,
-employed approximately 49 machinists, 4 machinist helpers, 1 tool
and die maker, and 2 crane operators; the outside machinists depart-
ment, or Department Q, employed 3 leadermen, 131 machinists, and
10 helpers; the toolroom, or Department SB, employed 1 leaderman,
10 machinists, 2 tool and die makers, and 2 machinists helpers; the
plant maintenance department, or Department YB, employed 13
machinists; and the rigger and transportation department, or Depart-
ment R, employed 9 leadermen and 67 riggers and slingers.
The inside machine shop, or Department M, occupies a separate
building within the yard. The employees of the inside machine shop
work under the separate supervision of the machine shop foreman.
The outside machinists in Department Q are also separately supervised.
The toolroom employees in Department SB are under the general
supervision of the plant engineer but have separate immediate super-
vision. The machinists in the plant maintenance department, Depart-
ment YB, work under the supervision of the plant engineer. The
traditional craft characteristics of these employees are fully shown
on the record. The Employer contends, however, that the yard-wide
industrial unit is the only appropriate unit. This contention is based
principally upon the integration of the processes in the shipyard.
However, the record shows that, even in those departments in which
this integration is most evident, i. e., the outside machinists and the
590 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
plant maintenance departments, the Employer normally adheres to
craft lines in work assignments, and that any crossing of craft lines in
the repair gangs is occasional and due to the exigencies of the job
rather than to a disregard of the functions of the various crafts.
Under these circumstances, we believe that the employees sought by
the Petitioner constitute a traditional craft group and, notwithstand-
ing the integration of the Employer's processes, they may, if they so
desire, constitute a separate appropriate unit.
There remains for determination the unit position of the crane
operators and the riggers whom the Petitioner seeks to include in
the unit. The two crane operators in the machine shop work ex-
clusively in that shop, are under the supervision of the machine
shop foreman, and, on occasion, work on the machine shop- floor as
helpers. We shall therefore include the crane operators in the ma-
chine shop in the unit with the machinists. However, the riggers
sought by the Petitioner work in a separate department, under sep-
arate supervision, and perform tasks separate and distinct from those
performed by the employees we have included in the unit. We shall
therefore exclude the riggers from the unit.
In view of the foregoing determinations, we shall direct an elec-
tion among all machinists, tool and die makers, cranemen within the
machine shop, their helpers and apprentices at the Employer's San
Francisco, California, shipyard, excluding riggers, all other em-
ployees, watchmen and guards, office and clerical employees, and all
supervisors.' If a majority of these employees vote for the Petitioner,
they will be taken to have indicated their desire to constitute a sep-
arate bargaining unit.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
I We shall exclude , as supervisors the leadermen , as the record shows that, although
slightly less than 50 percent of their time is spent in manual labor with the tools of their
trade, they responsibly direct the work of their subordinates and have the authority
effectively to make recommendations with respect to promotions , discipline , or discharge.
See Welding Shipyards, Inc., 81 NLRB 936, 940.
HENRY MAYER, AN INDIVIDUAL , D/B/A CHEROKEE HOISERY MILLS
and AMERICAN FEDERATION OF HOSIERY WORKERS. Case No.10-CA-
897. March 2,1951
Decision and Order
On November 20, 1950, Trial Examiner Bertram G. Eadie issued
his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding
that Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair
93 NLRB No. 81.