The Arundel Corp.

In the Matter of TILE ARUNDEL CORPORATION and Ii-Du *kAi. UkION OF' MARINE AND SHIPBUILDING WORkERS OF AMERICA, CIO (LOCAL 43) Case No. 5-R-1370.-Decided November 6, 1943 Mr. G. Donald Schaub , of Baltimore, Md.,. for the Company. Messrs. Joseph DiGiacomo and William. Fwehley, if Baltin16re, Md., for the C. 1. 0. Mr. Jacob B7rwn , of Baltimore , Md., for the A. F. of L. Mr. A . Sumner Lawrence, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon petition duly filed by Industrial Unidn of Marine and Ship- building Workers of America, C. I. 0., Local 43, herein called the C. I. 0., alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen con- cerning the representation of eidployees of The Arundel Corporation, Fairfield] Maryland, herein called the Company,' the National Labor Relations Board proi7ided for an appropriate hearing upon due notice before David H. Werther, Trial Examiner. Said hearing was held at Baltimore, Maryland, on October 4, 1943. The Company, the C. I. Q., and Baltimore Bdilditrg and. Construction Trades Council, A. F. L., herein called the A. F.'of L., 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 ruling's made at the hearing are free frdAi piejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. ; All parties were afforded the oppor- tunity for filing briefs with the Board. Upon the entire record in the case the Board makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY The Arundel Corporation, a Maryland corporation, has its prin- cipal office and place of business in Baltimore, Maryland, with branch offices in New York City, Maine, Florida, and Los Angeles, California. IIncorrectly described In the petition and other formal papers as "Arundel Corpora- tion", and corrected by motion at the hearing. 53 N. L. R. B., No. 81. 466 'Iii AMR-6EL cittPORA!T'I ' 40 Tile Company is priiicipally engaged in construction aiid recliiia- tion projects, dredging, and bridge work. Contract work perfol'iniid in 1942; Ineliiding the Conipkiiy's share of joint ventures ih which it participated, totaled aplii oxithately $27,500,600 for dredging Mid con= struction work in more than 13 States of the United States and Puerto Rico. The Company is also engaged in the production and distribution of sand and gravel, crushed stone, crushed slag, and ready-mixed con- crete, all of which 'Materials' are produced in the State of Maryland During the first 6 months of 1943, the Company sold such products of a value in excess of $80d,000, Of which approximately 81/2 percent of value was shipped to points outside the State of 1VIaryland. The Company owns and operates a fleet of tugs and barges and a fully equip] ed ship repair yard at Fairfield, Maryland, With which latter operaioi this proceeding is concerned. The Fairfield yard is engaged in repairing tugs, barges, dredges, and 'miscellaneous vessels, steam shovels, cranes, bulldozers, and various cdnstrtiction equipment. In connection with the 'operation of its repair yard, the Company purchased during the first 6 months of 1943 raw materials of a value in excess of. $79;122A0, of which approximately , 20 percent of value, was shipped to the repair yard froth points outside the State of Maryland. The Company concedes that it is engaged in commerce within the iiieaiii'ng of the 3Gfional Labor Relations Act. II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED industrial Union of Marine and Shipbuilding Workers of America, Local 43,,is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress of In- dustrial drganiza`tions, admitting to membership employees of the Company. Baltlmore Building and Construction Trades Council is a labor organization afliated with the American Federation of Labor, admit- ting to membership employees of the Company. III. THE QUEaTION CONCEkkiNG REPRESENTATION On or about August 18;1943, and several times thereafter, the C. I. 0. requested that the Company bargain with it as representative of the employees at the Company's Fairfield ship repair yard. Upon the failure of the Company to indicate definitely whether it would bar- gain c6llectively, the C. I. 0. filed its present petition for investigation and certification of representatives. A statement of a Field Examiner for the Board introduced into evidence at the hearing, indicates that the C. I. 0. represents a sub- 468 DECISIONS OF- NATIONAL ,LABOR RELATIONS BOARD stantial number of employees in the unit hereinafter found appro- priate.2 We find that a question affecting commerce has 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 C. I. 0. contends that the appropriate unit should consist of all production and maintenance employees, including truck drivers, employed at the Company's Fairfield ship repair yard, -excluding, supervisors, foremen, assistant foremen, and clerical employees. The Company and the A. F. of L. do not generally dispute the specific categories sought to be included or excluded,3 but 'do contend that the appropriate unit should include all employees of the. Company in every phase of the Company's operations and activities within the the State of Maryland. The scope of the Company's operations within the, State of Mary- land in addition to the Fairfield ship repair yard, covers 6 sand, and „ gravel plants, 4 stone quarries, 4 ready-mixed concrete plants, and 1 truck loading station, all of which are located at, widely separated points, ranging in distance from 11/2 to 115 miles from the ship re- pair yard. Each of the sand and gravel plants, the 4 quarries collec- tively, and the Fairfield ship repair yard, has its gwli superintendent or manager who is in full charge of the operations of 'his particular plant. The superintendents or managers in charge of the various sand and gravel plants and quarries are responsible for the per- formance of their duties to a company vice president, though the superintendent of the Fairfield ship repair yard''is responsible only to the President of the Company. ' The superintendent or manager of each plant has the sole power to hire and discharge employees in his particular plant. Each plant maintains.'it-s own pay roll, iri the performance of which duty each plant calculates' the number 'of hours worked by its employees and forwards such ' calculations to the gen- eral offices of the Company where the pay checks are drawn and transmitted to the plant for distribution. While ship repair employees are transferred for -duty among the other plants of the Company, such transfers are 'of: a temporary nature and for. emergency purposes only. `Employee's so transferred °'The Field Examiner reported that the C. I. 0 had submitted 93 authorization cards dated between August and September 1943, of which 83 bore the apparently genuine original signatures of persons whose names appear on the Company's pay roll of August 25, 1943, containing the names of 100 persons within the appropriate unit claimed by the C. I. O. 8 The only exception to this statement concerns an 'employee by 'the - name of Feeliley, hereinafter discussed, whom the A. F. of L claims should be excluded from the appro- priate unit as a supervisory employee. THE ARUNDEL CORPORATION 469 do only the type of work which they would normally do at the ship repair yard, such as the repair of mechanical and marine equipment used in connection with the Company's sand, gravel, and quarry oper- ations.` •Moreover such transferees continue to work under the super- vision of the ship repair superintendent. The record indicates that there have been no permanent transfers from the ship repair yard to the other operations of the Company, and that transfers from such other operations to the ship repair yard are negligible in quantity. Notwithstanding the above facts, the Company and the A. F. of L. urge in favor of a State-wide multiple plant unit the fact that labor policies of the Company are centrally determined, together with the claim that the history of collective bargaining has been conducted upon a State-wide multiple plant basis. As to the` first contention, it appears that while the labor policy affecting all operations of the Company within the Sttiate of Mary- land is centrally determined, the superintendent of the shipyard makes recommendations to the president of the Company with ref- erence,to the • rate of pay and other working conditions in the ship- yard .5 Employee grievances arising among the shipyard workers are settled where possible by the superintendent of the shipyard through' personnel conferences with the individual employees con- cerned." With respect to the history of collective bargaining, the contract chiefly relied upon is a so-called master agreement executed on March 29,1940,•bythe Company and the A. F. of L. The agreement provides that only members in good standing of the various local unions affil- iated with the A. F. of L. union will be employed by the Company in all of the Company's operations and such other operations controlled by the 'Company that properly come within the jurisdiction of the A. F. of L. The agreement further provides that the Company shall enter into collective bargaining agreements with the various local unions affiliated with the A. F. of L. covering such of its employees as belong to the A. F. of L's affiliates: ' While the contract does not specify the particular plant or plants or operations or geographical limits purported to be affected thereby, a witness for the A: F. of L. testified that the agreement was intended to apply to all the Company's operations in the state of Maryland. 4 The repair work performed by the ship repair yard employees consists of repairs to plant equipment which cannot be made by the plant employees themselves. 'The Board has held that notwithstanding the existence of a central personnel office, a single plant unit may be appropriate where, among other circumstances, it appears that the `plant managers consult with the central office and propose wage rates for their respective plants., Bee Matter of John Deere Harrester Workers of Deere & Company, 44 N. L. it. B. 335. O The Board has considered as an element in the finding of a single plant unit the fact that grievances arse handled locally by the plant foremen. See Matter of Pacific Lumber Co, 51 N. L. R. B. 407 ; Matter of May Pollack & Co, 38 N. L. R. B 996 470 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD- The coftl;act is )lot, however, a collective bargaining agreement in the sense that it settles matters of wages, hours of work and other, con- ditions of work, but merely binds the Company to bargain in the future with the A. F. of L.'s affiliates in respect to such matters. More- over, the contract in question not only fails to cover by its terms the employees of the ship repair yard, but also Contains no provision for termination. The A. F. of L. contends that, notwithstanding. the, indefinite character. of the master agreement, the fact that the A. F. of L., acting under the master, agreement, has awarded jurisdiction to its affiliate, herein referred to as the Operating Engineers,' f or, the purposes of bargaining collectively with respect to employees throughout the Company's sand and gravel operations, together with the employees. in, the ship repair, yard, establishes a history of collective bargaining upon, a multiple plant basis, throughout the State of Maryland. , How-, ever, while it appears that the Operating. Engineejrs has, pursuant to the master agreement and in accordance with its grant of .jurisdic- tion over the Company's employees, entered into, contracts with the Company, apparently covering employees -within the craft of the Operating Engineers in sand and gravel plants throughput, the State of Maryland,? it is admitted by the A. F. of'L. that the Operating Engineers has never made a contract in behalf of, or even organized, the, ship repair yard employees. Moreover, the latter, have concededly been neglected by the Operating Engineers and have never, been organ- ized by, any,labor organization. other than the, petitioning C. I. Q. anion.. Under the circumstances, we are of the opinion} that neither, the Company's centralized administration of labor policies, nor_ the history of collective bargaining, as hereinabove set forth, is determinative of the question of the appropriate unit. We find that, upon the entire record in the case, the employees of the ship repair yard constitute a, homogeneous group suitable for the purposes of collective bar- gaining.8 There remains for consideration the question of including, or ex- cluding one Feehley from the appropriate unit. This employee is in charge of the ship repair yard from 4:3Q to 12:30 at night, duri>Rg which period he is assisted at times by as many as 5 or 0 employees whq ' The last contract dated August 25, 1942, is for a period of 1 year, or, until such time as either party gives 30 days ' more of, change or termination . The contract fails to clearly identify the employees intended to qe covered tlkk;eby . The only possibility of determining coverage rests in construction of the language appearing in the preamble and' Article 1, Section 2, of the agreement . It would appear Eros this lagguaae, that the contract affects !,employees within the union 's craft at these plants of the company located within the State of Maryland engaged in the production of sand anal grace'.", , See Matter of Peoiflo Lem per Company, 51 N. L. R B 4017 0 THE ARUNDEL CORPORATION 471 work under his direction on repair jobs. He has, however, no author- ity either to make, or to recommend changes in their employee status. Feehley is listed on the company pay roll as a machinist. As such, he does manual work and is paid by' the hour like other production employees. While his rate per hour is 15 cents higher than that re- ceived by ordinary machinists, this rate includes 10 cents extra com- pensation for night work. By comparison, it appears that foremen are listed on thepay roll as foremen, are paid a straight weekly salary and do no manual work. Upon the entire record we find that Feehley has no substantial supervisory duties, but is merely a journeyman machinist, who at times directs and is assisted by helpers according to. a custom long prevailing in the machinists' craft. We shall, ac- cordingly, include Feehley within the unit hereinafter found appro- priate'for the purposes of collective bargaining. We find that all production and maintenance employees of the Com- pany employed at its Fairfield, Maryland, ship repair yard, including Fe.ehley, truck drivers,' and watchmen,1° but excluding foremen, assistant foremen, clerical employees and all supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively recommend such action, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collec- tive bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the act. V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES We shall direct that the question concerning representation which has arisen be resolved by an election by secret ballot among the em- ployees in the appropriate unit who were employed during the pay- roll period immediately preceding the date of the Direction of Elec- tion herein, subject to the limitations and additions set forth in the Direction. While the A. F. of L. made no actual showing of representation among the ship repair yard employees, we shall, in view of its possible interest as indicated by the master agreement aforesaid , include its name on the ballot in the election directed among the employees of the Company. 9 While the C. I. O. originally requested the exclusion of these employees , it agreed with the A. F. of L. at the hearing that truck drivers should be included within the appro- priate unit . In the absence of any claim for their separate representation , it is our usual practice to include truck drivers within a unit of production and maintenance employees. See Matter of Carl G. Hedblom and Byron C. Hedblom, co-partners, d/b/a General Ship and Engine Works, 49 N. L. R. B. 1290. lU While watchmen were not specifically claimed by the petitioning union, it appears that these employees who are neither armed nor militarized do essentially maintenance work and are therefore included in a unit of production and maintenance employees in accordance with our usual practice in this respect. See Matter of Pass and Seymour, Inc., 51 N. L. R. B. 1135. 472 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD DIRECTION OF ELECTION 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 Relations 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 The Arundel Cor- poration, Fairfield, Maryland, an election 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, Sections 10 and 11, of said Rules and Regulations, , among the em- ployees in the unit found appropriate in Section IV, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of this Direction, including employees who did not work during said pay-roll ,period because they were ill, or on vacation or temporarily laid of, and including employees in the armed forces of the United States who present themselves in person at the polls, but excluding those who have, since quit or been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or reinstated prior, to the date of the election, to deter- mine whether they desire to be represented by Industrial Union of Maxine and Shipbuilding Workers of America, C. I. 0., Local 43, or by Baltimore Building and Construction Trades Council, A. F. of L.. for the purposes of collective bargaining, or by neither. °