Walker Boat Yard, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 14, 1984

273 N.L.R.B. 309 (N.L.R.B. 1984)

WALKER BOAT YARD 309
Walker Boat Yard, Inc. and District 2, Marine En-
gineers Beneficial Association, Associated Mari-
time Officers, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case 9-
RC-14191
14 December 1984
DECISION ON REVIEW
BY CHAIRMAN DOTSON AND MEMBERS
ZIMMERMAN AND HUNTER
On 16 February 1983 1 the Regional Director for
Region 9 issued a Decision and Direction of Elec-
tion in this proceeding. 2 Thereafter, in accordance
with Section 102.67 of the National Labor Rela-
tions Board Rules and Regulations, the Petitioner
filed a timely request for review.
By telegraphic order dated 15 April 1983 the
Board granted the Petitioner's request for review
on the unit issue. The election was stayed pending
decision on review. 3 The 'Employer filed an oppo-
sition.
The National Labor Relations Board has delegat-
ed its authority in this proceeding to a three-
member panel.
The Board has carefully considered the entire
record, including the submissions of the parties in
this case, and has decided to affirm the Decision
and Direction of Election by the Regional Director
for the following reasons. .
The Employer is a Kentucky corporation pri-
marily engaged in the repair and overhaul of boats
and barges. The Employer's repair operations are
conducted in the Walker Boat Yard facility (the
boatyard), a self-contained compound located on
the 'banks of the Tennessee River in Paducah, Ken-
tucky.
Encompassed within the boatyard is the drydock
area, machine shop, diesel engine shop, and electri-
cal shop. Each is located within several hundred
feet of the other. The drydock is an open area
along the river with the electrical shop adjacent to
' Plant Bargaining Committee for the Employees of the Dry Docks
and Repair Operations, for Walker Boat Yard, Inc was allowed to inter-
vene in this proceeding
2 The unit found appropriate by the Regional Director consists of all
production and maintenance employees, including all dry dock, machine
shop, diesel repair and electrical shop employees employed by the Em-
ployer at its Paducah, Kentucky facility, excluding all office clerical em-
ployees and all professional employees, guards and supervisors as defined
in the Act The Petitioner by its petition sought to represent a unit limit-
ed to approximately 11 employees, including all mechanics, mechanics
helpers, and diesel repairmen employed by the diesel repair division at
the Employer's Paducah, Kentucky facility Alternatively, the petitioner
indicated its willingness to proceed to an election in any unit found ap-
propnate The Employer and IntervenOr contended that only' an overall
unit of the diesel shop, machine shop, electrical shop, and drydock em-
ployees was appropriate
3 The Board denied the Employer's request for review of the Regional
Director's finding that there is no contract bar to the filing of this peti-
tion
it. The machine shop and diesel shop are located in
separate buildings.
The Employer's boatyard business is a function-
ally integrated operation with a significant level Of
interdependence between employees assigned to
various repair functions. Normally boats are
docked for repairs alongside the boatyard on the
river and the employees work together to repair
the vesse1. 4 The drydock employees repair the hull
or bottoms of the boats. Diesel shop employees
repair, maintain, and overhaul or, rebuild the boat
engines. The machine shop employees resurface or
reshape salvageable engine parts used by the diesel
shop employees. The machine shop employees also
work on parts of the tail and rudder shafts. The
electrical shop employees perform electrical work,
including disconnecting and rewiring the boat gen-
erators.
In preparing for their repair functions, the diesel
shop employees and machine shop employees rely
on the drydock employees for assistance, Thus, if
an engine must be removed from the boat for re-
pairs, the drydock employees may operate cranes
to perform this task. Other drydock employees
may assist in the removal process and in the trans-
porting of the engine to the diesel shop. Drydock
employees also may be called on to cut away ob-
structions which block the diesel shop employees'
access to the engines to be repaired. Machine shop
employees are assisted by the drydock employees
when removing shafts and propellers from boats
for repair in the machine shop.
We find therefore, in agreement with the Re-
gional Director, that in the context of the overall
boatyard operation, the work of the diesel shop
employees is not functionally distinct. 3 Rather, we
conclude that the diesel shop employees' work is
necessarily integrated with and dependent on work
performed by other boatyard employees in the unit
found appropriate by the Regional Director.
The bargaining history here further supports the
inclusion of the diesel employees in the broader
unit found appropriate. The unit employees have
been covered by a series of collective-bargaining
agreements dating back to 1968, except for a brief
period from 1969 to 1972. 6 The earlier agreements
4 Boats may also be raised out of the water or "dry docked" to be
repaired
5 While our dissenting colleague notes that there is no interchange of
function between the diesel shop employees and the other unit employ-
ees, It is quite clear from the record that the diesel shop employees could
not perform significant parts of their work without the assistance of the
drydock and machine shop employees Although the diesel shop employ-
ees are primarily concerned with repair and overhaul of the diesel en-
gines, they rely on the work of the machinists and on others in success-
fully carrying out the overall functions of the Employer's boatyard
6 As found by the Regional Director the bargaining unit was repre-
sented by the UAW in 1968 and 1969 and encompassed all hourly em-
Continued
273 NLRB No. 46
310 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
with the Intervenor made specific reference to
diesel engine mechanics, while the latter agree-
ments contained wage levels for "mechanics." Var-
ious provisions make reference to all "employees"
and it is undisputed that the contractual benefits for
vacation, holidays, and insurance coverage are re-
ceived by all -emploYees.7
In view Of the foregoing, and based on the
record as a Whole, We conclude that the Regional
Director's finding that the diesel shop employees
lack a sufficient , separate community of interest to
justify separate representation must be affirmed.8
ACcordingly; the DeOision and Direction of
Election is affirmed.
The case is remanded to the Regional Director
for Region 9 for the purpose of conducting an elec-
tion pursuant to his Decision and Direction of
Election. 9 Those eligible to vote are those in the
unit who were employed during the-payroll period
ending immediately - before the date of the issuance
of this Decision on Review.' °
MEMBER ZIMMERMAN, dissenting.
• Contrary to my colleagues, I do not find the
Employer's- Walker Boat Yard (the boatyard), in-
cluding a drydock area, machine shop, diesel -repair
shop, and electrical shop, to constitute a functional-
ly integrated operation with such a significant
degree of interdependence between employees as
to render inappropriate the separate diesel repair
shop unit sought by the Petitioner. Accordingly,
on the facts discussed below, I Would reverse the
ployees, including those in the diesel slop In 1972 the Employer recog-
nized the Intervenor and since then has executed , a series of agreements,
all of which, in our view, covered the overall unit including mechanics, a
classification which embraces the soukht diesel shop') employees
7 While the record shows thdt the wage schedules have not always
been followed for diesel mechanics;and that some discretion in this area
has been left to the diesel shop manager, It is clear that diesel as well as
machine shop employees enjoy wages that aie 8 to 10 percent higher
than those received' by drydock employees This divergence from the
contractual rates does not, in our opinion, demonstrate that they have not
been part of the contractual bargaining history
8 Since we, contrary to our dissenting colleague, have found that the
series of collective-bargaining agreements did not exclude the diesel shop
employees from coverage, we view the Petitioner's request for a separate
unit of diesel shop employees as a petition for severance In addition to
the factors enumerated above, severance is further unwarranted in view
of the Regional Director's finding that the diesel shop employees' skills
are not sufficiently specialized to justify the establishment of a separate
craft unit Moreover, despite the limited contractual variances applicable
to the diesel shop employees noted in the dissent, the long bargaining his-
tory on a yard-wide basis favors inclusion of these employees in the
broad historical unit found appropriate' by the Regional Director rather
than the narrow petitioned-for unit Mallinckrodt Chemical Works, 162
NLRB 387 (1966) In agreeing with his colleagues that the employees
sought here are not severable as a separate craft unit, Member Hunter
does not endorse Malhnckrodt Chemical Works, supra, in its entirety
As indicated in the Regional Director's decision, further processing
of this case to an election is contingent on the Petitioner submitting an
additional showing of interest for the unit found appropriate According-
ly, the Petitioner must submit a sufficient showing of interest within 10
days of this decision or the petition will be dismissed, absent withdrawal
i ° [Excelsior footnote omitted from publication]
Regional Director and direct an election in the pe-
titioned-for diesel repair 'shop unit.
The diesel repair shop was identified by the par-
ties at the hearing as a separate department. It is
physically situated in a separate building located in
the boatyard compound. Its employees, including
mechanics, mechanics helpers, and diesel repair-
men, are separately supervised by the diesel depart-
ment manager and two supervisory foremen. Diesel
department employees are specially trained to
repair diesel engines. They are the only employees
of the Employer who repair, maintain, overhaul,
and rebuild diesel and other engines for the Em-
ployer and its customers, including diesel engine
manufacturers for whom diesel department em-
ployees do warranty work. They spend most of
their time working on engines aboard boats in dry-
dock, but do more serious repairs in the diesel
shop: They also travel to vehicles broken down on
the road or at construction sites, and go on board
ships traveling upriver to do engine repairs. The
diesel 'department repairs most parts itself, sends
others out to a local contractor, and sends limited
types of parts to the machine shop for resurfacing.
The diesel department at times engages 'drydock
employees to perform major welding and cut away
work on drydocked vessels. The record does not
clearly establish that the diesel department's reli-
ance on other segments of the Employer's oper-
ation is regular or substantial. In addition, there is
no evidence of employee transfer.
-As to terms and conditions of employment, the
record establishes that diesel department employees
work a day shift, while the drydock and machine
shop employees work both a day and afternoon
shift. Diesel department employees punch a sepa-
rate timeclock, wear distinct uniforms, have a sepa-
rate lunch • area '(as do the other departments), and
have their own Christmas party. All employees are
paid out of the same payroll. Insurance and leave
benefits are ,uniform. Seniority is' supposedly com-
panywide, but no instance of its application exists
on the record. Diesel department employees'
wages, discuss'ed in detail infra, are 8 to 10 percent
higher than those of drydock employees and com-
parable to those of machine shop employees.
The .majority finds that the similarities in terms
and conditions of employment between the various
departments of the Employer are 'the product of a
series of collective-bargaining agreements covering
all of ,the Employer's employees, including those in
the diesel department, and that any deviation from
the contractually proscribed terms with respect to
the diesel department is not indicative of the fact
that the diesel department should not be part of the
broader unit they find appropriate. The facts which
WALKER BOAT YARD 311
ing such high wages. Further, the Employer's
claim that the contractual wage scale represents the
minimum to be paid diesel department employees,
and is to be supplemented by unspecified merit in-
creases and increases to keep department employ-
ees 10 cents above local "like-type" industry, is to-
tally unsubstantiated.
Other provisions also indicate that the contract
was not designed to apply to diesel department em-
ployees. Thus, the contract provides for three
shifts, the first to run from 6 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.—the
diesel department works one shift beginning at 7
a.m. and ending at 3:30 p.m. There is no evidence
that the companywide seniority provision has ever
been applied. The contract provides for a commit-
teeman to serve the entire Company, but the desig-
nated individual never solicited the views of diesel
department employees concerning proposals in ad-
vance of contract negotiations and has not been in-
volved in diesel department grievance meetings.
Also significant is the fact that diesel department
employees were never involved in contract negoti-
ations or ratification of the latest contract.
In sum, considering the Erhployer's identification
of the diesel department as a separate department;
the separate superVision; the distinct job 'functions
of the diesel department employees; the lack of em-
ployee interchange between diesel department em-
ployees and other yard operations; and the limited
applicability of the Collective-bargaining agreement
to diesel department employees evidenced in part
by their many different terms and conditions of em-
ployment, I conclude that 'the diesel department
constitutes an identifiable and homogeneous group
with a community of interest separate and distinct
from other boatyard employees. 3 Accordingly, I
find that the diesel department constitutes a unit
appropriate for collective-bargaining purposes
within the meaning Of Section 9( .3) of the Act.
follow, however, show that for some time the
diesel department has not been treated as covered
by any collective-bargaining agreement.' The ab-
sence of such coverage, while all other boatyard
departments are covered by the contract, further
supports a finding that a separate diesel department
unit is appropriate.
In 1968, the United Auto Workers (UAW) was
certified by the Board as the representative of a
unit of all production and maintenance employees
in the boatyard. A contract of approximately 1
year was executed, but shortly before its expiration
the UAW went on strike. In 1969, the UAW dis-
claimed interest in representing the boatyard em-
ployees. In 1972, the Employer voluntarily recog-
nized the Intervenor. 2 A series of four similar col-
lective-bargaining agreements between the Em-
ployer and the. Intervenor followed, the latest ex-
piring on 1 July 1982. The, contracts contain no
recognition clause describing the bargaining unit,
and while many benefit provisions, by their terms,
apply to "employees" generally, noticeably absent
from both the 1976 and 1979 agreements are earlier
included references to "diesel engine mechanics."
The wage scale included , is one for mechanics,
grades 1 through 6. But, any argument that this
reference to mechanics is an abbreviation , for the
diesel engine mechanic classification is undermined
by the Employer's testimony that all employees are
classified as "mechanics."
Beyond' the Employer's own admission that the
contractual wage schedule and increase provisions
have not always been followed -to set the wages of
diesel department employees, there is evidence that
diesel department wages are set directly by the
diesel department manager: This may explain why
several in the department receive wages at or
above the contractual maximum even though they
do not possess the contractually enumerated skills
of fitting, burning, and welding requisite to receiv-
' The Board denied the Employer's request for review of the Regional
Director's-finding that there is no contract bar to the filing of this peti-
tion-
2 See Walker's Fuel & Service Ca, 208 NLRB 158 (1974)
3 In view of my conclusion that the terms and conditions of employ-
ment enjoyed by diesel shop employees have not been determined by col-
lective bargaining for the broader unit, I do not view this as a severance'
case which would be controlled by application of the criteria of Mal-
lawkroch Chemical Works, 162 NLRB 387 (1966)