Seaboard Machinery Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 11, 1952

98 N.L.R.B. 537 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

SEABOARD MACHINERY CORPORATION 537
and the Regional Director shall issue a certificate of results of election
to such effect.
CHAIRMAN HERZOG took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Election.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
SEABOARD MACHINERY CORPORATION and INDUSTRIAL UNION OF MARINE
AND SHIPBUILDING WORKERS OF AMERICA , CIO, PETITIONER. Case
No. 15-RC-617. March 11, 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 J. M. Mitchell, 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 [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 2
3. On October 17, 1951, the Boilermakers, Teamsters, and Machin-
ists concluded negotiations with the Employer for initial contracts
covering all of its employees. The parties agreed that the production
and maintenance employees at the Panama City plant could, on the
basis of occupational classifications, be divided appropriately into
three bargaining units, and the Employer consented to recognize
each of the above unions as representative of its respective unit
That same day, the Boilermakers and Teamsters signed identical
' The motion to intervene of the International Association of Machinists , Lodge No.
1106, A. F. of L., herein called the Machinists , is granted for reasons stated in paragraph
numbered 3.
2 Intervening in this case on the basis of current contracts with the Employer are the
International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of
America, Local No 991, herein called the Teamsters , and the International Brotherhood
of Boilermakers , Iron Ship Builders and Helpers of America , Lodge No 112, herein called
the Boilermakers.
3 The 86 employees then employed at the plant consisted of 79 employees in production
and maintenance positions coming within the craft jurisdiction of the Boilermakers, 2
truck drivers , and 5 machinists.
98 NLRB No. 93.
538 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
contracts, expiring October 16, 1952, covering their respective bar-
gaining units. The Machinists did not then execute its agreement
and to date has not done so.
On October 29, 1951, the petition herein was filed, the Petitioner
seeking a unit of all production and maintenance employees at the
Panama City plant. During the course of the hearing which followed,
the Machinists moved to intervene in the case, which motion was
referred to the Board. In its motion, the Machinists claimed as an
appropriate unit all inside and outside machinists, their helpers and
apprentices, and requested that a separate election for such unit be
held in the event the Board directed an election in the over-all unit.
The Machinists made a petitioner's showing of interest among the
group of machinists.4 Upon the basis of its showing of interest, we
hereby grant the Machinists' motion to intervene.
After the close of the hearing, the Petitioner requested permission
of the Board to withdraw its petition in this case. The Machinists,
upon being notified by the Board of the Petitioner's request, filed a
written protest stating that it desired an election among the group
of machinists. In view of the fact that the major portion of the
production and maintenance employees are currently represented by
the Boilermakers and the Teamsters, and because the Machinists de-
sires and has made a showing of interest sufficient to entitle it to an
election among the unrepresented group of machinists, we believe that
the requested withdrawal would be prejudicial to the interests of the
Machinists. The request of the Petitioner is therefore denied.5
Accordingly, we shall direct an election among the group of employees
claimed by the Machinists as the record shows that they comprise a
craft unit of the type customarily found to be appropriate by the
Board. We find that a question affecting commerce exists concerning
the representation of employees of the Employer within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. We find that all inside and outside machinists, their helpers, and
apprentices, at the Employer's Panama City, Florida, plant, excluding
all other employees, constitute a unit appropriate, for the purposes of
collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the -Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
4 The Board has held that a labor organization seeking to intervene for the purpose of
severing a craft unit from an existing industrial unit or intervening for a smaller unit
in a representation case involving a larger unit, should make the substantial showing of
interest which is required of petitioners. Boeing Airplane Company, 86 NLRB 368.
s Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corporation, 96 NLRB 1052 ; Boeing Airplane Company,
supra.