The Turbine Engineering Co.

In the Matter of Joiix K. COLLINGS, VICTORIA F. COLLIN GS, EDITH M. RUGGLES AND HENRY S. RUGGLES, CO-PARTNERS, D/B/A THIS TURBINIS ENGINEERING COIrPANY,i EMPLOYER and MARINE LOCAL B-277, INTERNATIONAL BROT1-ER1-1oOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, AFL, PETrPIONER Case No. 2-I?-6690.-Decided April 3,194V 111r. L. L. Ralleisen, of New York City, for the Employer. Mr. Peter Sh,arkei,, of \ew York City, for the Petitioner. Mr. Emil Oxfeld, of Newark, N. J., for the IUMSWA. Mr. Emil C. Farkas, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at New York City, on November 12, 1946, before Bertram Diamond, hear- ing officer. At the hearing the Employer and the IUMSWA moved to dismiss the petition on various grounds. The hearing officer referred this motion to the Board. For reasons hereinafter stated the motion is hereby denied. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error. Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations Board makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE, EMPLOYER John K. Collings, Victoria F. Collings, Edith M. Ruggles and I Z, Henry S. Ruggles are co-partners doing business as The Turbine Engineering Company. The Employer has its principal office and place of business in Hoboken, New Jersey, where it is engaged in the business of repairing old ships and installing equipment on new vessels. Duruig the past year the Employer's purchases of materials and equipment exceeded $100,000 In value, approximately 25 percent of which represented shipments from points outside the State of New Jersey. Diirilig the same period the Employer received in ' The name of the Employer appeais as amended at the hearing 73 N L R B, No 28 163 164 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD excess of $500,000 from private concerns for repair work and other services on ships plying in interstate and foreign commerce; it also performed approximately $500,000 worth of repairs and installa- tions on ships owned by the United States Maritime Commission. The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED The Petitioner, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, herein called the IBEW, is a labor organization, claiming to represent employees of the Employer. Industrial Union of Marine and Shipbuilding Workers of America, Local No. 15, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, herein called the IUMSWA, is a labor organization, claiming to represent employees of the Employer. III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION On June 6, 1946, the Petitioner filed its petition herein and notified the Employer, by letter, that it represented a majority of the em- ployees in the Employer's electrical department and requested recog- nition as their collective bargaining representative. The Employer failed to reply to the Petitioner's letter of June 6, 1946. At the hear- ing, however, the Employer moved to dismiss the petition on the grounds (1) that its existing contract with the IUMSWA is a bar to a current determination of representatives, and (2) that the limitation in the riders to the Appropriations Acts of 1945 and 1946 precludes the Board from exercising jurisdiction in this proceeding. On April 26, 1945, the Employer and the IUMSWA executed a collective bargaining agreement covering the Employer's production and maintenance employees. The contract provided for an initial period ending June 2, 1946, and for its automatic renewal for annual periods thereafter, in the absence of written notice of a desire to ,change the contract, given by either party to the other at least 30 days prior to June 23 of any year. It provided further for the reopening of the contract with respect to wages, during its term, upon 30 days' written notice given by the party seeking the modification. In January 1946, after the required notice to reopen had been given under the contract, the Employer and the IUMSWA entered into negotiations concerning wage modifications. During the course of these negotiations, the parties conferred on matters outside the scope of the wage reopening clause with a view to executing a new contract, the parties apparently agreeing to an extension of the 1945 contract pending the completion of these negotiations. Thereafter, on August 8, 1946, the Employer and the IUMSWA executed a collective bargain- THE TURBINE ENGINEERING COMPANY 165 ing agreement for a period ending June 23, 1947. The new contract made changes in the method of determining overtime, contained new clauses concerning vacation pay, seniority, and arbitration, but made no provision for wage modifications. As noted above, the Employer contends that this latter contract is a bar to a current determination of representatives. Our precedents are, however, clear that a petition filed before the execution of a col- lective bargaining agreement prevents that instrument from serving as a bar.2 Accordingly, inasmuch as the Petitioner made its claim for representation and filed its petition before the execution of the August 8, 1946, contract, we find that the agreement cannot prevent an election at this time. As to the further ground that the limitation in the riders to the Appropriations Acts of 1945 and 1946 precludes the Board from exercising jurisdiction in this proceeding, we find this contention to be without merit since the limitation applies to complaint cases and not to representation cases. We, therefore, find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the representation of employees of the Employer, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. Iv. Ti [E APPROPRIATE UNIT ; TI[E DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES The Petitioner seeks a unit composed of all employees in the Em- ployer's electrical department. The Employer and the IUMSWA contend, however, that the unit sought is inappropriate in that the employees whom the Petitioner desires to represent are already in- cluded in the unit of production and maintenance employees currently covered by contract and represented by the IUMSWA. The Employer is engaged in the business of repairing and installing equipment on new and old ships. It does not have a shipyard, as that terns is generally understood in the shipbuilding industry, but operates a plant where it receives and services motors, machines, mechanical apparatus such as gears and shafting, and other maintenance and operating equipment. In addition it manufactures and fabricates special housings, decks and refrigeration equipment for installation on ships. In the course of its operations the Employer employs between 100 and 125 persons, some of whom are employed at its plant while others work on the ships tied up at piers or in other companies' dry- docks or shipyards. Among the Employer's workers are garage mechanics, boilernnakers, burners, carpenters and joiners, shippers and caulkers, machinists, pipe fitters, plumbers, riggers, ship fitters, welders, electricians, and certain other specialists needed for special contract work from time to time. 2 Matter of Ste. Genevieve Lime i Quarry Company, 70 N. L. R. B 1259 ; hfatter of Fifth Ave. Shoe Corporation, 69 N. L. R. B. 400. 166 DECISIONS Or NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD With respect to the bargaining history affecting the Employer's operations, the record discloses the following . On March 23, 1943, as the result of a consent election, the United Association of Journeymen Plumbers, Steamfitters and Helpers, Local 274B, AFL, herein called the Association, became the bargaining representative of the Employ- er's production and maintenance employees. Thereupon the Employer and the Association executed a collective bargaining agreement cov- ering the period from February 3, 1944, to December 31, 1944. On January 6, 1945, a consent election held in virtually the same unit was won by the IUMSWA, and on April 26, 1945, the Employer and the IUMSWA entered into a collective bargaining contract for a period expiring June 23, 1946. The contract contained a maintenance-of- membership clause permitting withdrawals within 15 clays after the execution date, and authorized the Employer to check off union clues upon written consent of the employees iiivolved. In January 1946, the, Employer and the IUMSWA entered into negotiations concern- ing wages, as a result of which a general wage increase of is cents an hour was granted, effective April 1, 1946. In connection with the Employer's electricians, with whom we are solely concerned herein, the record reveals that before February 15, 1945, the Employer had no electrical department, as such, and that most of its electrical work was performed by independent contractors. On February 15, 1945, subsequent to the second consent election, the Employer established an electrical department to which it transferred 1 or 2 electricians, whom it had always employed. By March 15,1945, this department expanded to approximately 15 electricians and helpers and by April 26, 1945, when the contract with the IUMSWA was executed, approxnuately 30 electricians were employed in that depart- ment. With the termination of the war, however, the Employer's electrical department was reduced until it reached its present size of 4 electricians., The Board, in deciding whether or not to conduct a self-deterinina- tion election for a craft group, when there exists a history of collective bargaining on a broader basis, is confronted with the necessity of balancing two opposing interests. On the one hand, stability and certainty in labor relations are furthered by adherence to existing bargaining patterns, on the other hand, the cohesiveness and special interest of a true craft group often indicate the appropriateness of groups limited to members of a particular craft. We have pointed out in this connection that, "of necessity no hard and fast rule can be laid down in advance as an absolute guide to determining when one O The a ecotd shows that beginning in 1 one 1945 dues were checked off for seven members of the electrical depaitment, and for five other electricians beginning March 1946 For the pay-roll period ending November 10, 1946, there were two electricians and two elec- trician helpers, of whom one was having dues checked off under the IUDISWA contract. THE TURBINE ENGINEERING COMPANY 167 and when the other of these policy considerations should prevail. Each case must be decided on the basis of its own facts." 4 While the record herein discloses that the electricians have shared in the 18 cents an hour wage increase and in other benefits of collective bargaining as part of the existing production and maintenance unit, and have functioned successfully as part of that unit, it is clear that the electricians herein represent a true craft in which apprenticeship training is an essential prerequisite to acquiring a journeyman status; that they work, for the most part, on the installation of electrical equip- ment and have a separate space set aside for their tools and supplies; and that, in at least two instances, in large shipyards in the general area of the Employer's plant, electricians bargain collectively as a craft group. It is evident that, in the absence of any collective bargaining history, the unit requested by the electricians would be found appropri- ate as a matter of courses Although we have here the circumstances that collective bargaining on a more comprehensive basis has existed for some time , that bargaining is not predicated on any prior Board determinations . We are of the opinion , in the light of the foregoing, that the bargaining history is not sufficient, in itself , to deny the employees in this craft group the opportunity of deciding-whether they desire either to continue to be represented as part of the existing production and maintenance unit or to bargain as a separate unit; and this is particularly true in view of the added fact that these employees have not previously had an opportunity to vote on this issue. Upon the basis of the foregoing facts , we believe that the electricians and their helpers should be given an opportunity , at this time, of indi- cating whether they desire to be represented in a craft unit or as part of the existing production and maintenance unit. We shall , therefore, make no final unit determniation at this time, but shall be guided by the desires of the employees as expressed in the election directed here- inafter. If at such election the employees of the voting group set forth below select the Petitioner they will be taken to have indicated their desire to constitute a separate unit for the purposes of collective bar- gaining , but if, at such election , they select the IUDISWA they will be taken to have indicated their desire to be bargained for as part of the existing unit of production and maintenance employees. Accordingly, we shall direct an election by secret ballot among all electricians and electrician helpers in the Employer 's electrical depart- ment, excluding all supervisory employees with authority to hire, pro- mote, discharge , discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status h Matter of Inteinational Minerals and Chemical Corporation (Potash Die swn), 71 N L R B 878 Matter of National Silver Company. 71 N L It B 594 , Matter of Ames scan Cyanamid Chemical Corpoatror, 62 N L R B 925, illatter of Remington Rand, Inc, Propeller Division, 62 N L. R B 1419 168 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD of employees, or effectively recommend such action, subject to the limi- tations and additions set forth in the Direction. DIRECTION OF ELECTION 6 As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the pur- poses of collective bargaining with John K. Collings, Victoria F. Col- lings, Edith M. Ruggles and Henry S. Ruggles, co-partners, d/b/a The Turbine Engineering Company, Hoboken, New Jersey, an elec- tion 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 Second Region, acting in this matter as agent for the National Labor Rela- tions Board, and subject to Sections 203.55 and 203.56, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 4, among the employees in the voting group 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 they desire to be represented by Marine Local B-277, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL,' or by Industrial Union of Marine and Shipbuilding Workers of Amer- ica, Local No. 15, CIO, for the purposes of collective bargaining, or by neither. CHAIRMAN HERZOG took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Direction of Election. 6 Any participant in the election herein may, upon its prompt request to, and approval thereof by, the Regional Director, have its name removed from the ballot 4 The request of the Petitioner to be designated on the ballot as International Brother- hood of Electrical Workers , Local 3 , AFL, is hereby referred to the Regional Director.