Reinell Boat Works

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 6, 1951

93 N.L.R.B. 16 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

16 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
On its payroll the Employer describes all of the setup men in the
folding department as either "foreman" or "assistant foreman." The
record is not clear as to the exact nature and extent of their super-
visory duties. However, it does appear that their responsibility,
so far as it was discussed at the hearing, is the normal responsibility
of highly skilled machine operators. There is no evidence that they
have been vested with authority to hire, fire, or otherwise discipline
other employees. Nor does it appear that they responsibly direct other
employees in their tasks. In fact, the Employer's representative, con-
ceding that they had few supervisory duties, stated that they were
called foremen only to make it easier for them to meet the production
responsibilities normally to be expected of such skilled craftsmen.
In view of those facts, we find that these four employees are not
supervisors within the meaning of the Act. We shall therefore include
them in the unit.,'
Accordingly, we find that all cutting machine operators and folding
machine setup men, excluding helpers, joggers, board loaders, and
packer pullers,' all other employees, and all supervisors as defined in
the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for collective bargaining pur-
poses within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.'
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
6 Member Reynolds would exclude as supervisors the two set-up men described as for(-
man," but agrees that those described as "assistant foreman" should be included.
7 Including Liedbiedz.
8 Although some testimony indicates that Nizick , who works in the cutting department,
may be a foreman , the record does not contain sufficient evidence to support a final deter-
mination as to his supervisory status . We shall therefore allow him to vote subject to
challenge.
EDWARD REINELL , AN INDIVIDUAL D/B/A REINELL BOAT WORKS and
UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS & JOINERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL
UNION 562 , A. F. L., PETITIONER . Case No. 19-RC-654. February
6, 1951
Decision and Order
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Robert E. Tillman, 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 [Chairman Herzog and Members Reynolds and Murdock].
93 NLRB No. 9.
REINELL BOAT WORKS 17
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 organization involved claims to represent employees
of the Employer.
3. No 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, for the following
reasons: -
The Employer is engaged in the construction of fishing and pleasure
boats at Marysville, Washington. Its total employee complement
is 10, 9 of whom are shipwrights. The Petitioner seeks to represent
a unit of the shipwrights.
Marysville is located on the Puget Sound, about 60 miles north of
Seattle, Washington, the situs of the shipbuilding industry employers
involved in Bryants' Marina, Inc., et al., 92 NLRB 718. In that
case petitions were filed for 21 separate units of shipwrights em-
ployed by 21 employers. The Board dismissed the petitions on the
ground that the shipwrights of those employers should be represented
in a single unit coextensive with the existing Pacific coast-wide
multiple-employer unit established for all employees of those em-
ployers. In the present case the Employer contends that the unit
sought by the Petitioner is inappropriate, and in effect urges that the
reasons for dismissing the petitions in Bryants' Marina are equally
applicable to the petition filed herein.
The coast-wide multiple-employer pattern of bargaining commenced
in 1941. In that year the Employer executed the first of the coast-wide
"master agreements." I Shortly after 1941, the Employer joined the
Seattle Boat Builders Association, which has since that time repre-
sented the Employer at the annual coast-wide negotiations. During
these years the Employer has adopted and put into effect the terms of
the successive "master agreements." In 1950, the Employer became
signatory to the existing "master agreement."
On these facts, we find that.the Employer together with other ship-
building industry employers on the Pacific Coast, has jointly bar-
gained and executed collective bargaining agreements, and that under
the circumstances here present its shipwrights are most appropriately
represented on the established coast-wide multiple-employer basis 2
Accordingly, we find that the unit of shipwrights requested by the
Petitioner is inappropriate. We shall therefore dismiss the petition.
' The development of the so-called master agreement is traced in Bryants' Marina, Inc.
et al, supra.
2 Bryants' Marina, Inc , et al., supra.
943732-51-3
18 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Order
Upon the basis of the entire record in this case, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the petition filed in the instant
matter be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
FIELDCREST MILLS DIVISION OF MARSHALL FIELD AND COMPANY, INC.
and ATII]RICAN FEDERATION OF HOSIERY WORKERS, PETITIONER. Case
No. 5-RC-7. 9. February 6,1951
Decision and Direction
Pursuant to an amended stipulation for certification upon consent
election duly executed on October 5, 1950, by the Employer, and the
Petitioner; an election by secret ballot was held on October 17, 1950,
under the supervision of the Regional Director for the Fifth Region,
in a bargaining unit of all production and maintenance employees of
the Company, excluding office clerical employees, professional em-
ployees, guards, and supervisors.
Upon the conclusion of the election, a tally of ballots was furnished
the parties in accordance with the Rules and Regulations of the Board.
The tally showed that the votes were distributed as follows :
Approximate number of eligible voters---------------------------- 223
Void ballots----------------------------------- ----------- 3
Votes cast for American Federation of Hosiery Workers------------- 104
Votes cast against participating labor organization---------------- 103
Valid votes counted----------------------------------------------- 207
Challenged ballots------------------------------------------------ 3
Valid votes counted plus challenged ballots------------------------- 210
The Petitioner challenged the ballots of Lelia Light and Catherine
Warrick on the ground that they were office clerical employees. The
Board agent challenged the ballot of Elijah Thomas Frye because
his name did not appear on the eligibility list. No objections were filed
to the conduct of the election. As the challenged ballots were sufficient
in number to affect the results of the election, the Regional Director
investigated the challenges, and on January 3, 1951, issued and duly
served on the parties his report on the challenged ballots. The Re-
gional Director recommended that all three challenges be overruled.
Thereafter, the Petitioner filed exceptions to so much of the Regional
Director's report as recommended that the challenges to the ballots of
Light and Warrick be overruled.
93 NLRB No. 12.