Associated Shipbuilders

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 28, 1943

49 N.L.R.B. 1284 (N.L.R.B. 1943)

In the Matter of PUGET SOUND BRIDGE AND DREDGING COMPANY AND'
LAKE UNION DRY DOCK AND MACHINE WORKS DOING BUSINESS
JOINTLY UNDER THE TRADE STYLE ASSOCIATED SHIPBUILDERS and LAKE
UNION DRY DOCK AND MACHINE WORKS and +BUILDING SERVICE
EMPLOYEES' INTERNATIONAL UNION LOCAL No. 6, AFFILIATED W::TH
THE A. F. L.
In the Matter Of PUGET SOUND BRIDGE AND DREDGING COMPANY AND
LAKE UNION DRY DOCK AND MACHINE WORKS DOING BUSINESS
JOINTLY UNDER THE TRADE STYLE ASSOCIATED SHIPBUILDERS and
BUILDING SERVICE EMPLOYEES' INTERNATIONAL UNION LOCAL No. 6,
AFFILIATED WITH THE A. F. L.
Cases Nos. R-5112'and R-5113, respectively.Decided May 28, 1943
Mr. Story Birdseye, of Seattle, Wash., for the Lake Union Company.
Mr. Harry Henke, Jr., of Seattle, Wash., for the Associated.
Mr. W. K. Dobbins, of Seattle, Wash., for the Union.
Mr. Robert Silagi, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon amended petitions duly filed by Building Service Employees'
International Union Local No. 6, affiliated with the A. F. L., herein
called the Union, alleging that a question affecting commerce had
arisen concerning the representation of employees of Puget Sound
Bridge and Dredging Company and Lake Union Dry Dock and
Machine Works doing business jointly under the trade style Associ-
ated Shipbuilders, Seattle, Washington, herein called the Associated,
and Lake Union Dry Dock and Machine Works, Seattle, Washington,
herein called the Lake Union Company, the National Labor Relations
Board consolidated the cases and provided for an appropriate hearing
upon due notice before John E. Hedrick, Trial Examiner. Said
hearing was held at Seattle, Washington, on April 1, 1943. The
49 N. L. R. B., No. 186.
1 284
` PUGET :SOUND BRIDGE AND DREDGING COMPANY 1285
Associated, the Lake Union Company, and the Union appeared and
participated. All parties were afforded full: opportunity to be heard,
to examine and cross-examine- witnesses, and to introduce evidence
bearing on the issues. At the hearing the Company moved to dismiss
the petition in Case No. R-5113. The Trial Examiner reserved ruling
on the motion for the Board. For reasons appearing in Section IV,
'infra, the motion is hereby granted. The Trial Examiner's rulings
made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby
affirmed.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the follow-
ing :
FINDINGS OF ' FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANIES 1
Puget Sound Bridge and Dredging Company, a Nevada corpora-
tion, and Lake Union Dry Dock and Machine Works, a Washington
corporation, each maintaining principal offices in Seattle, Washing-
ton, are separately engaged in ship construction and repair at Harbor
Island and at Lake Union, Washington, respectively. In addition to
their individual enterprises, the two companies, pursuant to joint
shipbuilding and ship repair contracts with the United States Navy,
are united in a joint venture under the trade name of Associated
'Shipbuilders. The operations of this joint venture, which is devoted
exclusively to work for the United States Navy, are carried on at two
locations, Harbor Island and Lake Union, the former being the more
extensive. During 1942 the Associated purchased raw materials val-
ued in excess of $1,600,000, a substantial part of which was transported
to its Harbor Island and Lake Union plants from ,points outside the
State of Washington.
We find that the Companies are engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Building Service Employees' International Union Local No. 6, af-
filiated with the American Federation of Labor, is a labor organiza`
tion admitting to membership employee's of the, Company:
III. TIIE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
In August 1942, the Union requested recognition from the Asso-
ciated and the Lake Union Company, as the exclusive collective bar-
,gaining, representative of all. guards and janitors. The Companies
I The parties stipulated that the Board 's findings relating to the business of the Companies
made in a prior case involving tho same parties (46 N L R B , No 123) may be made part
of the record in the instant matter.
1286 ' DECISaONIS OF NATT0u2T'AL LABOR RELATIONS BOAED
refused the request and subsequently the matter was the subject of .a
Board decision 2 wherein a unit-of guards and janitors was found in-
appropriate. Thereafter, in February 1943, the Union requested rec-
ognition on behalf of the janitors and was again refused . A request
for recognition as exclusive bargaining representative on -behalf of
guard foremen, made at the same time, was likewise refused until
the Union was certified by the Board in an appropriate unit. For
reasons set forth in Section IV, infra, the bargaining unit sought
to be established for guard foremen is not appropriate; accordingly,
we find that no question concerning representation has-been raised
with respect to it.
A statement of a Board agent, introduced into evidence at the
hearing,- indicates that the Union represents a, substantial number
of employees in the unit hereinafter found appropriate.3
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of the janitor employees of the Associated, within
the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National
Labor Relations Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
1. The Janitors:
The Union originally filed two petitions seeking a unit of janitors
employed by Associated at Harbor Island and Lake Union, and another
unit of janitors employed by Lake Union Company at Lake•'Union.
The second petition was subsequently withdrawn and the first amended
so as to coverall janitors whether employed separately or jointly by
both Companies at-both'locations. The Union presently seeks a single
unit of all janitor employees, whereas the Companies contend that the
Board policy of creating separate units at each of the shipbuilding
plants, as fixed in the prior case involving guards, should be followed
in the instant case. - •
There are 10 janitors and janitresses employed by Associated at
Harbor Island. At Lake Union there is 1 janitress employed by
Associated; 1 janitor employed by Lake Union Company ; and 1 janitor
employed jointly by Associated and Lake Union Company. All 3.
employees at Lake Union work in the same building which houses the
offices of both Companies. The Lake Union Company' janitor cleans'
in Lake Union Company offices exclusively, the Associated janitress
cleans in her Company's offices only, and the mutually employed
3 See footnote No. 1.
9 The Field Examiner reported that the Union submitted a certified list of names of, janl- •
tors prepared from current membership records of the Union , dated March 1, 1943.1 The
list showed that the 9 persons whose names appeared thereon also had their names,on the
Company 's pay roll of February 5, 1943, which contained a total of 12 names in ' the
appropriate unit. ( n "
PUGET SOUND BRIDGE AND DREDGING COMPANY, 1287
janitor takes care of that part of the building which is used in common,
by employees of both Companies. This last employee receives two
checks each month, one from each of `his employers., This arrange-
ment is'made-necessary by the direction, of, and 'iii order to facilitate
Navy accounting:
The record shows that the two plants are entirely separate and are
about 8 miles apart. The groups of janitors working at each plant
are not interchanged. The evidence indicates that Associated and
Lake Union Company are separate and distinct in their management.
Moreover, a'director of Lake Union Company testified that in union
negotiations the representatives of his Company are not the same
as the representatives for Associated. In view of our prior findings
with respect to this matter, separate units of janitors at Harbor Island
and at Lake Union are indicated. There is no difficulty in establish-
ing a unit for janitors employed by Associated at'Harbor Island;
the matter is quite different, however, with respect to Lake Union.
In view of the cleavage of employment at-Lake Union, separate units
of janitors for each employer might be found to be appropriate. How-
ever, it is obvious that the same disabilities exist for the establishment
of a unit of 11/2 employees as exist for the establishment of a unit for
a single individual.4 We shall, therefore, omit the janitors employed
at Lake Union from any unit. '
We find that all janitors and janitresses employed by Associated
at Harbor Island, but -excluding supervisory employees, constitute
a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within
the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
2. Guard foremen :
The Union seeks a unit of guard foremen employed by Associated
at Harbor Island. The Company contends that such a unit is not
appropriate because these employees are supervisors. The record
shows that Associated employs 6 male'guard foremen at Harbor Island.
It employs no guard foremen at Lake Union. ' The guard foremen
are listed on the pay roll as assistant safety engineers and have su-
pervision over the armed guards, unarmed guards, and the Company
firemen.. Two guard foremen on each shift supervise the work of
about 250 men. They are paid on a different scale from the employees
they supervise, are classed as supervisors under the Fair Labor Stand-
ards Act, and have ratings in the U. S. Coast Guard Reserve. Or-
dinarily they do not have the right to discharge summarily ; however,
their recommendations as to discharges are controlling. . All hiring is
done through the personnel department. The Associated presently
' See Matter of The Central Foundry Company and Steei .Worbers Organizing Committee,
20 N. L. R. B. 131, and cases cited therein.
1288 DE•CISff0NS OF NATION'AL' LAB,OIR RELA,'TIO\rS _BOARD
employs 3 women at Harbor Island who have the same pay-roll classifi-
cation • as the guard. foremen. It anticipates, employment) of many,
women in the guard -hnd •firernan classifications. The 3 female as-,
sistant safety engineers, or matrons, will supervise these potential
women guards and firemen. The parties agree that the 3 matrons
now employed will have duties similar to those of the guard foremen
and should be part of the same unit, if any is established.
For the reasons expressed in the majority and dissenting opinions.
of The 111aryla?1d Dr-ydock.Com.pany case, we shall dismiss the peti-
tion relating to guard foremen.
V. THE DETERMINATION, OF REPRESENTATIVES'
We shall direct that the question'concerning representation which
has arisen be ;resolVed'•by an election by secret ballot among the em-
ployees in the appropriate unit who were employed during the pay-
roll period immediately preceding the date of the Direction of Elec-
tion herein, subject to the limitations and additions set forth in the
Direction.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National Labor
Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations
Act, and pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of National Labor Re-
lations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2, as amended, it is
hereby
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representa-
tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Puget Sound
Bridge and Dredging Company -and Lake Union Dry Dock and
Machine Works doing business jointly under the trade style Asso-
ciated Shipbuilders, Seattle, Washington, an election by secret ballot
shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than thirty (30)
days from the date of this Direction, under the direction and super-
vision of the Regional Director for the Nineteenth Region, acting
in this matter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and
subject to Article III, Section 10, of said Rules and Regulations,
among the employees in the unit found appropriate in Section IV,'
above, who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately
preceding the date of. this Direction, including employees who did
,not A-ork during said pay-roll period because they were ill or on vaca-
tion or temporarily laid off, and including employees •in. the armed
forces of the United States who present themselves in person at the
polls, but excluding those employees who have since quit or been
5 The Maryland Drydock Company and Local 31 of the Industrial Union of Marine c6
Shipbuilding Workers of America, 49 N. L. R. B , No. 105.
PUGET SOUND BRIDGE' AND DREDGING COMPANY' 1289
discharged for' cause, to determine whether or not they desire to be
represented by Building Service Employees' International Union
Local; No. 6,- affiliated with the. American Federation of Labor, - for
the purposes of collective bargaining.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the
entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations Board hereby
orders that the petition for investigation and certification of repre-
sentatives of guard foremen and matrons of Puget Sound Bridge and
Dredging Company and Lake Union Dry Dock and Machine Works
doing business jointly under the trade style Associated Shipbuilders,
Seattle, Washington, filed by Building Service Employees' Interna-
tional Union No. 6, affiliated with the A. F. L., be, and it hereby is,
dismissed.