Miami Shipbuilding Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 14, 1943

49 N.L.R.B. 803 (N.L.R.B. 1943)

In the Matter Of MIAMI SHIPBUILDING CORPORATION and INDUSTRIAL
UNION OF MARINE AND SHIPBUILDING WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO
In the Matter Of MIAMI SHIPBUILDING CORPORATION and LOCAL UNION
NUMBER 1509 OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, SHIP WEIGHTS, SHIP CARPENTERS,
SHIP JOINERS AND BOAT BUILDERS
Cases Nos. R-5223 and R-5294, respectively. Decided May 14, 1943.
Mr. Paul Buhler, of Miami, Fla., for the Company.
Messrs.. Charles N. Smolikofj and William Sm•ith, of Miami, Fla.,
for the Marine Workers.
Messrs. J. F. Gordon, William W. Stanton, and F. W. T. Smith, of
Miami, Fla., for the Ship Carpenters.
Miss Muriel J.'Levor, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon petition duly filed by Industrial Union of Marine and Ship-
building Workers of America, CIO, herein called the Marine Workers,
and amended petition duly filed by Local Union Number 1509 of
Miami, Florida, Ship Wrights, Ship Carpenters, Ship.Joiners and
Boat Builders, herein called the Ship Carpenters,' alleging that ques-
tions affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation of
employees of Miami Shipbuilding Corporation, Miami, Florida, called
the Company herein, the National Labor Relations Board provided
for an, appropriate consolidated hearing upon due notice before Dan
M. Byrd, Trial Examiner. Said hearing was held at Miami, Florida,
on April 21, 1943. The Company, the Marine Workers, and the Ship
Carpenters appeared, participated, and were afforded full opportunity
to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce
evidence bearing on the issues . The Trial Examiner's rulings made
A motion was made and granted to amend the petition and other documents to set
forth the name of the Ship Carpenters , as above. .
49 N. L . R. B , No. 116
803
531641-4 ,-vol 49-52
804 DECISION'S OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
The Ship Carpenters submitted 'a brief which the Board has
considered.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS or FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Miami Shipbuilding Corporation, a Florida corporation, is engaged
in the manufacture, sale, distribution, and repair of naval vessels at
its plant in Miami, Florida. The Company operates the main yard,
the north yard, the Cocoanut Grove plant, a sheet metal department, a
cradle department, a lumber yard, and a warehouse. During the year
ending December 1942, the Company purchased in excess of $1,000,000
worth of raw materials, consisting principally of lumber, steel, and
marine engines, 75 percent of which was shipped to its plant from
points outside the State of Florida. During the same period the Com-
pany sold in excess of $1,000,000 worth of finished products, 95 per-
cent of which was shipped to points outside the State of Florida.
The Company concedes for the purpose of these proceedings • that
it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor
Relations Act.
H.• THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Industrial Union of Marine and Shipbuilding Workers of America
is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Or-
ganizations, admitting to membership employees.of the Company.
Local Union. Number 1509 of Miami, Florida, Ship Wrights, Ship
Carpenters, Ship Joiners and Boat Builders is a labor organization
affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, admitting to mem-
bership employees of the Company.
III. THE QUESTIONS CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
On January 12, 1943, the Marine Workers filed a petition requesting
recognition as the exclusive bargaining representative at the Com-
pany's Miami yards. On January 18, 1943, a Consent Election Agree-
ment was executed by the Company, the Marine Workers, the Ship
Carpenters, and Ship Workers Trade & Labor Union of Miami, Flor-
ida, an unaffiliated labor organization , called the Independent herein.
According to the terms of the agreement , an election was held Febru
ary 1, 1943 , and a Run-Off Election with the three unions on the ballot
was also held , to which the Marine Workers filed objections, and on
April 13, 1943, it requested the withdrawal of the petition . - There-
after, on April 19, 1943, a stipulation which the Board approved by
MIAMI SHIPBUILDING CORPORATION 805 ,
Order, issued April 20,1943, was agreed to by the Company, the Marine
Workers, and the Independent, which provided inter alia that the
Company should cease recognizing the Independent. In his final
Report on Consent Election the Regional Director sustained the Marine
Workers' objections, ordered the two elections set aside, and granted
the Marine Workers' request to withdraw the petition without
prejudice.
The Marine Workers and the Ship Carpenters, on April 13, 1943,
each requested recognition of the Company as the exclusive representa-
tive of the Company's employees. Because of these conflicting claims,
the Company denied both requests for recognition.
A statement of the Trial Examiner, read into evidence at the hear-
ing, indicates that the Marine Workers and the Ship Carpenters each
represents a substantial number of employees in the unit each claims
to be appropriate.2
We find that questions affecting commerce have arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the ' Company within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Marine Workers claims as appropriate for collective bargaining
a unit composed of the Company's production and maintenance em-
ployees, excluding office, supervisory, technical, and plant-protection
employees. This is substantially the same unit agreed upon by' the
Marine Workers, the Ship Carpenters, and the Company in the Consent
Election described above. The Ship Carpenters contends that the
appropriate unit should consist of all the Company's employees, except
the hull superintendent, the head of repair and conversion work, the
head of new construction work, the office manager, and the chief
engineer in charge of the draftsmen, with which contention the Com-
pany is in accord. The controversy thus concerns the office and clerical
employees, supervisory employees, and guards, whom the Ship Car-
penters and the Company would place in the production and main-
tenance unit, and whom the Marine Workers contends should be
excluded. However, these are classes of employees whom it has been
our policy to exclude from production and maintenance units.
2 The Trial Examiner reported that the Marine workers submitted 632 designations, of
which 420 , 303 dated February 1 to April 15, 1943, the rest undated , correspond with
names on the Company ' s pay loll of April 11, 1943, containing 1,060 names in the unit
which the Marine workers claims is appropriate
The Trial Examiner reported that the Ship Carpenters submitted 513 designations, of
which 367 dated February 1 to April 15, 1943, correspond with names on the Company's pay
roll of April 1 1, 1943, containing 1.271 names in th,3 unit which the Ship Carpenters claim
is appropriate . The Trial Examiner also reported that the Ship Caipenters submitted dues
records showing that 81 additional persons appear on the aforesaid pay roll.
I
806 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS, BOARD
Office and clerical employees
We have customarily excluded office and clerical employees from a
unit composed of production and maintenance employees because of the
obvious functional differences between the two groups . Most of the
office and clerical employees work in a separate building under different
conditions and supervision from the production and maintenance em-
ployees. They constitute an integrated unit which can function effec-
tively for collective bargaining purposes, and we have often so held.
Five clerical employees now work on the premises of the sheet metal
department for lack of regular office space and it appears that they will
be moved, should such space become available. We shall place them in
the unit of office and clerical employees.
The timekeepers, although they work in the yard, have their own
supervisor, the head timekeeper, and make reports to the pay-roll
clerks. The Marine Workers desires that they be excluded from the
production unit. We find that their work is so closely related to that of
other office clerical employees and, than they should be included with
them.
The gate boys , of whom there are about four, are under the super-
vision of the office manager . We shall include them in the clerical,
unit.
Accordingly we find that' a unit composed of office and clerical em-
ployees, including timekeepers and gate boys , is appropriate for col-
lective bargaining purposes.
Guards
The guards hold ratings in the United States Coast Guard. It is
our usual practice to,establish a separate unit for employees who, as
here, perform the customary duties of plant-protection employees and
have been inducted into a branch of the armed forces.
Accordingly , we find a unit composed of guards is appropriate for
collective bargaining purposes.
The production unit
There remains for consideration the composition of the industrial
unit. The principal classifications of'empl`oyees doing production
work for the Company are carpenters , joiners, boat builders, painters,
machinists , mechanics , welders, foundry workers, and similar crafts-
men as well as^uinskilled workers.
However , there are also certain clerks whose work is closely asso-
ciated with production. They work as clerks to foremen or as material
clerks in the yards under the supervision of production foremen, and
MIAMI SHIPBUILDING CORPORATION 807
punch the same time -clocks as the production and maintenance em-
ployees. The Marine Workers desire their inclusion in,the produc-
tion unit. Upon these facts, we shall include them.
The Ship Carpenters contends that supervisory employees with the
power to hire and discharge should be included in the bargaining
unit. However, in accordance with our usual policy, dustornary prac-
tice in the industry, and the desire of the Marine Workers, we shall
exclude supervisory employees. All parties desire the exclusion of
the superintendents. The foremen are in charge of large departments
and have the power to hire and discharge. Under them are leadmen,
really assistant foremen, whose authority varies somewhat with the
number of men under them,and the reliance which their foreman
places in their. We shall exclude the superintendents, foremen, and
those leadmen whose position with the Company gives them the power
to recommend hire and discharge.3
The Marine Workers desires the exclusion of the pilots, which ex-
clusion was agreed upon for the consent election unit. These pilots
are able mechanics who have been promoted to the work of testing the
boats built by the Company. Since they are not production or main-
tenance employees, we shall exclude them.
We find that the following units are appropriate for the purposes
of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the
Act :
(1) All production and maintenance employees of the Company
working at its various yards and plants at Miami, Florida, including
those clerks who work in the yards under the direction of supervisory
employees in charge of production employees, and including the as-
sistant dockmaster, but excluding pilots, guards, clerical and office
employees, timekeepers, gate boys, salaried and supervisory employees,
the dockniaster, the superintendents, foremen, and leadmen who have
the authority to recommend hire and discharge.
(2) All clerical and office employees of the Company, whether
working in the general offices or temporarily located in the sheet
metal department, timekeepers, and gate boys, but excluding all super-
visory employees having the power to hire and discharge or recom-
mend hire and discharge, the office manager, the chief engineer in
charge of draftsmen, the head timekeeper, the head of pay-roll clerks,
and the head of material clerks.
(3) All guards of the Company, excluding the chief guard, heads
of shifts, and any supervisory, guards.
3 The assistant dockmaster will be included since he has no power to hire or discharge.
The Marine workers desires his inclusion.
0
808 DECISIONS 'OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS, BOARD
V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
We shall direct that the questions concerning representation which
have arisen be resolved by elections by secret ballot. In accordance
with the stipulation of the parties, we shall direct that those eligible
-to vote shall be the employees in the appropriate units who were
employed during the pay-roll period for the week ending April 11,
1943, subject to the limitations and additions set forth in the Direc-
tion. The Marine Workers has made no attempt to organize em-
ployees in the clerical andguard units and does not desire to appear on
the ballot for them. The Trial Examiner reported, after having
made a check against the Company's pay roll on April 11, 1943, that
the Ship Carpenters represent a substantial number of employees in
units composed of clerical employees and guards. Under' these cir-
cumstances, we shall place only the Ship Carpenters on the ballot in
these units.
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
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 Rela-
tions 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 Miami Ship-
building Corporation, Miami, Florida, separate elections 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
supervision of the Regional Director for the Tenth 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 units found appropriate in Section IV,
above, who were employed during the pay-roll period for the week
ending April 11, 1943, including employees who did not work during
said pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation 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
any who have since quit or been discharged for cause; (1) to determine
whether the employees in the production and maintenance unit de-
scribed in paragraph (1) of Section IV, desire to be represented by
Industrial Union of Marine and Shipbuilding Workers of America,
affiliated with the Congress of Industridl Organizations, or by Local
Union Number 1509 of Miami, Florida, Ship Wrights, Ship Car-
penters, Ship Joiners and Boat Builders, affiliated with the American
Federation of Labor, for the purposes of collective bargaining, or by
neither; (2) to determine whether or not the employees in the clerical
O'
MIAMI SHIPBUILDING CORPORATION 809
unit described in' paragraph (2) of Section IV, desire to be repre-
sented by Local Union Number 1509 of Miami, Florida, Ship Wrights,
Ship Carpenters, Ship Joiners and Boat Builders, affiliated with the
American Federation of Labor, for -the purposes of collective'
bargaining; (3) to determine whether or not the employees in the
guard unit described in paragraph (3) of Section IV, desire to be
represented by Local Union Number 1509• of Miami, Florida, Ship
Wrights, Ship Carpenters, Ship Joiners and Boat Builders, affiliated
with the American Federation of Labor, for the purposes of collective
bargining.