Consolidated Steel Corp.

In the Matter Of CONSOLIDATED STEEL CORPORATION and TECHNICAL ENGINEERS, ARCHITECTS AND DRAFTSMEN'S UNION, LOCAL 94, INTER- NATIONAL FEDERATION OF TECHNICAL ENGINEERS, ARCHITECTS, AND DRAFTSMEN'S UNION, A. F. L. Case No. 21-R-3199.-Decided July 23, 1946 Mr. Alfred Wright, by Mr. Gordon Hall, Jr., of Los Angeles, Calif., for the Company. Messrs. David Sokol and P. J. Ripper, both o£ Los Angeles, Calif., for the Union. Mr. W. H. Hutter, of Wilmington, Calif., for certain employees. Mr. Sydney S. Asher, Jr., of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon an amended petition duly filed by Technical Engineers, Architects and Draftsmen's Union, Local 94, International Federa- tion of Technical Engineers, Architects and Draftsmen's Unions, A. F. L., herein called the Union, alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation of employees of Consolidated Steel Corporation, Los Angeles, California, herein called the Company, the National Labor Relations Board provided for an appropriate hearing upon due notice before George H. O'Brien, Trial Examiner. The hearing was held at Los Angeles, California, on May 16, 1946. The Company and the Union appeared and partici- pated. W. H. Hutter moved to intervene on behalf of certain em- ployees, and the Trial Examiner denied the motion. The ruling is hereby affirmed.' All parties were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evi- 1 The motion to intervene , as shown by a petition purporting to be signed by a number of employees in the appropriate unit, and by the testimony of Mr. Hatter , was based on the ground that the employees did not desire to be represented by the Union, or desired an opportunity to vote against such representation . The question of representation is the precise issue in the instant proceeding , and we are of the opinion that it can best be re- solved by means of a secret election as hereinafter directed . Matter of Consolidated Steel Corporation , Ltd. (Wilmington Shipyard ), 55 N. L. R. B. 1373. 69 N. L. R. B., No. 9S. 805 806 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD dente bearing on the issues. The Company moved to dismiss the petition. For reasons stated in Section IV, infra, the motion is hereby denied. The Trial Examiner's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. All parties were afforded opportunity to file 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 Consolidated Steel Corporation is a California corporation for- merly known as Consolidated Steel Corporation, Ltd. It is engaged in the construction acd repair of seagoing vessels at its Wilmington Yard, Los Angeles, California, which is the only operation involved in this proceeding. During the calendar year ending December 31, 1945, it purchased raw materials, machinery and equipment amount- ing in value to more than 30 million dollars, most of which was purchased outside the State of California. During the same period it delivered to various agencies of the United States Government ships amounting in value to more than 135 million dollars. The Company admits, and we find, that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Technical Engineers, Architects and Draftsmen's Union, Local 94, International Federation of Technical Engineers, Architects and Draftsmen's Unions is a labor organization , affiliated with the Amer- ican Federation of Labor, admitting to membership employees of the Company. III. TIIE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION The Company has refused to grant recognition to the Union as the exclusive bargaining representative of the employees involved until the Union has been certified by the Board in an appropriate unit. We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the representation of employees of the Company, within the mean- ing of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. IV. THE APPROPRIAT UNIT The Union seeks the inclusion of group heads ( A and B) in a previously established unit or, in the alternative , a separate unit composed of group heads. The Company contends that neither of CONSOLIDATED SPEEL CORPORATION 807 the units suggested by the Union is appropriate, and therefore seeks the dismissal of the petition. In a previous representation proceeding concerning the Company,2 the Union and the Company agreed upon a broad unit including, inter alia, "squad leaders." The Board granted an election but ex- cluded "squad leaders" as supervisory employees. In the subsequent election the Union was victorious and the parties accordingly en- tered into a contract covering the appropriate employees, excluding "squad leaders." The "squad leaders", discussed in the prior proceedings are the same employees as the group heads involved here. They are hourly paid minor supervisors, with power effectively to recommend hiring, firing, and transfer of employees under them. There is no evidence that their duties have changed materially since our previous decision. The Company explains its change of position on the ground of our previous holding. We find no compelling reason to reverse our previous decision. Accordingly, we continue to hold that group heads are supervisory employees and should not properly be included in a unit consisting of rank and file employees. However, we deem a unit composed solely of group heads to be appropriate and have therefore denied the Company's motion for dismissal of the petition We can see no impropriety in permitting the Union which repre- sents the rank and file employees, to seek also to represent supervisory employees., We find that all Group Heads A and Group Heads B of the Engi- neering Department of the Company's Wilmington Yard, Los Angeles, California, 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 question concerning representation which has arisen be resolved by an election by secret ballot among employees in the appropriate unit who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of the Direction of Election herein, subject to the limitations and additions set forth in the Direction. 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, 2Hatter of Consolidated Steel Corporation, Ltd. (Wilmington Shipyard), 55 N. L. R. B. 1373. 3 Hatter of The Curtis Bay Towing Company of Pennsylvania, et al., 66 N. L. R. B. 1152. 808 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD and pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3, as amended, it is hereby DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representa- tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Consolidated Steel Corporation, Los Angeles, California, 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 Twenty-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 Regulations, among employees 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 dur- ing said pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation or tem- porarily laid off, and including employees in the armed forces of the United States who present themselves in person at the polls, but ex- cluding those employees who have since quit or been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or reinstated prior to the date of the election, to determine whether or not they desire to be repre- sented by Technical Engineers, Architects and Draftsmen's Union, Local 94, International Federation of Technical Engineers, Architects, and Draftsmen's Unions, A. F. L., for the purposes of collective bargaining. MR. GERARD D. REILLY, dissenting : For reasons stated in my dissenting opinions in the Packard, Jones ctc Laughlin, and Curtis Bay cases,4 I dissent from the above Decision and Direction of Election. Matter of Packard Motor Car Company, 61 N. L. R. B. 4, at page 27 Matter of Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation, Vesta-Shannopin Coal Division, 66 N. L. R . B. 386; Matter of The Curtis Bay Towing Company of Pennsylvania, et at., 66 N. L. R. B. 1152.