Bethlehem Steel Co.

952 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Order IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed. MEMBERS HOUSTON and MURDOCK took no part in the consideration of the above Supplemental Decision and Order. BETHLEHEM STEEL COMPANY, SHIPBUILDING DIVISION and. AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TECHNICAL ENGINEERS, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR, PETITIONER. Case No. 1-RC-2677. June 25, 1952 Decision and Direction of Election Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Leo J. Halloran, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed: Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em- ployees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The Petitioner was certified in 19512 as the bargaining agent of a unit of draftsmen at the Employer's Quincy, Massachusetts, ship- yard.' In the instant case it seeks to add to that unit all draftsmen apprentices employed at the Quincy shipyard by severing them from the contract unit now represented by the Intervenor 4 The Intervenor opposes severance on the basis of the pattern of multiplant bargaining described below. The Employer takes the position that all categories of apprentices at the Quincy shipyard should be represented by one union. The Board has already found that the draftsmen at the Quincy yard comprise a highly skilled, well defined, and homogeneous unit of 1 The Industrial Union of Marine and Shipbuilding Workers of America, CIO, was per- mitted to intervene on the basis of its contractual interest. 2 The Petitioner's name at that time was the International Federation of Technical Engineers, Architects and Draftsmen's Union, AFL. 3 Bethlehem Steel Company, 95 NLRB 1508. 4 The Petitioner indicates that it did not request the inclusion of the draftsmen apprentices in 1951 because it regarded the Intervenor's contract covering them as constituting a bar at that time. However , no contention is now made that the contract is a bar to the instant proceeding. 99 NLRB No. 136. BETHLEHEM STEEL COMPANY, SHIPBUILDING DIVISION 953 technical employees.5 About 435 draftsmen and related employees are included in this Quincy unit. There are, in addition, 18 draftsmen apprentices employed at this plant, who, as indicated above, are sought by the Petitioner but are presently represented in the Inter- venor's multiplant unit. These employees are receiving 4 years of apprenticeship training which leads to journeymen status as drafts- men in the engineering, electrical, or hull-drafting departments. Dur- in the first 6 months, the apprentices are assigned to one of these departments where they are taught the "rudiments of the trade." After passing an examination the apprentices spend the next 18 months in one or more of the yard departments in order to gain ex- perience and knowledge in fields related to their particular drafting specialty. They also attend drafting classes and receive the same general instruction as other groups of apprentices. For the final 2 years, the draftsmen apprentices return to the drafting departments where they again work with the journeymen draftsmen therein. We are satisfied from the foregoing facts that the interests and duties of the draftsmen apprentices are closely allied with those of the journey- men draftsmen.6 However, there remains the question whether the Quincy drafts- men apprentices, who have been bargained for on a multiplant basis,. should be severed therefrom to become part of the draftsmen's unit which is confined to the Quincy plant. Since about 1946 the Inter- venor's contracts have covered draftsmen apprentices as well as other apprentices and production and maintenance employees at the Em- ployer's eight east coast shipyards, including the one at Quincy. As noted above, a single-plant unit of Quincy draftsmen was certified in 1951. As that determination of the Board involved the basic and nu- merically predominant group-the journeymen draftsmen-we find solely because of this unique situation that the draftsmen apprentices at the Quincy yard may be severed on a single-plant basis despite the history of multiplant bargaining for this group. Accordingly, we shall direct an election among all draftsmen apprentices at the Em- ployer's Quincy, Massachusetts, shipyard, excluding office and clerical employees, guards, professional employees, all other employees, and all supervisors as defined in the Act. If a majority vote for the Petitioner, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to be included in the unit of Quincy draftsmen now represented by the Petitioner, and the Regional Director con- ducting the election directed herein is instructed to issue a certification of results of election to that effect. If, however, a majority vote for the Intervenor, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to 5 Bethlehem Steel Company, supra. Indiana Limestone Company, Inc, 92 NLRB 1337, General Electric Company, 89 NLRB 726 954 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD remain in the Intervenor's multiplant unit, and the Regional Direc- tor will issue a certification of results of election to that effect.' [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this volume.] * The Pure Oil Company, 98 NLRB 139. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF ELECTRI- CAL, RADIO AND MACHINE WORKERS, CIO, PETITIONER . Cases Nos. 20-RC-1633 and 20-RC-1672. May 16, 1952 Decision and Order Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Nathan R. Berke, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudical error and are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record I in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent employees of the Employer. The Petitioner seeks an election in a unit of employees in the Employer's Oakland, California, control department and wire and cable plants. The United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America (UE) and its Local 1412, herein called the Intervenors, contend that the U. E.'s national agreement with the Employer, which is terminable upon 90 days' notice prior to September 15, 1952, is a bar to an election in these cases. The Petitioner and the Employer contend, however, that the agreement contains specific provisions rendering the contract inoperative as a bar to elections during its term. The Board has considered these conflicting contentions in another case,2 decided this day, which involved the same contract, Employer, and Unions. As we stated in that case, we find nothing in the provi- sions relied upon by the Employer and the Petitioner which would justify a construction of those provisions as a general waiver of the Board's contract bar doctrine. We believe those provisions can more reasonably be construed as relieving the Employer of contractual lia- 1 The Board has taken official ,notice of the record in General Electric Company, 99 NLRB 155 Pursuant to Section 7 (d) of the Administrative Procedure Act, the parties will be given the opportunity to show, upon filing a timely motion for reconsideration , the con- trary of any fact of which the Board takes official notice herein . See Ken Rose Motors, Inc., 94 NLRB 868. _ 2 General Electric Company, supra. 99 NLRB No. 36.