The Ingalls Shipbuilding Corp.

In the Matter of THE INGALLS SHIPBUILDING CORPORATION, EMPLOYER and TECHNICAL ENGINEERS, ARCHITECTS AND DRAFTSMEN'S UNION, LOCAL 127, AFL, PETITIONER Case No. 15-R-1863.-Decided April 14, 1947 Mr. D. W. Strickland, of Birmingham , Ala., and Messrs. Charles S. Mitchell, J. Paul Keefe, and W. R. Guest, all of Pascagoula, Miss., for the Employer. Mr. Franklyn G. Bebee, of Washington, D. C., for the Petitioner. DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Pas- cagoula, Mississippi, on November 26, 1946, before Jerome A. Reiner, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Several motions to dismiss made by the Employer were referred to the Board for deter- mination and, for reasons appearing in Section IV, infra, are hereby denied. Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER The Ingalls Shipbuilding Corporation, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Ingalls Ironworks Company, is a Delaware corporation maintaining its principal office in Birmingham, Alabama. The Employer operates two plants, which are engaged in the general shipbuilding business, one located at Decatur, Alabama, and the other at Pascagoula, Mississippi. Only the latter plant is involved in this proceeding. The Pascagoula plant uses "principal" materials consisting of steel, machinery, pipe, etc. During the past 12-month period, the value of such materials exceeded $10,000,000, of which approximately 95 per- cent originated from points outside the State of Mississippi. The title to substantially all of these materials was vested and remained in 73 N. L. R. B., No 72. 374 THE INGALLS SHIPBUILDING CORPORATION 375 the United States Maritime Commission. During the same period, the Employer acquired title on its own behalf to plant equipment valued at about $25,000, of which approximately 90 percent was received from points outside the State of Mississippi. The Employer's finished prod- ucts during this 12-month period, consisting of various types of cargo ships, were valued in excess of $10,000,000; were legally delivered to the United States Maritime Commission at Pascagoula, Mississippi; and apparently entered into interstate and foreign commerce. The Employer recently contracted with a Brazilian corporation for the construction of ships valued in excess of $10,000,000. We find that the Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.' IT. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, claiming to represent employees of the Employer. III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION The Employer refuses to recognize the Petitioner as the exclusive bargaining representative of employees of the Employer until the Petitioner 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 Employer, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT The Petitioner seeks a unit comprised of various technical and engineering workers in the Employer's Pascagoula plant. These workers are employed in the Engineering Division (Department 52), the Planning Department (Department 61), the Safety Engineering Department (Department 66), the Material and Order Reallocation Department (Department 62), and the Shipfitting Department (De- partment 7). At the hearing the Employer moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that the Petitioner had no jurisdiction to represent these employees, and further argued that, in general, these employees were managerial or confidential, and hence may not be properly included in any unit for the purposes of collective bargaining. As hereinafter appears, we include no managerial, confidential or supervisory em- ployees in the unit found appropriate and, as we have repeatedly held, 'Hatter of The Ingalls Shtpbuilding Corporation, 67 N. L. R. B. 1194. 376 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD technical employees are entitled to the protection of the Act and to representation by a labor organization of their own choosing.2 Furthermore, the willingness of the petitioning union to represent the employees in question, and the employees' expression of consent, in designating such union, and not any alleged jurisdictional or con- stitutional inability on the part of this union to represent these em- ployees, are the controlling considerations raider the Act.3 The Employer's motion to dismiss is therefore denied. The Employer also moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that some categories of employees sought by the Petitioner were in- volved in a case recently filed by Office Employees International Union, AFL,4 herein called the Office Employees, and in its brief alleges the existence of a jurisdictional dispute between the Office Employees and the Petitioner with specific respect to three categories : the hull planners and engineering planners in Department 61, the entire Blueprint and File Section of Department 52, and the two workers comprising Department 62. Each of these disputed cate- gories is discussed, infra, and a finding made as to whether each is technical or clerical, and consequently is to be included or excluded from the unit hereinafter found appropriate. Since these categories are "fringe" groups, we are satisfied that overlapping claims as to their representation do not of themselves warrant the dismissal of the petition as to these groups. The parties agree to include, in any unit found appropriate, all draftsmen working in the Mechanical Engineering, Electrical Engi- neering, and Hull Draftsman 5 Sections of Department 52. They also agree to exclude certain clerical and supervisory employees working in the departments embraced by the petition.° They are in dispute, however, as to all other categories of technical and engi- neering employees, as well as certain alleged supervisory personnel." The disputed categories and personnel are discussed below. Y See, e. g , Matter of Bethlehem Steel Company, 65 N. L R B. 226. 8 Matter of Hall Level & Mannfactnrting Works, 72 N L: R B 165, and cases cited ; Matter of Hollywood Brands, Inc., 70 N, L R. B. 706 , Matter of American Buff Company, 67 N. L R B 473, and cases cited ' Case No. 15-R-1849. "Including the Ventilating and Air Conditioning and the Hull Draftsman branches ° The excluded clerical employees are the material record clerks in Department 61 : and the stenographer ( Evelyn Roberts ), the clerk ( Juanita Rose ), and the sales clerk (Gwen- dolyn Cox), these three working in Department 66. The supervisory employees excluded by agreement are listed infra. , The Employer contends, as to some of these disputed categories and employees, that their inclusion in or exclusion from the office and clerical unit previously found appropriate by the Board in Case No. 15-R-1398 (67 N. L. it B 1194) is determinative of the issues in the instant proceeding However, those particular inclusions and exclusions were agreed to by the Employer and the Office Employees in Case No. 15-R-1398. Furthermore, the reasons for agreement on particular categories do not appear on the record ; mere inclusion or exclusion by agreement , of certain employees in an office and clerical unit is not Ipso, facto conclusive of the issues in the instant case. THE INGALLS SHIPBUILDING CORPORATION 377 Field Engineers (Shipfitters) -Department 7 (Shipfitting Depart- ment) : In this section there are seven employees, without formal title, who are referred to by the Petitioner as "field engineers" and by the Employer as shipfitters. They work in close contact with other shipfitters in Department 7, giving lines and measurements aboard ships in the process of construction and utilizing specialized instruments, such as transits and levels, which are used generally by engineers or skilled craftsmen. While previous knowledge of such tools is not necessary, these field engineers become qualified for their present work either through experience acquired in the actual performance of their duties over a period of time, or by attendance at classes. The Employer contends that these employees belong in a unit of production and maintenance workers. However, the Em- ployer admitted at the hearing that their duties were technical and that they were neither covered by any existing agreement nor being represented by any labor organization. We are of the opinion that the seven field engineers or shipfitters perform work of a sufficiently technical nature to warrant their inclusion in the unit hereinafter found appropriate.- Hull Planners-Department 61 (Planning Department) : These employees, six in number, prepare schedules and requisitions in the sequence they are to be used in erection, assembly, or construction. They must be able to read blueprints and understand ship construc- tion, know weights, calculate assembly, and have knowledge of the over-all picture of construction. The- Employer argues that these employees are clerical. We find, however, that their work is of a technical nature and shall include them in the appropriate unit. Engineering Planners-Department 61: Two workers in this cate- gory line up the sequence of work in the pipe or machine shop, and must have a knowledge of the installation of machinery, pipes, and other small items used in ship construction. Like the hull planners, they must be familiar with blueprints and weights, as well as ship construction in general, and must be able to calculate assembly. The Employer does not specifically request their exclusion from the ap- propriate unit, and we shall include them in view of their status as technicians. Test Engineers-Test Section of Department 52 (Engineering Divi- sion) : These engineers make various tests both in the shipyard and on sea trials to see that vessels perform the functions for which they were constructed. These tests are made in accordance with certain test agenda prepared by the Test Section and approved by either the Maritime Commission, the Navy Department, or the War Depart- ment. The Employer claims that these employees are confidential and managerial. Since they do not have access to confidential informa- 378 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tion pertaining to labor relations, and perform technical work with- out any managerial discretion whatsoever, we shall include them in the unit. Squad Leaders-Test Section of Department 52: Each squad leader is in charge of a group of test engineers and assigns their work. At the same time, they work along with these engineers-doing the same type of work, making tests, preparing test agenda, and making re- ports of work accomplished. The Employer would exclude them from the appropriate unit as supervisory. However, we are of the opinion that they are comparable to "working foremen" and should be in- cluded, since they have no disciplinary authority nor power to make effective recommendations as to disciplinary action affecting employees. Data Takers-Test Section of Department 52: These employees ac- company the test engineers and squad leaders on sea trials, reading and listing name plates on various types of equipment and recording numbers read off engines. The Employer contends their duties are wholly clerical. Inasmuch as they work in very close cooperation with the test engineers and squad leaders, helping to form a "team" in the performance of the testing procedure, we shall also include the data takers in the appropriate unit.8 Blueprint and File Section-Hull Draftsman Section of Depart- ment 52 : This section comprises blueprint trimmers , blueprint ma- chine operators, plan-file clerks, and vault clerk-some 15 workers in all. As new tracings come into the section they go to the chief clerk, who checks the plans acid tracings and then passes them on to the chief plan clerk. The latter puts them on a schedule and routes them to the proper departments, which check the accuracy of the plans and return them to the chief plan clerk with distribution "blocks" filled out. The plan and file clerks then write up the distribution on cards and send the tracings to the blueprint room, where the blueprint machine operators make the required number of copies and the blue- print trimmers cut clown the prints to the required size and make the proper folds in them. The trimmers work alongside the machine operators during this process. The plans are subsequently returned to the plan and file clerks for recording and distribution. The clerks also keep records of any changes or alterations made in the prints and keep them up to date in that respect, and maintain a daily report of all new plans and alterations passing through their hands. The vault clerk becomes the custodian of all tracings and keeps a record which enables her to locate them when they are needed for use. She also files all photographs of ships showing the monthly progress of construction. 8 Matter of De Lenin, Cattier ct Company, 72 N L R B 191 , and cases cited , Matter of Webster Manufacturing Company, 69 N L R B 163 , Matter of Moore Dry Dock Company, 57 N. L R.B 1641 THE INGALLS SHIPBUILDING CORPORATION 379 The Employer contends that all employees in this section perform duties of a purely clerical nature. With respect to the blueprint machine operators and blueprint trimmers, we are of the opinion that these categories of employees are engaged in technical work requiring some knowledge of blueprints and tracings and, furthermore, that this work is intimately related to that of the engineering and drafting employees already included in the appropriate unit.° The plan-file clerks and vault clerk perform essentially clerical work, but they work in such close proximity to the other employees of the Blueprint and File Section, and under the same supervision, that a finding that they have common interests is inescapable.10 Therefore, we shall include in the appropriate unit all employees of the Blueprint and File Sec- tion, with the exception of the chief clerk, whose supervisory status is hereinafter discussed. Safety Engineer-Department 66 (Safety Engineering Depart- ment) : There are five safety engineers (or inspectors)" in this depart- ment. They travel throughout the yard, looking for hazards and un- safe working conditions, and make recommendations to the various foremen regarding remedies and safeguards-which are usually fol- lowed. When accidents occur, they take statements from witnesses, record all pertinent data, and make reports to management Which are heavily relied upon in subsequent proceedings involving damage claims. They have no authority, however, to settle such claims. They also attend biweekly meetings of the plant safety committee, made up of supervisory employees, at which accidents and methods of pre- venting their recurrence are discussed. The Employer argues that, since they have access to its files on accident reports and employee damage claims, as well as being closely connected with the adjustment of these claims, they are confidential employees. It also contends that they act in a managerial capacity. Without passing upon these con- tentions, it is our opinion that the safety engineers are not technical employees. They are not required to have an engineering training or background, and it appears from the record that most of them had no such qualifications before working for the Employer. Their work does not seem to call for any particular technical knowledge of the shipbuilding process or of particular types of machinery. We shall, therefore, exclude them from the appropriate unit. ° See Edge Moor Iron, lyorbs, Inc, 72 N L It B 1173 See cases cited in footnote 8, supra "The EmploNer argued that these employees were safety inspectors and had not been specifically requested by the Petitioner, since the petition referred only to safety engineers It appears trom the record that the workers involved have been referred to by both terms, and that their working caps were inscribed "safety engineer " It is obvious that these are the employees sought by the Petitioner We are of the opinion that the alleged distinction is without merit 380 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Department 69 (Material and Order Reallocation Department) : This department comprises two "requisition writers," 12 currently but temporarily engaged in taking inventory of surplus materials and re- allocating them for future use on other construction jobs. They oc- casionally make requisitions of materials from blueprints and are able to read such blueprints. It is the Employer's contention that they are clerical employees. While they must have knowledge of materials such as steel, machinery, valves, fittings, etc.-knowledge which can be derived only by experience on the job-it does not appear that they exercise any judgment as to quality or condition of the materials they handle. Their duties seem to be roughly comparable to those of the material record clerks in the Planning Department (Department 61), whom the parties have agreed to exclude as clerical. Furthermore, the knowledge the "requisition writers" obtain on the job is no more extensive or specialized than comparable knowledge gained by other production and maintenance workers. We are of the opinion that these two employees are primarily clerical and, since they do not work in close contact with any group of technical workers, we shall exclude them from the appropriate unit. _ Supervisory employees The parties agree to exclude from the appropriate unit the follow- ing employees because of their supervisory status : The assistant hull supervisor in Department 7 (W. T. Johnson) ; the supervisor of De- partment 61 (Broock) ; the chief hull planner in Department 61 (Cooper J. Roberts) ; the supervisor of the Test Section in Department 52 (C. M. Leavitt) ; the chief hull draftsman in the Hull Draftsman Section of Department 52 (S. M. Bebler) ; the chief mechanical engi- neer in the Mechanical Engineering Section of Department 52 (R. S. Ford) ; the chief of the Electrical Engineering Section of Department 52 (F. A. Cicatella) ; and the assistant to the executive vice-president and supervisor of Department 66 (G. A. Winter). The inclusion within the unit of the squad leader in the Hull Draftsman Section of Department 52 (Leach) was not contested by the Employer. Dispute arose as to the alleged supervisory status of the employees hereinafter discussed, the Employer claiming that they should be excluded from the appropriate unit. Marshall is one of the two engineering planners in Department 61 (Planning Department). The duties of these workers have already been described; both of these employees do the entire work of the section, work together, and turn out about the same amount of work. Marshall gives orders and assignments to the other engineering plan- 12 Jullian and Atkinson. THE INGALLS SHIPBUILDING CORPORATION 381 ner, Crawford Dees, but has never disciplined him, and apparently no one ever informed Dees that Marshall has such disciplinary au- thority over him. No evidence was adduced to show that Marshall has made effective recommendations with respect to change in any employee's status. Marshall's position is not comparable to the cor- responding job of chief hull planner in the same department, inas- much as the latter has six employees under him, spends only 10 to 15 percent of his time doing the same type of work as his subordinates, and attends weekly production policy meetings. Absent any evidence that Marshall has supervisory authority, it is our opinion that his responsibility for the performance of work in such a small section comprising only one other employee, is not of such a nature as to confer true supervisory status. We shall, therefore, include him in the appropriate unit. A. C. Leigh is the chief of Department 52 (Engineering Division). He is the highest ranking official in the.department; the parties agree that the chiefs of the four sections under Leigh's supervision are them- selves supervisory employees; and the Petitioner makes no specific claim for him. Therefore, we shall exclude Leigh from the appropriate unit. Fred Pardoe is classified as a squad leader in charge of the Ventilat- ing and Air Conditioning Division of the Hull Draftsman Section (Department 52). He assigns and lays out the work for the drafts- men and reviews their results. Part of the time, he works along with them, performing similar work, but he has other and more important duties, such as reviewing test agenda and negotiating and correspond- ing with the Maritime Commission and with design agents in con- nection with changes in construction design involving ventilation and air conditioning. He apparently does not have the right to hire and discharge, but he does have the right to review the qualifications of any persons assigned to his section and he may make effective recom- mendations for pay increases and other matters. His salary is con- siderably higher than that of the draftsmen in the section. We are of the opinion that he is a supervisory employee and should be excluded from the appropriate unit. Terril Heidelberg is the chief clerk of the Blueprint and File Sec- tion (Department 52), which comprises approximately 15 employees. He is responsible for the efficient operation of the section. While he has never been told by higher management that he had the authority to hire, discharge or recommend changes in the status of employees, it appears that on occasions he has been consulted by the chief hull draftsman as to employee transfers within the Hull Draftsman Sec- tion and that his (Heidelberg's) recommendations were followed. In addition, the chief of the Engineering Division has asked his opinion 382 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD e on various employees and acted favorably on such recommendations. The chief of the Engineering Division testified at the hearing that Heidelberg had the right to make effective recommendations. Heidel- berg's position in the administrative heirarchy of the Engineering Division is parallel to that of Pardoe, whom we have found to be super- visory, and that of Bebler, whom the parties agree is supervisory. In view of all the facts, we find that Heidelberg is a supervisory employee, and we shall exclude him from the appropriate unit. Hubert W. Green, Jr., the chief blueprint machine operator in the Blueprint and Fil(; Section, reports directly to Heidelberg. He is responsible for the output and appearance of the blueprint room com- prising four blueprint trimmers and one other blueprint machine op- erator. However, he works on the machine and does not appear to have any supervisory authority, having a status comparable to that of "working foremen." We shall include him in the appropriate unit. We find that all employees of the Employer engaged in technical and engineering work at its Pascagoula, Mississippi, plant, includ- ing the seven engineers (or shipfitters) in Department 7; the hull planners and the two engineering planners 13 in Department 61; all draftsmen in the Mechanical Engineering, Electrical Engineering, and Hull Draftsman 14 Sections of Department 52'; the test engineers, squad leaders, and data takers in the Test Section of Department 52; and all blueprint trmuners, blueprint machine operators,11 plan-file clerks and vault clerks in the Blueprint and File Section of Depart- ment 52; but excluding the safety engineers (or inspectors) in De- partment 66; all 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 col- lective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. DIRECTION OF ELECTION As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the pur- poses of collective bargaining with The Ingalls Shipbuilding Cor- poration, Pascagoula, Mississippi, 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 Fifteenth Region, acting in this hat- ter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject to Sections 203.55 and 203.56, of National Labor Relations Board Rules " Dees and Marshall. 'i Including the Ventilating and Air Conditioning and the Hull Draftsman branches 15 Including Hubert W. Green, Jr. 16 Including A C Leigh, Tied Paidoe, and Terril Heidelberg. THE INGALLS SHIPBUILDING CORPORATION 383 and Regulations-Series 4, among the 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, includ- ing employees who did not work during said pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation or temporarily laid off, and including em- ployees in the armed forces of the United States who present them-, selves in person at the polls, but excluding 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 represented by Technical Engineers, Architects and Draftsmen's Union, Local 127, AFL, for the purposes of collective bargaining. MR. JOHN M. HOUSTON took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Direction of Election. 739926-47-voI 73-26