The Maryland Drydock Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 10, 1943

50 N.L.R.B. 363 (N.L.R.B. 1943)

11
In the Matter of THE MARYLAND DRYDOCK COMPANY and LOCAL
No. 31 - of THE INDUSTRIAL UNION OF MARINE AND SHIPBUILDING
WORKERS; OF -AMERICA -
In the Matter ' of THE MARYLAND . DRYDocK COMPANY , and LOCAL
No. 31 OF THE INDUSTRIAL UNION OF MARINE - AND SHIPBUILDING
WORHER9 OF AMERICA -
Cases Nos. R-5211 and R-5213, re8pectively .-Decided June 10, 1943
Messrs. Earle K. Shawe and George W. Weasler, for the Board.
Semmzes , Bowen d Semmes , by Mr. William D..MacMillan;- and
Mr. William Purnell Hall, Jr., of Baltimore , Md., for the Company.
Mr. M. H. Goldstein , of Philadelphia , Pa., for the Union.-
Mr. Robert Silagi , of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon petitions and amended petitions duly filed by Local No. 31
- of the Industrial Union of Marine and Shipbuilding Workers of
America, herein called the Union, alleging that a question affecting
commerce had arisen concerning the representation of employees of
The Maryland Drydock Company, Baltimore, Maryland, herein
calldd-the,Company, the, National Labor-Relations Board consolidated
the petitions herein with other petitions filed by the Union covering
other employees of the Company 1 and provided- for an appropriate
hearing upon due notice before Will Maslow, Trial Examiner. Said
hearing was held at Baltimore, Maryland, on April 14, 15, 16, and 17,
1943. The 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.
For the purpose of decision the instant cases were severed from
Cases Nos. R-5212 and R-5214 by order of the Board dated May, 11,
3 Cases Nos. R-5212 and R-5214.,
50 N: L. R. B., No: 53.
363 -
t
364 DECISQONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1943. At the hearing 'the Company,moved to dismiss the petitions
herein on the ground that the claimed unit in each is not appropriate,
and the Union made several motions with respect to the segregation
or combination of employees into appropriate units contingent upon
possible rulings of the Board. The Trial'Examiner referred`the mo-
tions to the Board. For reasons appearing in Section IV, infra, the
motions of the Company are hereby denied and certain motions of
the Union are hereby granted. The Trial Examiner's rulings made
at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
On April 28, and May 1, 1943, respectively, the Company and the
Union filed briefs which the Board has considered. On May 4, 1943,
oral argument was held before the Board in Washington, D. C. All
parties appeared and participated. On that day the Company filed a
memorandum of law which the Board has considered.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board-makes the following:
FINDINGS of FACT''
t
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
The Maryland Drydock Company is a Maryland corporation en-
gaged primarily in, the repair.of ocean-going vessels. The Company
operates its main shipyard' at Fairfield in Baltimore, Maryland, where
it employs approximately 9,000 employees, about 8,500 of whom are
production and maintenance employees. The Company also has an
auxiliary unit known as the Pratt Street Works in the City of Balti-
more, where it, employs about 500 employees. Both plants are con-
ducted as an integrated operation. During the calendar year 1942,
the aggregate value of all materials- used by'the Company at its ship-
yard in Fairfield was in excess of'$10,000,000, of which approxi-
mately 75 percent was delivered to said yard from points outside the
State of Maryland and more than 75 percent of which was used in
the repair of ships for 'the United States Government. During the
same ' period the aggregate amount billed 'by the Company for such
work exceeded $25,000,000, of which more than 50 percent was billed
in respect of work on ships for the United States Government.
The Company admits that it is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
r IT. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Local No. 31 of the Industrial Union of Marine and Shipbuilding
Workers of America, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organ-
%izations, is a labor organization admitting to membership - employees
of the Company. ,
THE MARYLAND DRYDOCK COMPANY 365
M. THE QUESTIONS CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
Between September 1942 and February 1943, the Union on several
occasions requested of the Company recognition as the exclusive bar-
gaining representative of the employees in the units hereinafter dis-
cussed' All the requests were refused by the Company until the
Union should be certified by the Board in an approrwis to unit.
The Union is at the present time recognized by the Company, in a
contract expiring June 23, 1943, as the exclusive collective bargaining
representative of "all the Company's employees except : those regu-
larly on a salaried basis; engineering, office, and clerical employees;
guards; janitors; and employees (whether salaried or hourly paid)
who spend the mtjority of their time supervising other employees."
Although a consent election was held among the Company's produc-
tion and maintenance employees over 4 years ago, and at a time when
the number of eligible voters was approximately one-eighth of the
present complement, the Company does not dispute the Union's status
as the exclusive representative of the employees in the contract unit,
nor does either party seek an election therein. The Union contends,
in Case No. R-5211, that the present unit should be enlarged by add-
ing thereto the departmental timekeepers, storeroom window keepers,
storeroom office clerks, drydock operators and their assistants, and
departmental clerks.2 As stated above, it has been refused recogni-
tion for the expanded unit.
The petition filed in Case No. R-5213 herein seeks a separate- unit
for guards, corporals, sergeants, ship guards, and temporary super-
visors of ship guards. Recognition of the Union as their bargaining
representative has likewise been refused.
Statements of a Board agent, and the Trial Examiner, introduced
into evidence at the hearing, indicate, that the Union represents a
substantial number of employees in, the units hereinafter found
appropriate.8
e In the original petition, departmental clerks were not included. At the hearing, a
dispute arose as to whether or not they were already included in the contract unit; the
Union arguing for and the Company against that contention The Union thereupon
amended its petition so as to include departmental clerks among the employees whom it
seeks to represent.
8 The representation showing of the Union may be summarized as follows
Employees the
Employees
in unit
Union apparently
represents
Departmental timekeepers ------------------------ 41 39
Storeroom window keepers---------------------- 30 26
Storeroom office clerks-------------------------- 13 6
Drydock operators and assistants----------------- 16 15
Departmental clerks ---------------------------- 60 18
Guards---------------------------------------- 235 148
Corporals-------------------------------------- 8 5
Sergeants-------------------- I------------------ 5 3
I
366 - 'DECGISQONS" OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS ,-BOARD
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 UNITS; THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
1. 8-5 11
The Company moved that the instant petition be dismissed, on the
grounds that the groups of employees covered thereby (a) are a part'
of management, and (b) neither separately nor collectively belong
appropriately within the large unit composed, of production and
maintenance employees. The Union denies that any of the employees
petitioned for performs managerial functions, and alleges that a
single unit is appropriate. In the event, however, that the Board -
does not And a single unit appropriate, the Union moved to amend
its petition in conformity with the number of units, which the Board
does find; appropriate. '
Departmental timekeepers. Each foreman or departmental head'
has about two departmental timekeepers to assist him. These time-
keepers have two functions : to watch the time clock as the men punch
in and out, to insure that each employee punches only his own card;
and during the day to record for cost-accounting purposes on each
'employee's card the job and item numbers of the various tasks he
works on. There is no element of discretion, judgment, or super-
vision included ' in the latter task, for the information is generally
furnished the timekeeper by a-supervisory employee. In at least one
department, however, the inside machine shop, the timekeepers circus
late among the employees,, copying the required information from job
and item slips prepared by the employees themselves. Some of them
also do clerical. work' for their foremen, calculating the number of
overtime hours worked, preparing the seniority tables required by the
union contract, and writing out material requisitions for the pro-
duction employees. The timekeepers also make daily reports to the
main office on the number of employees who have reported for work
on each shift.
The timekeepers are directly responsible to the foremen. They en-
joy the same working conditions as the production employees whose
time they record, being paid, like them, on an hourly basis, earning
the- same overtime, and 'receiving, the same vacation allowances.
Sometimes they are listed on the pay roll as timekeepers, and on
other occasions as helpers or handymen. They do no manual work
of any, kind. Each timekeeper is listed on the departmental pay roll
do which he is assigned, and-not on. the main-office pay roll.
The contention that timekeepers, as such, are an integral part of
management and are not employees under the Act has recently been
THE MARYLAND D'RYDOCK' COMPANY 367
considered and rejected by us.4 Where' timekeepers exercise no'man-'
agerial or supervisory function, and especially when they' work in
close proximity to production employees, we have' previously held,
as we do now, that they may appropriately. form part, of a unit of
production and maintenance employees.5
Departmental clerks. There are about three departmental clerks
(or foremen's clerks) in* each department, who are listed on the de-
partmental and not on the main-office pay roll. These employees do
a variety of paper work for their superior, the foreman or depart-'
mental head. There is no sharp line of cleavage between the de-
partmental clerks and the departmental timekeepers. Thus, the
timekeeper does additional clerical work and the departmental clerk
often does additional timekeeping work. Departmental clerks do not
operate typewriters. or accounting machinery. They likewise do no
manual labor. They are often' listed on the pay roll as handymen
or helpers, and are paid on an hourly basis. Consequently, they have
the same overtime, night-shift, bonus, and vacation privileges as
production employees. Since the record does not show that these
employees have anything to do with confidential labor matters, we
see no reason why they may not, like timekeepers, be added to the
production and maintenance units
Storeroom window keepers; storeroom office clerks. Inside the
machine-shop building is a partitioned 'two-story structure which
houses the storeroom,' in which are kept the various materials used
by the production, employees. The storeroom on the first floor con-
tains a separately partitioned room known as the receiving office.
On the second floor of the storeroom are stored the bulkier materials
less often required. The clerks who work on the second floor are
known as inventory clerks, a group which forms part of the main-
office staff and hence is excluded, by agreement, from the proposed
unit. The storeroom window keepers are stationed at various win-
dows of the storeroom where they dispense materials to employees
who present themselves at the windows with written orders. The
window keepers do no paper work, except that of initialing the requi-
sitions and calculating on them the weight of the materials dispensed.
Occasionally they leave the storeroom and go across a nearby road
to an oil house to fill an oilcan for a worker. Sometimes they operate
a sawing machine to cut pipe into lengths needed.
The storeroom office clerks, who are likewise called receiving clerks,
work in the receiving office on the first floor of the storeroom, where
4 aee Matter of Bethlehem Steel Company, Staten Island Yard , 46 N L . R B. 961.
8See Matter of Aluminum Company of A merica, 44 N. L. R. B . 490; Matter of Mueller
Brass Company , 39 N. L . R. B. 167 ; Matter of Chrysler Detroit Company , and Chrysler
Corporation, 38 N. L . R. B. 313.
6 Cf. Matter of Houdaslle -Hershey , Corporation, 43 N. L . R. B. 726.
368 DEICISQONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATI ONS BOARD
they do the clerical work incident to the receipt of materials, and
also assist the truck drivers in unloading materials. A group of
laborers also works in the storeroom arranging material in bins and
doing other manual labor. They are covered by the existing contract.
Both the storeroom window keepers and the storeroom office clerks
are paid on an hourly basis and, like the production employees, enjoy
,the same privileges as to overtime and vacations. All the storeroom
employees, including window keepers, receiving clerks, and inventory
clerks, are under the supervision of the storekeeper, who in turn is
responsible to the Company's purchasing agent.
Inasmuch as the majority of the time of the storeroom window
keepers and office clerks is spent in handling materials and little of
their time is spent in clerical work and since they are not part of the
main-office staff we find that each of these groups may appropriately
form part of a unit of production and maintenance employees.7 -
Drydock operators and their assistants. The Company operates
three drydocks in its yard. The drydock operators and their assistants
manipulate the valves and pumps by means of which the drydock'is
raised or lowered and unequal stress or strain on the drydock avoided.
There are separate maintenance men who keep the valves and pumps
in repair. Other employees,' called dockmen, move the ships in and
out of the drydock. , The drydock operators do not give instructions
to or supervise the work of the dockmen. Unlike other, production
employees, the drydock operators and their assistants are paid on a
salary basis. The operators earn $53.75 for a 42-hour week, and the
assistants earn $45.50 for the same time. The rates for drydock
operators and their assistants. are comparable to those of firstclass
mechanics, who earn from $1 to_ $1.20 an hour.
The Company contends that theseI employees. form an integral part
of management because they control-the most valuable plant assets,
which cost millions of dollars. While it is true that they are selected
for employment with the greatest care because they do work with such
expensive equipment, nevertheless they are not to be denied the rights
of collective bargaining merely on that basis. They -too, may appro-
priately form part of a unit of production and maintenance employees.
We are of the opinion, and find, that each of the groups above-
mentioned which the Union desires to have added to the production
and maintenance unit may properly form part of said unit if the
employees so desire: In view of the absence of any question concern-
ing representation among the employees in the original contract unit,
we shall direct separate elections only among the employees in each
of the five categories wherein a question concerning representation
'has arisen, who were employed during the pay-roll period immedi-
I See Matter of The Solvay Process Company, 39 N. L. R. B. 572.
THE MARYLAND DRYDOCK COMPANY 369
ately preceding the date of the Direction of Elections herein, subject
to the limitations - and additions set forth in the Direction. The em-
ployees in such of these voting groups who select the Union will
thereby have indicated their desire to be included in a unit with the
general production and maintenance group under contract and will
be part of such unit." '
2. R-5213
Plant-protection employees ,
The Union seeks a separate unit of plant-protection employees.
The Company contends that plant-protection employees are a part of
management and therefore not "employees" under the Act. The Com-
pany further contends that the fact that these employees are special
deputies and members of the armed forces of the United States pre-
vents them-from being organized and represented by a labor union.
We find no merit in these contentions." The Company likewise con-
tends that the plant-protection employees should be excluded from
any unit because they are supervisory employees. It is clear, how-
ever, that they do not have the power to hire or discharge other
employees, or recommend such action, or otherwise represent manage-
ment in the area of labor relations and policy; consequently, the con-
siderations which impelled a majority of the Board recently to hold
that supervisory employees may not constitute appropriate bargain-
ing units are here inapplicable."
Guards. This group of employees does the customary work of a
plant-protection unit, patrolling the yard, guarding ships, and stand-
ing watch at the gate. They keep watch for fire hazards, check on
visitors to the yard, and report infractions of the Company's rules to
the supervisor of the offending employee. They are uniformed and
armed. The guards were recently sworn in as special policemen of
the Police Department of the City of Baltimore, and also as part of
the United States Coast Guard Reserve. They wear the insignia of
both of these organizations, and are paid at the rate of $33 per week.
Corporals. There are 8 corporals, 2 of whom work on each,shift, 1
as a yard corporal and the other as a gate corporal. The gate corporal
has a squad of 4 guards and is stationed at 1 of the 2 gates in the yard
to check on all who enter or leave.' The other gate is watched by a
guard. The yard corporal has a squad of about 16 guards, who are
e See Matter of Armour d Company, 40 N. L. R. B. 1333; Iowa Electric Light and Power
Company, 46 N. L R B., No. 32.
0See Matter of Cramp 'Shipbuilding Company, 46 N. L. It. B '1186, and cases cited
therein.
10 Cf. Matter of Maryland Drydock Company, 49 N. L . It. B. 733; See Matter of
Bethlehem Steel Company , Shipbuilding Divistion (East Boston Yards ), 50 N. L. It. B.,
No, 33, R-5338.
i
370 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL, LABOR, RELATIONS BOARD
,stationed at•various posts in the yard. The yard corporal inspects the
posts; seeing that the guards are on duty and also observing conditions
iri- the yard generally. , Corporals receive $36.50 a week.
Sergeants; There is one sergeant on each shift who is charged with
the responsibility of relaying the daily assignments made by the
lieutenant. After the posts are mounted, the sergeant checks•on'the
men to see that they are performing their duty properly. Sergeants
are occasionally asked to make recommendations concerning the em-
ployees under'them. They likewise substitute for the lieutenant, who
is in, charge of the entire shift, during the latter's absence. Sergeants
receive $40°a week.
Ship guards. Ship guards are guards who do their patrol work
aboard ships in the yard. Their duties and functions are the same
as those of the guards ; however, they receive $32 a week.
'Temporary supervisors of ship guards. Occasionally a group of
guards will be assigned to a ship, with one of their number designated
as temporary supervisor by the captain of the protection force. As
soon as the repair job is completed, the temporary supervisor reverts
to his former status as a guard. These temporary assignments are
'relatively infrequent and ate not necessarily always received by the
same" individuals. While acting on such an assignment the tem-
porary supervisor receives a bonus of 9 cents an hour.
In accordance with our policy established in cases involving plant-
protection units we find that sergeants are supervisory employees, and
as such we shall exclude them from the appropriate unit "
,We find that all guards, corporals, ship guards, and temporary
'supervisors of ship guards, but excluding sergeants, lieutenants, senior
"lieutenant; and captain, of the Company constitute a unit appropriate
,for the purposes of collective bargaining, within the meaning of
Section 9 (b) of the Act.
We shall direct that the question concerning representation which
has arisen be resolved .by an election by secret ballot among- the plant-
-protection employees in the appropriate unit, who were employed
during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of the
Direction of Elections herein, subject to the limitations and additions
set forth in the Direction.
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 Rela-
tions Act, and pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of National Labor
11 See Matter b f Cramp -Shipbuilding Company , supra; Matter of The Maryland Drydoolo
Company, supra.
U
THE MARYLAND DRYDOCK COMPANY 371
Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2, as amended, it is
hereby
DmEcTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representa-
tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with The Maryland
Drydock Company, Baltimore, Maryland, 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 Fifth 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 following employees of the Company who were employed
during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of this
Direction of Elections, including employees who did not work during
such pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation or tempo-
rarily laid off, and including employees in the armed forces of the
United States who present themselves in person at the polls, but ex-
cluding any employees who have since quit or been discharged for
cause:
(1) All employees in each of the categories of departmental time-
keepers, departmental clerks, storeroom window keepers, storeroom
office clerks, drydock operators and their assistants, but excluding
supervisory employees, to determine whether or not they desire to be
represented by' Local No. 31 of the Industrial Union of Marine and
Shipbuilding Workers of America, affiliated with the Congress of
Industrial Organizations, for the purposes of collective bargaining;
(2) All employees in the unit found appropriate in Section IV,
2, above, to determine whether or not they desire to be represented by
Local No. 31 of, the Industrial Union of Marine and Shipbuilding
Workers of America, affiliated with the, Congress of Industrial Organ-
izations , for the purposes of collective bargaining.
1