Charleston Shipyards, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 10, 1951

97 N.L.R.B. 379 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

CHARLESTON SHIPYARDS, INC. 379
While Doris appears to spend most of her time in work related to proc-
essing the garments in the plant, Emily's time is primarily devoted
to waiting on customers coming into the plant. We agree with the
parties that Doris should be included. Moreover, as Emily Johnson
spends a substantial amount of her time performing work covered by
the unit herein, she is likewise entitled to representation with respect
to such work. We shall also include her.4
We find that all production and maintenance employees at the Em-
ployer's plant in Washington, D. C., including counter girls, but ex-
cluding store clerks, office clerical employees, guards, and supervisors
as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes
of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the
Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
CHARLESTON SHIPYARDS, INC. and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD Oil
BOILERMAKERS, IRON SHIP BUILDERS AND HELPERS OF AMERICA,
LOCAL 687, AFL; LOCAL 776 OF THE INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD
OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, AFL; INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERAT-
ING ENGINEERS, LOCAL 470, AFL; UNITED ASSOCIATION OF PLUMB-
ERS AND STEAMFITTERS, LOCAL 470, AFL; INDUSTRIAL UNION OF
MARINE & SHIPBUILDING WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, AND INTER-
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, LODGE 183, AFL, PETI-
TIONERS. Cases Nos. 10-RC-1481, 10-RC-1520, 10-RC-1525, 10-
RC-1553, 10-RC-1567, and 10-RC-1580. December 10, 1951
Decision and Direction of Elections
Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held on August 23
and 24, 1951, before John C. Carey, Jr., hearing officer. Thereafter,
upon the filing of the Machinists' petition on August 28, the Board
remanded the proceeding for a further consolidated hearing which
was held on September 26, 1951. The hearing officer's rulings made
at the hearings 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 c6nnection with this case to a three-
member panel [Members Houston, Murdock, and Styles].
4 For the reasons given by the Board In Ocala Star Banner Co , 97 NLRB 384, we find
that Johnson is eligible to vote in the election directed herein
97 NLRB No. 68.
380 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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
employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the repre-
sentation 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 has been engaged since its incorporation in
November 1950 in the repair and refitting of ships in Charleston,
South Carolina. It has a lease on dry dock facilities owned by the
United States Government and located on land of the Charleston
Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Company. The latter company, in
which one of the Employer's principal stockholders also owns stock,
formerly operated the yard.
The Unions which are AFL affiliates sought in their petitions
to represent their respective craft groups. At the hearings two
additional unions were allowed to intervene-International Hod
Carriers, Building and Common Laborers Union of America, Local
826, AFL, and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of
America, Local 159, AFL, the former to represent the unskilled
laborers in the yard and the latter to represent the carpenters. The
petition of the CIO Marine Workers requested a unit of "all pro-
duction and maintenance employees, skilled and unskilled." At the
hearings all the AFL Unions, except the Machinists, moved to amend
their petitions to request joint representation of the Employer's
employees in a production and maintenance unit, which motion was
referred to the Board. Alternately, they indicated that they would
each wish to represent the employees in the craft units originally
requested. The Machinists' request for a craft unit remained
unchanged.
Without reference to specific agreements, the record indicates that
bargaining with previous employers at the shipyard has been on a
craft basis. However, in this, the ship repair industry, the Board has
found both craft and production and maintenance units appropriate.
Therefore even if bargaining had been on an over-all basis, that fact
would not in itself render craft units inappropriate.2
I We deny the Employer's motion to dismiss on the ground that its operation is expanding
so that a representative vote of its employees could not now be obtained . Not only does the
record indicate that any expansion is contingent upon the Employer 's securing work not yet
contracted for, but the Employer testified that it was "making every effort to slowly expand
the yard into a bigger yard ," and that it merely leases the facilities it is using and its
business, unless profitable , is "subject to being closed out at almost any time." Thus, by its
own testimony, expansion is a mere possibility . We note, in addition , that although its
employment figures did fluctuate from March to September 1951, no marked increase
occurred , and in fact , a layoff of 75 or 80 had taken place just before the August hearing.
We find that the present complement of employees is representative.
2 Todd Shipyards Corporation, 94 NLRB 837.
CHARLESTON SHIPYARDS, INC. 381
When the motion to amend their petitions for joint representation
was repeated by the AFL Unions at the September hearing, the
Employer offered no objection. It did state at the end of the hearing,
however, that in its operation it preferred craft units. Clearly, on
this record, either type of unit would be appropriate. Therefore we
shall grant the motion to amend and, subject to our findings concerning
the machinist group, shall direct an election in a production and
maintenance unit as requested by all labor organizations except the
Machinists.
The Machinists seeks to represent a unit of "all machinists, machinist
apprentices, machinist helpers, machinist leadmen and tool room men
or operators." The Employer objects to the inclusion of leadmen
in this group, stating that supervision for the machinists is supplied
by the one inside leadman, the outside leadman, and the machinist
superintendent. These 3,3 according to the Employer, provide the
supervision for the following 40 employees : 5 inside machinists, all
first-class; 17 outside machinists, first-class; 5 outside machinists,
third-class; 1 outside machinist, first-class helper; 2 outside machin-
ists, second-class helper; 1 outside machinist, pusher; 2 machinists,
one first-class and one third-class, employed as tool keepers. At the
time of the hearings the Employer had no machinist apprentices and
apparently no second-class machinists, but anticipated that. it might
have.
The record indicates that inside and outside machinists are capable
of doing the same skilled work, but that the inside men confine
their activities to the drill presses, lathes, shapers, planers, and
'similar machine tools in the machine shop. The outside men work
on the ships under repair, at times dismantling machinery and equip-
ment and bringing it into the machine shop for attention. One
tool keeper works in the machine shop; and the other in the central
toolroom near the drydock. These two men sometimes repair ma-
chinery and equipment, as well as cleaning, repairing, and sharpening
tools. We find that the machinists, their helpers and apprentices,
and those employed as tool keepers, constitute a skilled craft group
employed in an industry in which craft units are encountered, and
may, if they so desire, constitute a separate unit. If, in the elections
hereinafter directed, they select the Machinists, they will be taken
to have indicated their desire to constitute a separate bargaining unit.
The two machinist leadmen spend their time planning and direct-
ing work, and assigning it to the men under them, but they do not
work with the men as the machinist pusher does. Although the
leadmen do not hire employees, they do effectively recommend
3 The Employer stated that it probably would have a machinist quarterman employed
under the machinist superintendent, with supervisory authority over the leadmen and
the other machinist employees. Normally the Employer has a quarterman over four
leadmen.
382 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
discharge . Clearly they are supervisors within the meaning of the
Act, and we shall exclude them from the voting group.
We direct that the questions concerning representation which have
arisen be resolved by separate elections by secret ballot among the
employees in the following voting groups :
1. All machinists , machinist apprentices , machinist helpers, and
the tool keepers employed by the Employer at its Charleston, South
Carolina , shipyard , excluding quartermen and leadmen , all other
supervisors , and all other employees.
2. All remaining production and maintenance employees of the Em-
ployer at its Charleston , South Carolina , shipyard , including perma-
nent and temporary laborers ' and the material control men who are
engaged in manual labor but excluding the material control men who
are engaged in clerical work ,5 watchmen, guards , and supervisors as
defined in the Act.
If the employees in group 1 select a bargaining representative dif-
ferent from that selected by the employees in group 2 , the Board finds
that they constitute a separate appropriate unit; , and if , in these cir-
cumstances , the employees in group 2 also select a bargaining agent,
the Board finds that the employees in group 2 also constitute an ap-
propriate unit. If the employees in the two groups select the same
bargaining agent, the Board finds that together they constitute an ap-
propriate unit . The Regional Director conducting the elections di-
rected herein is instructed to issue a certification of representatives
to the union or unions in the unit or units which may result from the
election . If either group selects no bargaining agent, the Regional
Director shall issue a certificate of results of election to such effect.'
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication in this
volume.]
4 Permanent and temporary laborers do the same sort of work, the former at 10 cents
an hour more pay. In addition permanent laborers generally work at the same assign-
ment, but temporary laborers have their work assigned each day. Both classifications work
together and temporary laborers become permanent as they acquire more skill.
6 Excluded because of the clerical character of their work are inside material control
men who spend 85 percent of their time at clerical tasks, of whom the record indicates
there are three or four, and the outside material control man, who spends 75 percent of
his time at such tasks.
PUERTO RICO CEMENT CORPORATION and UNION DE TRABAJADORES DE
LA INDUSTRIA DEL CEMENTO DE PUERTO RICO (IND.), PETITIONER.
Case No. 24-RC-218.-December10,1951
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 Philip Licari, hearing
97 NLRB No. 66.