The Curtis Bay Towing Co.

524 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD THE CURTIS BAY TOWING COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF BOILER MAKERS, IRON SHIP BUILDERS AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL NO. 35, AFL, Petitioner.' Case No. 5-RC-1236. June 11, 1953 DECISION AND ORDER Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before Henry L. Segal, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Members Murdock, Styles, and Peterson]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds: 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. 2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent employees of the Employer. 3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the representation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, for the following reasons: The Petitioner seeks a unit of all the employees performing a substantial amount of work in the Employer's shop, including electricians, welders, burners, ironworkers, outside ma- chinists, and helpers and handymen who assist the foregoing. The Employer contends that the proposed unit is inappropriate, as the Petitioner seeks to represent only a segment of the employees properly in the unit. It contends that the employees located in the scow, docked next to the shop, must be included in the unit, as well as certain other employees that occasionally man the Employer's tugs, but usually work in the shop. However, the Petitioner contends that the employees who work in the scow should be excluded from the unit because they perform maritime work, as distinguished from the repair and maintenance work done by the employees in the shop. The Petitioner further contends that the employees it would exclude because they man the Employer's tugs do not have sufficient community of interest with the other employees in the shop to be included in the unit,' and claims their primary duties are aboard the tugs. The Employer is engaged in the marine towing business in and around the Baltimore, Maryland, harbor. It docks, tows, 'International Longshoremen's Association, Local No. 1337, AFL, was permitted to inter- vene on the basis of its contract with the Employer, which covers some of the employees sought here when they man tugs of the Employer The local wished to be placed on the ballot if any unit was found appropriate. 2 The Petitioner, in addition, contends that certain individuals should be excluded from the unit as supervisors within the meaning of the Act in view of our disposition of this case, we do not deem it necessary to pass upon this or other unit placement questions raised by the parties. 105 NLRB No 61. THE CURTIS BAY TOWING COMPANY 525 and shifts ships and other vessels . The Employer operates approximately 15 tugs and 8 scows. To keep the tugs and scows in operation , the Employer maintains a shop and scow for repair purposes . The shop is located on a dock in Baltimore. The scow is docked at the pier , about 1 foot from the shop. It has been there for approximately 61 years, and was used as the maintenance and repair station before the shop was erected to handle the increased operations . The work performed on the scow consists mainly of fabricating fenders and mats which are used to absorb the shock in such situations as docking the tugs. A derrick on the scow places the fenders into position on the vessels . Some fender and mat repair work is also done in the shop . Upon the basis of the entire record, we find that this is not maritime work , but maintenance work properly a part of ship repair . Moreover , the employees who usually work in the scow are constantly called upon to perform duties in the shop. In turn, employees normally located in the shop frequently work in the scow . Employees in the shop and the scow often carry out their repair duties on the tugs themselves , when the latter are tied to the dock. All the repair and maintenance operations are under the supervision of a marine superintendent and his assistant . All the employees use the same facilities , eat lunch at the same time, enjoy the same vacation benefits , and have the same working hours. An employee working in the scow receives the same rate of pay as an employee with the same job classification working in the shop. In. view of the foregoing , we find that the scow is an integral part of the shop, and that the employees in the scow must be included with the shop employees in any unit found appropriate. We now turn to the Petitioner's contention that certain employees must be excluded from the unit because they man the Employer ' s tugs and thus do not have sufficient interests in common with the employees sought. Some of the employees do work occasionally as members of the Employer ' s tugboat crews. On these occasions, the licensed personnel --comprising captains , mates , and engineers--are covered by two contracts with the International Longshoremen's Association , Local Union No. 1510, AFL , while the unlicensed personnel --firemen, sailors , and cooks --are covered by two contracts with the Intervenor . 9 None of the contracts cover the employees when they work in the shop or in the scow, nor do any of the parties contend that the foregoing contracts are a bar to the instant petition. The record discloses that all these employees the Petitioner would exclude spend a sub- stantial --and some a majority --portion of their time working in the shop , performing the same types of work as those employees whom the Petitioner would include in the unit. Furthermore, some of the employees sought by the Petitioner $Each local has two contracts with the Employer , one covering single crews, and the other , double crews. 526 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD likewise man the Employer's tugs. We find that these employees have a sufficient interest in the terms and conditions of employment to be included in a unit of shop employees.4 It is clear, therefore, that the employees in the proposed unit are not a readily identifiable and homogeneous group apart from the other employees. The only basis for finding the requested unit to be appropriate would be the extent of the Petitioner ' s organization among the employees , which we are forbidden to do by Section 9 (c) (5) of the Act .5 As the Peti- tioner has not made a sufficient showing of interest for a unit of shop employees that would include the employees in the scow as well as those who occasionally man the Employer's tugs,6 we shall dismiss the petition. [The Board dismissed the petition.] 4Ocala Star Banner, 97 NLRB 384; Montgomery Ward & Company, Inc., 100 NLRB 1351. 6Breman Steel Company, 93 NLRB 720. 6 As stated in footnote 2, we do not deem it necessary to pass upon other disputed cate- gories. KEY SYSTEM TRANSIT LINES and INTERNATIONAL ASSO- CIATION OF MACHINISTS, LOCAL LODGE NO. 1546, AFL, Petitioner. Case No. 20-RC-1721. June 11, 1953 DECISION AND ORDER Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held on November 17 through 20, 1952, before Robert V. Magor, hearing officer; thereafter, pursuant to a remand order of the Board, a further hearing was held before him on March 26 and 27, 1953. The hearing officer ' s rulings made at the respective hearings are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.' Upon the entire record in this case , z the Boardfind.s: 1. The Company is licensed by the Public Utilities Com- mission of the State of California to operate a public transporta- tion system in the Oakland-San Francisco Bay area, carrying passengers by motorbus and electric train, which includes an appreciable amount of service to and from military installations, railroad stations , an airport , and plants of other employers heretofore found by the Board to be engaged in commerce. We find, upon these facts and the record generally, that the Em- t The Petitioner objects to a ruling of the hearing officer which required the Petitioner to conform the evidence presented at the reopened hearing to the Board's order of remand, con- tending that this ruling imposed an undue burden upon the Petitioner in the presentation of relevant facts. In our opinion the ruling was proper and not prejudicial as it merely precluded repetition of evidence adduced previously at the initial hearing. Viewing both hearings to- gether, we are satisfied that the Petitioner had full opportunity to present all relevant facts necessary for resolution of the issues herein. 2 The Petitioner's request for oral argument is denied, as the record, including the briefs, adequately presents the issues and the positions of the parties. 105 NLRB No. 68.