Bethlehem Steel Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 25, 1952

99 N.L.R.B. 952 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

952 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition herein be, and it hereby is,
dismissed.
MEMBERS HOUSTON and MURDOCK took no part in the consideration
of the above Supplemental Decision and Order.
BETHLEHEM STEEL COMPANY, SHIPBUILDING DIVISION and. AMERICAN
FEDERATION OF TECHNICAL ENGINEERS, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
LABOR, PETITIONER. Case No. 1-RC-2677. June 25, 1952
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 Leo J. Halloran,
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are
free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed:
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. A 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.
4. The Petitioner was certified in 19512 as the bargaining agent
of a unit of draftsmen at the Employer's Quincy, Massachusetts, ship-
yard.' In the instant case it seeks to add to that unit all draftsmen
apprentices employed at the Quincy shipyard by severing them from
the contract unit now represented by the Intervenor 4 The Intervenor
opposes severance on the basis of the pattern of multiplant bargaining
described below. The Employer takes the position that all categories
of apprentices at the Quincy shipyard should be represented by one
union.
The Board has already found that the draftsmen at the Quincy
yard comprise a highly skilled, well defined, and homogeneous unit of
1 The Industrial Union of Marine and Shipbuilding Workers of America, CIO, was per-
mitted to intervene on the basis of its contractual interest.
2 The Petitioner's name at that time was the International Federation of Technical
Engineers , Architects and Draftsmen 's Union, AFL.
3 Bethlehem Steel Company , 95 NLRB 1508.
4 The Petitioner indicates that it did not request the inclusion of the draftsmen apprentices
in 1951 because it regarded the Intervenor's contract covering them as constituting a bar
at that time . However , no contention is now made that the contract is a bar to the instant
proceeding.
99 NLRB No. 136.
BETHLEHEM STEEL COMPANY, SHIPBUILDING DIVISION 953
technical employees.5 About 435 draftsmen and related employees
are included in this Quincy unit. There are, in addition, 18 draftsmen
apprentices employed at this plant, who, as indicated above, are
sought by the Petitioner but are presently represented in the Inter-
venor's multiplant unit. These employees are receiving 4 years of
apprenticeship training which leads to journeymen status as drafts-
men in the engineering, electrical, or hull-drafting departments. Dur-
in the first 6 months, the apprentices are assigned to one of these
departments where they are taught the "rudiments of the trade."
After passing an examination the apprentices spend the next 18
months in one or more of the yard departments in order to gain ex-
perience and knowledge in fields related to their particular drafting
specialty. They also attend drafting classes and receive the same
general instruction as other groups of apprentices. For the final 2
years, the draftsmen apprentices return to the drafting departments
where they again work with the journeymen draftsmen therein. We
are satisfied from the foregoing facts that the interests and duties of
the draftsmen apprentices are closely allied with those of the journey-
men draftsmen.6
However, there remains the question whether the Quincy drafts-
men apprentices, who have been bargained for on a multiplant basis,.
should be severed therefrom to become part of the draftsmen's unit
which is confined to the Quincy plant. Since about 1946 the Inter-
venor's contracts have covered draftsmen apprentices as well as other
apprentices and production and maintenance employees at the Em-
ployer's eight east coast shipyards, including the one at Quincy. As
noted above, a single-plant unit of Quincy draftsmen was certified in
1951. As that determination of the Board involved the basic and nu-
merically predominant group-the journeymen draftsmen-we find
solely because of this unique situation that the draftsmen apprentices
at the Quincy yard may be severed on a single-plant basis despite the
history of multiplant bargaining for this group. Accordingly, we
shall direct an election among all draftsmen apprentices at the Em-
ployer's Quincy, Massachusetts, shipyard, excluding office and clerical
employees, guards, professional employees, all other employees, and
all supervisors as defined in the Act.
If a majority vote for the Petitioner, they will be taken to have
indicated their desire to be included in the unit of Quincy draftsmen
now represented by the Petitioner, and the Regional Director con-
ducting the election directed herein is instructed to issue a certification
of results of election to that effect. If, however, a majority vote for
the Intervenor, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to
5 Bethlehem Steel Company, supra.
Indiana Limestone Company, Inc, 92 NLRB 1337, General Electric Company, 89
NLRB 726
954 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
remain in the Intervenor's multiplant unit, and the Regional Direc-
tor will issue a certification of results of election to that effect.'
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
* The Pure Oil Company, 98 NLRB 139.
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF ELECTRI-
CAL, RADIO AND MACHINE WORKERS, CIO, PETITIONER . Cases Nos.
20-RC-1633 and 20-RC-1672. May 16, 1952
Decision and Order
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Nathan R. Berke, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudical error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record I 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.
The Petitioner seeks an election in a unit of employees in the
Employer's Oakland, California, control department and wire and
cable plants. The United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers
of America (UE) and its Local 1412, herein called the Intervenors,
contend that the U. E.'s national agreement with the Employer, which
is terminable upon 90 days' notice prior to September 15, 1952, is a
bar to an election in these cases. The Petitioner and the Employer
contend, however, that the agreement contains specific provisions
rendering the contract inoperative as a bar to elections during its
term.
The Board has considered these conflicting contentions in another
case,2 decided this day, which involved the same contract, Employer,
and Unions. As we stated in that case, we find nothing in the provi-
sions relied upon by the Employer and the Petitioner which would
justify a construction of those provisions as a general waiver of the
Board's contract bar doctrine. We believe those provisions can more
reasonably be construed as relieving the Employer of contractual lia-
1 The Board has taken official , notice of the record in General Electric Company, 99 NLRB
155 Pursuant to Section 7 (d) of the Administrative Procedure Act, the parties will be
given the opportunity to show, upon filing a timely motion for reconsideration , the con-
trary of any fact of which the Board takes official notice herein . See Ken Rose Motors, Inc.,
94 NLRB 868. _
2 General Electric Company, supra.
99 NLRB No. 36.