Bethlehem Steel Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 31, 1951

95 N.L.R.B. 1508 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

1508 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
work is not checked by other employees, though the cards on which they
compute the wages due are subject to a cursory inspection to correct
obvious errors.
The Employer contends that, in view of these duties of the time-
keepers, they are managerial employees. However, as the timekeepers
do not assist in the formulation of management policies, we find that
they are not managerial employees.5 The Employer also contends
that the timekeepers should be excluded as confidential employees be-
,cause they have access to wage and other secret data concerning pro-
,ductive processes. It is well settled, however, that access to or knowl-
edge of such information does not warrant exclusion of employees as
confidential employees." The Employer contends, finally, that the
timekeepers are supervisors because they are responsible for the taking
of inventory. However, there is no evidence in the record to indicate
the extent, if any, to which they direct the work of other employees or
exercise other supervisory functions.' We find, therefore, that the
timekeepers are plant clericals who may appropriately be added to
the production and maintenance unit that the Petitioner currently
represents."
Accordingly, we shall give the timekeepers at the Employer's
Toledo, Ohio, plant the opportunity through an election to express
their desires as to whether or not they should be added to the estab-
lished production and maintenance unit represented by Petitioner.
If the timekeepers select the Petitioner as their bargaining agent,
they will be taken to have indicated their desire to be bargained for
as part of the unit currently represented by the Petitioner.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
'Foster Wheeler Corporation, 94 NLRB 211; Great Lakes Pipe Line Company,
88 NLRB 1370, 1374.
6 General Electrvo Company, 89 NLRB 726, 732; Minneapolis-Moline Company, 85
NLRB 597, 599.
7 See I S. Berlin Press , 93 NLRB 13.
8 Wilson Athletic Goods Mfg. Co , Inc ., 93 NLRB No . 90; Electrical Reactance Corpora-
tion, 92 NLRB 1256; Chase Aircraft Company, Inc ., 91 NLRB 288 ; United Screw S Bolt
Corporation, 89 NLRB 953, 955; Farrell -Cheek Steel Company, 88 NLRB 303, 304.
BETHLEHEM STEEL COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF
TECHNICAL ENGINEERS, ARCHITECTS AND DRAFTSMEN'S UNION, AFL,
PETITIONER . Case No. 1-RC-2095. August 31, 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 Robert S. Fuchs, hear-
95 NLRB No. 212.
BETHLEHEM STEEL COMPANY 1509
ing 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 [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Reynolds].
Upon the entire record in this case,. the Board finds :
1. The Employer. is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. The Employer and the Intervenors, Independent Union of Fore
River Workers, herein called the Independent, and Industrial Union
of Marine & Shipbuilding Workers of America, CIO, herein called
the CIO, contend that a contract between the Employer and the In-
dependent executed on January 24, 1950, which will not .terminate
until December 31, 1951, is a bar to this proceeding. The Petitioner
contends, inter alia, that the contract is so incomplete that it cannot
be a bar.
In 1941, the Employer recognized the Independent as the bargain-
ing representative of all employees-production and maintenance,
clerical, technical and professional-at its Quincy, Massachusetts,
shipyard. Between 1945 and 1947, units of production and main-
tenance employees, hourly paid apprentices, and guards were severed
from this over-all unit. Since 1947, the Independent has represented
a residual unit of salaried employees, including clerks, technical, and
professional employees.
From 1941 to 1950, the Employer and the Independent negotiated
various wage. and working conditions which, however, were never in-
corporated in any written, signed agreement, but were published from
time to time by,the Employevin. the form of unilateral "rules" and
wage schedules.
. On January 24, 1950, the Employer and the Independent signed a
one-page contract which provided :
The terms and conditions of employment presently in effect
covering employees in the bargaining unit represented by the
[Independent] shall continue in effect to and including midnight
of December 31, 1951.
In addition to this clause, the contract contained a no-strike, no-lockout
provision. The contract made no reference to any particular docu-
ments intended to be incorporated therein. On January 25, 1950, the
contracting parties amended their agreement by adding an insurance
and pension plan and providing for the reopening of the contract
for wage purposes on November 1, 1950. Pursuant to notice, the
Employer and the Independent reopened their agreement and on
1510 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
February 23, 1951, signed a complete self-contained bargaining agree-
ment. However, on February 13, 1951, before the signing, the
Petitioner had filed the present petition. .
As the February 23, 1951, contract was signed after the filing of
the present petition, it cannot be a bar. The Employer and the
Intervenors contend, however, that the January 24, 1950, contract is
such a bar. To the Petitioner's argument that this 1950 agreement
is incomplete, they assert that it incorporates by reference existing
terms and conditions of employment and therefore constitutes a full
and complete contract.
Out of its broad experience the' Board has= declared that only- a
written, signed agreement, including substantive terms and condi-
tions of employment, leads to. stability in labor relations and, there-
fore, may operate as a bar.' The Board has not considered a written,
exclusive recognition agreement alone or together with a maintenance
of membership or a grievance procedure as of sufficient stature to
constitute a bar.2 Similarly, a contract containing only a no-strike,
xio-lockout clause, and insurance and pension plans, can hardly be
said to stabilize labor relations. These clauses deal with fringe mat-
ters and not with really vital terms and conditions of employment.
For this reason, the validity.of the 1950 contract as a bar must, turn
on whether the general phrase incorporating existing "terms and
conditions of employment," but not referring to any specific docu-
ments, achieves desired stability in labor relations. We think that it
.does not. It certainly is not the customary way in which labor unions
and employers crystallize their understandings. In fact, such a con=
tract has virtually all the defects and uncertainty of an oral agreement.
In the Southern Heater Corporation case,3 the Board refused to
hold as a bar a signed "letter of understanding," which recited an
agreement to reinstate a previous signed collective bargaining agree-
ment "subject to certain changes mutually agreed upon, which are
not incorporated in this letter of understanding." The Board said:
The "letter of understanding" .. . did not set forth, or.specifi-
tally refer to, either the provisions` of their previous contract
which it purported to reinstate or the changes in that contract
which it purported to create. The net result was that the parties
reduced no provisions of their agreement to writing in the "letter
of understanding." (Emphasis supplied.) 4 .
' Standard Oil Company , 63 NLRB 1223 ; Eicor, Inc., 46 NLRB 1035.
See the case cited in Standard Oil Company, supra.
$ Southern Heater Corporation, 91 NLRB 1118.
4 Cf. The • Carborundeim Company, 78 NLRB 91, where the Board held as a bar signed
"Memorandum of Agreement" in which the parties agreed to continue in effect the terms
of an existing contract , with certain stated changes and modifications.
BETHLEHEM STEEL COMPANY 1511
Accordingly, we find that the 1950 contract. is. not a bar to a present
determination of representatives.'
We find .that a question affecting commerce .exists concerning the
representation of employees of. the Employer within the meaning of
Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) :of the Act.'
4. The Petitioner seeks to represent a unit, of all draftsmen, special
draftsmen, tracers, order clerks, and technical aids assigned to draft-
ing work, at the Employer's Quincy, Massachusetts, shipyard, exclud-
ing engineers, assistant engineers,, model makers, guards, professional
employees, all other salaried employees,. and, supervisors. The Inde-
pendent and the CIO oppose severance of this group from the unit
. of salaried employees which the Independent presently represents, on
the ground that the salaried unit is an appropriate, homogeneous
group knit together by common interests and working conditions, and
because the employees sought to be severed, while they are technical
employees, are not all technical employees at the yard. The Employer
opposes only the inclusion of order clerks, but does not challenge the
.appropriateness of the unit on any other grounds.
There are approximately 500 employees in the proposed unit, in-
eluding the disputed categories.6 They are employed in 3 drafting
departments : engineering, electrical, and hull drafting, and in the
central technical department. All are located in the yard's main
office building. Each of the 3 main drafting ,rooms is supervised by
a. foreman who reports to the supervisor of drafting?
All the draftsmen do similar work, preparing plans for ship con=
struction. It is clear from the record that they are all highly skilled
employees, who have served long apprenticeships. They are under
separate supervision, and are physically segregated from the engi-
neers, office clericals, blueprint operators, janitors, and other miscel-
laneous employees who are' included-in, the saila'ried unit now repre-
sented by the Independent. In short the draftsmen comprise a highly
skilled, well-defined, and homogeneous group of technical employees;
who may, if they so desire, constitute a separate bargaining unit.s On
the other hand, they may also continue to be represented as part of the
existing unit of salaried employees.
There remains for consideration the question whether tracers, some
of the technical aids, and the order' clerks, should be included in the
voting group draftsmen.
In view of this finding , it is unnecessary to discuss the Petitioner 's other arguments
addressed to the contract bar contention.
'*There are 22 order clerks and 33 technical aids assigned to drafting work in the
proposed unit. Most of the remaining employees in the proposed unit are draftsmen
and tracers.
7 There are only a few draftsmen in the central technical department . The record
does not show who supervises these draftsmen . No party seeks their exclusion from
the voting group.
81ndiana Limestone Company, Inc., 92 NLRB 133,7; General Electric Company, 89
NLRB 726; Edge Moor Iron Works, Inc., 72 NLRB 1173.
1512 DECISIONS OF' NATIONAL LABOR' RELATIONS BOARD
Tracers, who' are located in.the same rooms as the draftsmen and
are subject to the same supervision, receive pencil drafts and plans
from the draftsmen, transfer these drafts to tracing cloth, and prepare
final copies for use in the yards and in making blueprints.. The record
shows that tracers may progress to draftsman status, even though
they are not apprentices. In view of their common interests and
supervision, and their similar work and working conditions, we shall
include them.
There are 33 technical aids assigned to drafting work, most of them
in the electrical drafting department. This group of technical aids
makes rough drafts of designs, working from statistics and data sup-
plied by the engineers. Their work, like that of the draftsmen, is
highly skilled and technical; they require 7 or 8 -years' experience to
become proficient at it., The crest of•',the'technical aids in the yard are
scattered throughout the buildings in other departments. They make
tests, such as weight calculations and heat balance calculations, and
do miscellaneous research and laboratory work. Although they un-
doubtedly possess a high degree of skill, it is clear that their skills and
interests are quite different from those of technical aids assigned to
drafting. We shall therefore, include in the voting group technical
aids assigned to drafting work, but exclude all other technical aids.9
The order clerks prepare lists of materials to be ordered from the
yard warehouses, and from manufacturers of component parts. Al-
though they work from drafts and blueprints, and find it "helpful"'
to understand them, draftsmanship is not a requirement of the job.
Order clerks do. not progress to draftsman status and need no par-
ticular skills when hired. They are under separate supervision.
Although they must occasionally consult draftsmen about problems
they encounter in preparing orders, it is quite clear that they lack
the unique skill and interests which render the drafting group an
appropriate unit. Accordingly, we shall exclude the order clerks,
from the voting group.'°
We shall direct an election among the employees in the following
doting group :
All draftsmen, special draftsmen, tracers, and technical aids as-
signed to drafting work, at the Employer's Quincy, Massachusetts,
shipyard, excluding all other technical aids, order clerks , engineers,
assistant engineers , model makers, guards, professional and clerical
employees, other salaried employees, and supervisors as defined in
the Act.
9 The Employer in its brief states that all technical aids assigned to drafting work
were reclassified as draftsmen after the hearing.
'*Ingalls Shipbuilding Corporation, 73 NLRB 374, 380.
THE KROGER COMPANY 1513
. However, we shall make no final unit determination at this time;
but shall be guided in part by the desires of these employees as
expressed in the election hereinafter directed. If a majority vote for
the Petitioner, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to
constitute a separate appropriate unit.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
Tint KROGER Co. (INDIANAPOLIS BRANCH ) and MEAT CUTTERS & PACK-
INGHOUSE WORKERS UNION LOCAL No. 167, AMALGAMATED MEAT
CUTTERS & BUTCHER WORKMEN OF NORTH AMERICA , AFL, PET--
TIONER . Case No. 35-U9-1087. August 31,1951
Decision , and Direction of Election
Upon a petition duly filed a hearing was held before Robert Volger,
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, Reynolds, 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.
2. The Petitioner is the certified, collective. bargaining representa-
tive of the employees claimed in the petition to constitute a unit
appropriate for the purposes of authorizing the Petitioner to make
a union security agreement.
3. The Petitioner has' made an approprate allegation showing that
30 percent or more of the employees in the claimed unit desire to
authorize the Petitioner to make an agreement requiring membership
in the Petitioner as a condition of employment.
4. The appropriate unit:
The Petitioner seeks a union-security authorization election among
all the Employer's meat department employees involved in the consent
election in Case No. 35-RC-466, whereby approximately 95 employees
from the 41 unorganized stores within the Employer's Indianapolis
Branch were combined with a bargaining unit comprised of approx-
imately 140 employees from another 35 stores to enlarge the then
existing bargaining unit to one "coextensive with the territory of the
Indianapolis Branch of the Employer." However, the Petitioner re-
quested dismissal of the petition on the ground that the employees
involved had authorized the Petitioner to make a union-security agree-
95 NLRB No. 206.