Bethlehem Fairfield Shipyard, Inc.

In the Matter of BETHLEHEM FAIRFIELD SHIPYARD, INC. and LOCAL 355, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN & HELPERS (AFL) Case No. B-3389. -Decided February 24, 1942 Jurisdiction : shipbuilding industry. Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining : unit confined to truck operators held inappropriate in view of the close relationship of the truck operators to the production employees, evidenced by the fact that the trucking is mainly interdepartmental and within the confines of the shipyard, and by the employment of truckers at other yard work, and in view of the general industrial character of collective bargaining in the shipbuilding industry. Practice and Procedure : petition dismissed where no appropriate unit within scope of petition. Mr. Earle K. Shawe and Mr. Elgin Hardin, for the Board. Mr. Kenneth L. Houck, of Bethlehem, Pa., for the Company. Mr. Jacob J. Edelman, of Baltimore, Md., for the Teamsters. Mr. Lucian Koch and Mr. Walter L. Walker, of Baltimore, Md., for the Industrial. Mr. Charles W. Schneider, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE On October 22, 1941, Local 355, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers (AFL), herein called the Teamsters, filed with the. Regional Director for the Fifth Region (Baltimore, Maryland) a petition alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation of em- ployees of Bethlehem Fairfield Shipyard, Inc., Baltimore, Maryland, herein called the Company, and requesting an investigation and certification of representatives pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. On November 12, 1941, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, acting pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the Act, and 39 N. L. R. B., No. 25. 140 I BETHLEHEM FAIRFIELD SHIPYARD, INC. 141 Article III, Section 3, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2, as amended, ordered an investigation and authorized the Regional Director to conduct it and to provide for an appropriate hearing upon due notice. On November 28, 1941, the Regional Director issued a notice of hearing, copies of which were duly served upon the Company and the Teamsters, and also upon Industrial Union of Marine and Ship- building Workers of America (CIO), herein called the Industrial, a labor organization claiming to represent employees directly af- fected by the investigation. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on December 16, 1941, at Baltimore, Maryland, before William P. Webb, the Trial Examiner 'duly designated' by the Chief Trial Examiner. The Company, the Teamsters, and the Industrial were represented at and participated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded all parties.,. During the course of the hearing the Trial Examiner made several rulings on motions and on objections to the admission of evidence. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial errors were, committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY Bethlehem Fairfield Shipyard, Inc., is a Maryland corporation engaged in the construction of ships for the United States Maritime Commission at a shipyard in Fairfield, Baltimore, Maryland. Up to the date of the hearing, five ships had been .launched during the calendar year 1941 at the Company's shipyard, all, destined for use in interstate or foreign commerce. The Company stipulated that it ' is engaged in commerce at the Fairfield yard within the meaning of the Act. H. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED Local 355, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers is a labor organization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, admitting to membership employees of the Company. Industrial Union of Marine and Shipbuilding Workers of America is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, admitting to membership employees of the Company. 142 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD III. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT The Teamsters contend that the truck operators employed in the. Fairfield shipyard, excluding supervisory employees, constitute an appropriate unit. The Company and the Industrial contend that the unit urged by the Teamsters is inappropriate, for the reason that the appropriate unit is industrial, or yard-wide, including the truck operators. Both labor organizations submitted substantial evidence of representation among the truck operators.' The shipyard is new, and was opened for production about August 1841. Total employment is approximately 9,000. The technique of ship construction employed is unique. Various units are prefabri- cated and then assembled at the yard by mass-production methods. The truck operators are truck drivers. They are part of the Trans- portation Department of the shipyard, which department, according to the September 27 pay roll, comprises some 474 employees, includ- ing, in addition to truck operators, inter alia, crane operators, checkers, handymen, locomotive firemen, brakemen, engineers, con- ductors, helpers, laborers, chauffeurs, and clerks.2 About two-thirds of the truck operators' time is devoted to interdepartmental hauling within the confines of the shipyard ; the remainder to hauling to and from points outside the shipyard. When there is no trucking to do, the truck operators are shifted to other work in the yard.3 They are hourly paid. On June 10, 1941, the Bethlehem Steel Company, Shipbuilding Division, the parent corporation of the Company, entered into a "Memorandum of Understanding" with the Industrial in which the -Steel Company agreed to the holding of consent elections at ". . . the Staten Island Yard of Bethlehem, the San Pedro Yard of Beth- lehem, the yard of Bethlehem-Sparrows Point Shipyard, Inc., at Sparrows Point, Maryland, the yard of Bethlehem-Fairfield Ship- yard, Incorporated, and any other shipyard which may hereafter be owned and operated by Bethlehem. .. ... The agreement further 1 The Teamsters submitted to the Regional Director 13 application cards-1 dated in 1938, 1 in 1939, 4 in 1940, and 7 between May and October 1941. All contained apparently genuine, original signatures. Ten of the 13 were for persons on the Company's September 27, 1941, pay roll. At that time there were 17 truck operators. At the hearing the Teamsters submitted into evidence a list of 22 members, 20 of whom the Teamsters claim were employed by the Company at the date of the hearing. Of the names on that list, 2 bore accompanying dates indicating that they joined in 1939, 1 in 1940, 12 in October 1941, and 7 in December 1941. The record does not disclose how many truck operators were employed at that time. The Industrial submitted to the Regional Director 13 cards, 2 dated in August, 9 in September, and 2 In October, 1941. Ten of these were for persons on the September 27 pay roll. ' The chauffeurs operate private automobiles and are not claimed by the Teamsters. s The truck operators formerly lost a day each week .due to a shortage of equipment. To compensate for this loss an arrangement was effected whereby they were shifted to other tasks in the yard on the odd day. BETHLEHEM FAIRFIELD SHIPYARD, INC. 143 provided that the parties would, about June 24, 1941, begin negotiat- ing a master contract for all yards in which the Industrial was then or subsequently should be certified by the Board as exclusive bargain- ing representative. It also provided that, pending certification, the Industrial would be recognized as the bargaining representative of its members for the purpose of presenting grievances. Elections pusuant to the Memorandum at a number of Bethlehem Steel Com- pany yards, have since been conducted on industrial bases, and won by the Industrial, including the yard here involved.4 A contract for employees of the Company was being negotiated by the Industrial at the time of the hearing. The, Industrial has pre- sented grievances for its members at the Company's yard, and wage increases have been granted to the truck operators, among whom the Industrial has membership. The Teamsters do not claim to have done any bargaining with the Company, although they have "occa- sionally" supplied some truck operators at the Company's request. According to undisputed testimony, the Industrial has a contract for an industrial bargaining unit including truck' operators with the Maryland Dry Dock Company, a shipyard in. the vicinity, and other like contracts with numerous yards throughout the country. In view of the close relationship of the truck operators to the production employees, evidenced by the fact that the trucking is mainly interdepartmental and within the confines of the shipyard, and by the employment of truckers at other yard work, and in view of the general industrial character of collective bargaining in the shipbuilding industry, we find the unit requested by the Teamsters to be inappropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining.-5 IV. THE ALLEGED QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION Since we have found in Section III above that the bargaining unit sought to be established by the petition is inapproprate for the pur- poses of collective bargaining, we find that no question has arisen concerning the representation of employees of the Company in a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining. 6 On October 1, 1941 , the Company and the Industrial entered into an agreement for a consent election . The bargaining unit specified in the agreement is identical with that now urged by the Company and the Industrial to be appropriate . The election was scheduled for October 17. On October 15 the Teamsters appeared at the office of the Regional Director , presented evidence of representation among the truck operators, and requested a separate bargaining unit for such employees . By agreement of all the parties the Regional Director proceeded with the scheduled election , but impounded the ballots of the truck operators pending consideration of the Teamsters ' claim by the Board. The election was won by the Industrial . 4,103 valid votes were cast-3 , 570 for the Industrial and 533 against . No other organization was on the ballot . The Teamsters then filed the present petition. s See Matter of Robert Jacobs, Inc. and Industrial Union of Marine and Shipbuilding Workers of America, et at., 32 N. L. R. B. 646 Matter of Inland Steel Company and Team- sters Union, Local 520, et al., 34 N. L. R. B. 1294. 448105-42-vol. 39-11 144 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : CONCLUSION OF LAW No question concerning the representation of employees of Bethle- hem Fairfield Shipyard, Inc., Baltimore, Maryland, has arisen in a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act. ORDER Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusion of law, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the petition for investigation and certification of representatives of em ployees of Bethlehem Fairfield Shipyard, Inc., filed by Local 355, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen' & Helpers (AFL), be, and it hereby is, dismissed. 1