Bethlehem-Hingham Shipyard, Inc.

In the Matter of BETHLEHEM -HINGHAM 'SHIPYARD, INC. and BETH- LEHEM-HINGHAM SHIPYARD INDEPENDENT UNION In the Matter of, BETE=L 'EM-HINGHAM SHIPYARD, INC. and BETH- LEHEM-HINGHAM SHIPYARD INDEPENDENT UNION In the Matter of BETHLEHEM-HINGHAM SHIPYARD, INC. and BETH- LEHEM-HINGHAM SHIPYARD INDEPENDENT UNION Cases Nos. 1-R-1887 1-R-1888 and 1-R-1931 respectively.-Decided July 12, 1944 Messrs. Robert A. Zottoli and Robert J. Thomson, both of Quincy, Mass., and Mr. John T. Hannon, of Randolph, Mass., for the Union? Mr. Gerald J. Reilly, of Bethlehem, Pa., Messrs. Francis Long and H. J. Gorman, both of Hingham, Mass., Mr. Clement A. Briggs, of Plymouth, Mass., Mr. E. G. Anderson, of Quincy, Mass., and Messrs. Cravath, Swaine c& Moore, by Messrs. C. A. McLain and V. M.• Wil- liamson, both of New York City, for the Company? Mr. David V. Easton, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon separate 'petitions and an amended petition 8 duly filed by Bethlehem-Hingham Shipyard Independent Union, herein called the Union, alleging that questions affecting commerce had arisen concern- ing the representation of. employees of Bethlehem-Hingham, Ship- building, Inc., Hingham, Massachusetts, herein called the Company, the National Labor Relations Board provided for appropriate hear- ings upon due notice before John W. Coddaire, Jr.., Trial Examiner. 1 Mr Zottoli appeared for the Union In all three cases ; Messrs. Thomson and Hannon so appeared in Cases Nos 1-R-1887 and 1-R-1888. Messrs Reilly, Long, and Briggs appeared specially for the Company in all three cases ; Mr. Anderson appeared specially =for the Company in Cases 'Nos.'1-R-1887 and 1-R-1888; Mr. Gorman appeared specially for the Company only in Case No 1-R-1888, and Messrs. McLain and Williamson appeared specially for the Company only in Case No. 1-R-1931. 8 An amended petition was filed in Case No. 1-P-1931. 57 N. L. R. B.,'No. 37.' - . 205 -206 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Said hearings were held at Boston, Massachusetts, on June 8 and 19, 1944. The Company and the Union appeared,4 participated, and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine aiid cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing, on the issues. The Com- pany moved at each hearing to dismiss the petition therein: The Trial Examiner referred the motions to the Board for.decision. For reasons hereinafter set forth, each of these motions is hereby denied. The Trial Examiner•'s'rulings made at the hearings lire free from prejudi- cial error and are hereby affirmed., All parties were afforded an op- portunity to file briefs_ with the Board. The Board, on its own motion, hereby consolidates the foregoing cases for the purpose of decision, and, upon the consolidated record, makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY Bethlehem-Hingham, Shipyard, Inc., a Delaware corporation, oper- ates a yard located at Hingham, Massachusetts, which is solely en- gaged in the construction of vessels for. the, United States Navy _Department. Said yard and'all the shipbuildiiig facilities therein are owned by the United States Navy Department. During the period commencing February 1, 1942, and lasting until May 1, 1944, the aggregate value of all materials used by the Company in the con- struction of vessels was in excess of $95,000,000, of which more than 90 percent was delivered to the yard from points outside the Common- wealth of Massachusetts. During the same period, the amount billed by the Company to the United States Navy Department for work in the construction of vessels at the yard was approximately $217,700,000. The Company admits that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act: H. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Bethlehem-Hingham Shipyard Independent Union is an, unaffiliated labor organization, admitting' to membership employees, of the Company. III. THE QUESTIONS CONCERNING REPRESENTAIION- The Company refuses to grant recognition to the Union as the bar- gaining representative of employees in the, three units proposed by the Union,,' contending that each unit is inappropriate, and, in addi- 4 The Company appeared specially in each of the ,proceedings pending decision upon motions to dismiss hereinafter referred to Employees engaged in the yard 'fire department (Case No 1-R-1887) ; yard'police department (Case No 1-R-1888) ; and accounting department (Case No 1-11-1931). BETHLEHEM-HINGHAM SHIPYARD, INC. '207 tion,',tha't the, persons involved in two of the units are not "eni- ployees" within the meaning of the' Act.' Reports of a Board Field 'Examiner, introduced into evidence at the hearings, indicate that the Union represents a substantial number of employees in each 'of the units which it proposes? 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 Case No. 1-R-1887 In this proceeding, the Union seeks a unit composed of, all employees of the yard fire department of the Company, excluding the chief, the deputy chief, captains, and lieutenants. The Company contends that the unit sought is inappropriate on the ground that the interests of these_elnployees are identified with management and that there would be a conflict between their duties and responsibilities to the Company and their interests as members of a labor organization, particularly one which represents production and 'maintenance employees ; s how- ever, if overruled in this contention, the Company contends that the female clerk of the department should be excluded, in addition to the foregoing exclusions which the Union seeks. CI'he record discloses that the employees in the yard fire department are engaged in operating the fire equipment in and about the premises; maintaining fire houses, extinguishers, the fire alarm system, and other fire fighting equipment; preventing fire and explosions; and putting out fires. In connection with these duties, they perform certain car- pentry, painting, and other maintenance work. Although they-are neither armed nor militarized, they are uniformed and are paid' a weekly salary. They have authority to stop work in connection with their fire prevention functions, but such authority is a natural concom- itant of their duties. , In previously discussing the appropriateness of a similar unit, we stated that "self-organization for collective bargaining is not incom- e Cases Nos. 1-R-1888 and 1-R-1931. The reports of the Field Examiner may be summarized by the following chart No desiq- h o an nations Case No i Unit submitted 1=R-1887---------------------------------------------- - 54 1-R-1888---------------------------------------------- 234 148 1-R-1931-------------------------------------------; - 699 422 ion Febiuaiy 23, 1944 , the Union was certified as the 'representative of all production, maintenance , and warehouse employees of the Company, excluding , inter alga, employees of the yard fire department , the yard police department , timekeepers, piece-work .counters, and general office and clerical employees . 54 N. L. R. B. 631. , • 208 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD patible with an efficient and faithful discharge of, duty., Should'.the performance ' of an employee 'deteriorate,, the Company always has recourse to its normal disciplinary authority to insure the maintenance of its,standards of work." 9 The female clerk in the yard fire department takes dictation and performs typing, filing, and other clerical duties. We are of the opinion that the nature of her duties warrants her exclusion from a unit of firemen. We find that all employees of the Company's yard fire department, excluding clerical employees, the chief, the deputy chief, captains, lieutenants, and all other 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 collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. Case No. 1-R-1888 In this proceeding,,the Union seeks a unit composed of all' employees of the yard police department; excluding the chief, the deputy chief, captains, lieutenants, and sergeants. The Company contends that the employees in this department are not "employees" within the meaning of the Act, inasmuch as their duties require that they act solely on behalf of management in disciplining other employees, and that a unit composed of such employees is inappropriate. In support of its con- tention, the Company argues that the acts of these employees bind it to the extent. that, in certain instances, the Company may be open to charges of unfair labor practices; and that to permit these employees to be represented by the same labor organization which represents the production and maintenance employees 10 would bring about a situa- tion not conducive to the proper performance of their duties; how- ever, in the event that this contention is not sustained by the Board, the Company asserts that three members of the yard police department who perform investigatory work, the clerical employees attached to the department, the equipment guard, and the,six escorts attached to the department should be excluded, in addition to the exclusions sought by the Union. The general functions of the yard police department consist of the protection of property and persons in the yard and in the maintenance of order. The employees in the department enforce company regula- tions and have the' authority to apprehend employees found violating regulations. They are uniformed, but not militarized, and are paid a salary based upon a 40-hour week, plus time and a half for overtime work. s Matter of Consolidated Shipbuilding Corporation, 52 N. L. R. B. 1405 gat 1407. 10 See footnote 8, supra. BETHLEHEM-HINGHAM SHIPYARD, INC. 209 We have previously rejected arguments. similar to those advanced by the Company respecting identical types of employees Il The Company employs three guards in the investigating division of the yard police department whose duties, consist of investigating ap- plicants for positions in the yard.. These duties are routine and part of the policing functions of the department. Furthermore, such duties do not give these employees access to confidential information relating to personnel policies of the Company. 'Accordingly, we shall include them. The Company employs one'guard whose sole duty is to care for the equipment of the department. His duties are an integral part of they operation of the department and we see no' reason for excluding him from the unit. - There are' six uniformed escorts, classified as such, attached to the department, whose' duties are to accompany visitors into and about the yard and to assist persons needing direction or escort. We are of the opinion that the functions of these employees are sufficiently related to those of the guards to warrant their inclusion within the unit. Included within 'the yard police department are a group of five employees. classified as clerks and stenographers who perform clerical duties. These employees, who are not uniformed, type and file the reports of the department. As in the case of the clerical attached to the yard fire department, we are of the opinion that their duties are sufficiently different from those of the remaining employees in the yard' police department to warrant their exclusion. We, find that all employees of'the Company's'yard police depart- ment, in guards performing investigation work, equipment guards, and escorts, but excluding clerical employees, the chief, -the deputy chief, captains, lieutenants, sergeants, and all other supervisory- employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively- recom-mend such action, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. Case No. 1-R-1931 - The Union seeks a' unit composed of all employees of the Company engaged in the Accounting Department (Symbol 08), including time- keepers, piece-work counters , office , and clerical employees, I. B. M. operators , pay-roll division employees, section , heads (including the general clerk in the piece-work office), and leading timekeepers, but excluding the works accountant, assistants to the works accountant,, ,chief clerk, assistant chief clerks, cashiers , assistant cashiers, chief 11 Bethlehem Steel Company, Shipbuilding Division, East Boston Yards, 50 N. L R B. 172. 601248--45-vo1 57-15 1 210 DFCISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 'billing clerk, chief material clerk, chief of the ledger division, division heads, tabulating supervisors, chief of,pay roll, assistant chiefs of pay roll, chief of time, assistant chiefs of time, supervisors of piece-work counters, leading piece-work counters, and secretaries to the chief of pay roll and chief clerk. The Company agrees that certain employees of-the Accounting Department may properly constitute an appropriate unit, but contends that timekeepers, leading timekeepers, piece-work -counters, pay-roll employees, and section heads (including the general clerk in, the,piece-work office) should be excluded on the ground that .they are integral parts of management and thus neither alone nor in combination with other categories of employees form an appropriate unit. The timekeepers and piece-work counters record time and keep-pro- duction figures. These records are used by the pay-roll division in the, computation of wages. Their duties are primarily routine and mechanical in nature, and we are of the opinion that they may properly constitute part of an accounting department unit.12 The employees attached to the pay-roll division 13 df the Accounting Department are divided into six sections which perform clerical func- tions. Their duties are routine and they do not have access to infor- mation relating to personnel policies of the Company. We shall include all employees in the pay-roll division of the Accounting Department. The record discloses that, section heads and leading timekeepers, although without authority to hire or discharge, have the power, to '"recommend such action. For this reason, we shall, exclude them from the"unit. The general clerk, in the piece-work office supervises 37 employees and has the authority to recommend the hiring, discharg- in, and disciplining of such employees. 'We shall, consequently, exclude him from the unit. The record'further discloses the existence of an employee classified as chief of stock. His function is to keep on hand and provide'for the Company's use an adequate supply of printed forms. Assisting him are six employees whom he may discharge. We find that he is a supervisory employee and we shall exclude him from the unit. In accordance with the foregoing, we find that all employees of the Company engaged in the Accounting Department (Symbol 08), includ- ing timekeepers, piece-work counters, office and clerical employees, I. B. M. operators, and pay-roll division employees, but excluding secretaries ,to the chief of pay roll and' chief clerk, section heads (including the general clerk in the piece-work office); leading time= 12 flatter of General Motors Corporation, Chevrolet Motor Division, 53 N. L. R. B. 109c:, , 'J'I B M temployees are attached to this division ' BETHLEHEM-HINGHAM SHIPYARD, INC. 211 keepers, chief of stock, the works accountant, assistants to the works accountant, chief clerk, assistant chief clerks , cashiers , assistant cash- iers, chief billing clerk, chief material clerk; chief of the ledger divi- sion, division heads, tabulating supervisors , chief of pay roll, as- sistant chiefs of pay roll, chief of time, supervisors of piece-«ork counters, leading piece-work counters, and,all other supervisory em - ployees with authority to hire, promote , discharge, discipliaie, or other- wise effect changes in the status of employees , or effectively recom- mend such action, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. V: THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES We shall direct that the questions concerning representation which have arisen be resolved by separate elections by" secret ballot among the employees in the appropriate units set forth in Section IV, supra, 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 Relations Act, and pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3, it is hereby DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representa- tivesfor the purposes of collective bargaining with Bethlehem-Hing- ham Shipbuilding, Inc., Hingham , Massachusetts, 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 direc- tion and supervision of the Regional Director for the First 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 Regula- tions, among the employees in the units 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 off, and including 'employees' in the armed forces of the United States who present themselves in person at the polls, but excluding those employees who have since quit or been discharged foil cause and have not been rehired or reinstated prior to the date of the elections, to determine whether or not they `desire to be represented. by Bethlehem-Hingham Shipyard Independent Union, for the, purposes of collective bargaining. I