Todd Shipyards Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 21, 1951

94 N.L.R.B. 774 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

774 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
TODD SHIPYARDS CORPORATION and DISTRICT No. 15 OF INTERNATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, AFL, PETITIONER. Case No. ;-RC-
2546. May -01,1951
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 Lloyd S. Greenidge, 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 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 employees
of the Employer.
3. The Employer and the Intervenor, Industrial Union of Marine
and Shipbuilding Workers of America, Locals 15 and 39, CIO, assert
that a contract between them is a bar to the proceeding.
In 1948 the Employer and the Intervenor executed a contract to be
effective from June 23, 1948, to June 23, 1950, and automatically re-
newable in the absence of 30 clays' notice before the expiration date.
At sometime before the expiration of this agreement the parties appar-
ently began negotiating for modification of its terms. As they were
unable to reach a new agreement by the expiration date, they executed
an extension agreement continuing the existing contract until July 23,
1950. On July 22, they again extended the contract until August 23,
1950. On August 23, they executed an agreement modifying the con-
tract and extending it, as modified, to March 31, 1952. The petition
in this case was filed on July 27, 1950.1
As it is clear that the Employer and the Intervenor have terminated
their 1948 contract, and the petition was timely filed before the execu-
tion of the current agreement, we find that there is no contractual bar
to this representation proceeding.
We find that a question affecting commerce exists concerning the
representation of employees 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 limited to inside and out-
side machinists and their helpers at the Employer's Brooklyn and
Hoboken shipyards. The Employer and the Intervenor object to the
1 An earlier petition , filed on April 25, 1950, was dismissed by the Regional Director on
July 25, 1950, because the unit was inappropriate.
94 NLRB No. 115.
TODD SHIPYARDS CORPORATION 7.75
severance of this group from the existing unit, which includes all pro-
duction and maintenance employees at the Employer's Brooklyn and
Hoboken _yards ,2 which the Intervenor has represented since 1942.3
They base their contentions on the following asserted grounds : The
integrated nature of the ship repair industry; the pattern of collective
bargaining in the industry; the long history of collective bargaining
for these employees on an industrial basis; and the lack of true craft
status, or other elements of homogeneity, among the group sought to
be separately represented.
The Board has held that neither the degree of integration nor the
pattern of bargaining in the ship repair industry is in itself such as to
render craft units inappropriate 4 or to justify a denial of severance
to craft groups.5 The contentions urged by the Intervenor and the
Employer in this case were considered by the Board in the earlier case
of Todd Shipyards Corporation.' There, in November 1948, the
Board directed an election among the electricians in the Employer's
Brooklyn yard to determine whether or not they wished to be repre-
sented in a unit separate from the production and maintenance unit of
which they had been a part.
There appears to have been no essential change in the Employer's
operations since the earlier case. Now, as then, fluctuations in avail-
ability of employment, the character of ship repair work, and the
necessity for speed in performance require the various trades to work
closely together and sometimes to cross trade lines in the performance
of specific tasks. Like preceding contracts, the current contract con-
tains an express provision that employees may be required "to perform
certain tasks outside of their trade, occupation or classification in the
course of fulfilling their ordinary assignments."
In the present case, the record discloses a greater number of tempo-
rary assignments of machinists to work outside their departments
than appeared in the case of the electricians. Thus, in the 2 machinist
departments during 1950, there were 177 instances of assignments of
2 Except the electricians at the Hoboken yards , who are presently represented in a sep-
arate craft unit . See footnote 3, infra.
2 Local 39 of the Intervenor was certified in August 1941, as the sole bargaining agent
for all production and maintenance employees at the Employer 's Brooklyn shipyard (at
that time a subsidiary of Todd Shipyards Corporation known as Robbins Dry Dock and
Repair Company ). In February 1942, Local 15 was certified as the sole bargaining agent
of all production and maintenance employees at the Employer's Hoboken yards (then a
subsidiary of the Employer known as Tietjen and Lang Dry Dock Company ), except the
electricians for whom Local 277, IBE\V , was certified as sole bargaining agent
Since 1945, all the Intervenor ' s negotiations with the Employer have been carried on
by Locals 15 and 39 through a joint negotiating committee and all resulting contracts,
including the current contract , have been in the form of a single contract covering both
yards
4 Gibbs Corporation, 81 NLRB 1029 Waterman Steamship Corp , 49 NLRB 555.
5 Bethlehem Pacific Coast S teel Corporation, Shipbuilding Division, San Francisco Yard,
93 NLRB 588
6 80 NLRB 382.
776 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
machinists to work outside their departments, and 420 instances of
work performed within the machinist departments by employees from
other departments. As each such instance, however, consists of no
more than a single man-day of labor,7 and as the number of employees
in the machinist departments throughout the year 1950 averaged 300,
it is apparent that the amount of such transfers was small compared
to the total work of the machinist departments.
The contract contains a provision for a 4-year apprenticeship to
maintain a supply of first-class mechanics. (The Employer classi-
fies all journeymen, whatever their trade, as mechanics.) The Em-
ployer urges that the machinists are not true craftsmen because status
as a first-class mechanic can be attained in a minimum of 21 months'
work as an improver, under a training program detailed in the con-
tract provision for upgrading, as contrasted with the traditional 4-
year apprenticeship." The same contention was made with regard to
the electricians who, we found, constituted a true craft group.
The two machinist departments are the machine shop, known at the
Brooklyn yard as department 11, and the machinists on board, known
as department 10.9 Of the 67 employees on the active payroll of
department 11 on January 11, 1951, 6 are helpers or handymen. Of
the remaining 62, who are classified as mechanics first class, or special-
ists at a higher rate of pay than the mechanics first class, 5 had served
an apprenticeship with the Employer, 7 had been improvers and the
remaining 49 were hired from outside and started with the Employer
as mechanics first class or specialists. The Employer's personnel
records do not show whether such an employee had served an appren-
ticeship with any other employer; but their initial employment at the
first-class mechanic's or specialist's rate indicates, we believe, that the
Employer deemed them to possess skill and experience equivalent to
that of similar categories trained in the Employer's own yard.
All inside machinists and their helpers work in the machine shop,
.all outside machinists and their helpers work in the machinists-on-
board department. In the latter department, as the name implies,
the work is performed directly on board the vessel being repaired.
Inside machinists are under the immediate supervision of a snapper
and of the machine shop foreman, outside machinists are under that
of a snapper and of the foreman of machinists on board 10 Both
7These temporary transfers were all made pursuant to the piactice of "shaping-up"
whereby each day men for whom no work is available in their own departments line up
for assignment by the employment office to other departments which can use them that
day. It is practicable because of the extreme fluctuation of the work load
8 The Employer testified that at the present time there are no apprentices or improvers
in the machinist departments because of depressed conditions in the industry.
0 It was stipulated that the setup at Hoboken is similar.
10 In department 10. in addition to the machinists, riggers are also employed under the
supervision of the same foreman as the machinists. In department 11, in addition to
the machinists, there are employees engaged in turbine work who are under separate
supervision.
GUGGENHEIM PACKING COMPANY 777
foremen report directly to the yard superintendent.,' Although
inside machinists generally work to a closer tolerance than that ordi-
narily required in the repair work performed on board a vessel,12 the
pay rates in both departments are the same. But as seniority is de-
partmental, the inside and outside machinists have separate seniority
lists.
We find that the inside and outside machinists and their helpers
at the Employer's Brooklyn and Hoboken yards constitute a homo-
geneous, readily identifiable, craft group 13 with sufficient interests
in common to entitle then to separate representation if they so
desire.14 We shall direct an election among these employees, and if a
majority of them vote for the Petitioner they will be taken to have
indicated their desire to be represented in a separate bargaining unit.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
11 The yard superintendent reports to a production superintendent who in turn reports
to the general superintendent.
12 Bench hands or helpers in the machine shop assemble parts finished in the shop and
carry them to the vessels under repair , where they are installed by the outside machinists.
13 Gibbs Corporation , supra ; Waterman Steamship Corp., supra.
1° Todd Shipyards Corporation , supra.
GUGGENHEIM PACKING COMPANY and INDEPENDENT BUTCHERS'
& PACKERS' UNION, PETITIONER. Case No. 17-RU-956. May 01,
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 William J. Scott,
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-mem-
ber 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.
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 Sec
tion 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
94 NLRB No. 93.