Marine Iron & Shipbuilding Co.

172 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD MARINE IRON & SHIPBUILDING COMPANY and DISTRICT LODGE 133, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHIN- ISTS, A.F. OF L., Petitioner . Case No . 18-RC-2051. April 6, 1954 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 Hjalmar Storlie, hearing officer . The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. 1 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 cer- tain employees of the Employer. -2 3. A 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. 4. The Petitioner seeks to sever from an existing plantwide unit a unit of all machinists, apprentices , helpers , and machin- ist welders employed in the Employer ' s machine shop. The Intervenor and the Employer both contend that the unit sought by the Petitioner should not be severed from the existing plantwide unit because of a history of bargaining on a plantwide basis, because the nature of the Employer ' s business requires frequent assignment of employees outside their classifications in order for the Employer to retain its competitive business position, and because the existence of more than one unit in the Employer ' s plant would lead to jurisdictional disputes.' The Employer is engaged in shipbuilding , ship repair, steel fabrication and machine - shop work. Shortly before the petition in this case was filed , the Employer purchased the Abernathy Iron Works, which performed machine - shop work similar to the Employer ' s. The Employer moved most of the Abernathy equip- ment to its own plant and transferred the Abernathy employees to its plant and payroll . At the time of the petition , all operations were being carried on at the Employer ' s plant and the Abernathy plant was no longer in use . For the past several years the em- ployees of the Employer have been represented in a plantwide unit by the Intervenor , which is their certified representative. 'The Intervenor contends that the petition should be dismissed because it states the Employer's address incorrectly. However, as the Employer was served with the petition and notice of hearing we find no merit in this contention. 2 International Brotherhood of Boiirnakers , Iron Ship Builders , and Helpers of America, Lodge 647, A.F. of L., intervened on the basis of a current contractual interest. 3 The Intervenor and Employer failed to introduce any evidence which explains or supports this contention. Furthermore, we do not consider the possibility of jurisdictional disputes as sufficient ground for denying craft severance where otherwise appropriate. Accordingly, we find no merit in this contention. The Atlantic Refining Company, 92 NLRB 651 at 653. MARINE IRON & SHIPBUILDING COMPANY 173 The employees transferred from Abernathy were formerly represented by the Petitioner at Abernathy. The Employer has approximately 12 machinists and 1 machin- ist apprentice in its machine shop, of whom about 7 formerly worked for Abernathy. It appears from the record that the machinists have served an apprenticeship qualifying them for journeyman status. They operate a variety of machine tools and are required to exercise the usual skills of the machinist's craft in the course of their employment. While the Employer contends that it does not observe strictly the classifications of its employees and must assign them to jobs outside of their classifications to maintain its competitive position, the Em- ployer gave no specific instance in which machinists have worked outside their classification. The Employer also employs machine operators and repair- men, and mechinics who are assigned to the machine shop. It appears from the record that none of the employees in these classifications are craftsmen, nor are they in training to be- come machinists. There are also two tool-crib attendants in the toolroom who are not craftsmen. In accordance with our recently announced policy in American Potash & Chemical Corporation, s we find that the machinists are true craftsmen 5 who may be represented as a separate unit by a union which traditionally represents them, notwithstanding their previous inclusion in a bargaining unit of broader scope. As the Petitioner is such a union, we will direct an election among the machinists to determine whether they wish to be separately represented by the Petitioner. We will include the apprentice in the unit, but will exclude the machine operators and repairmen, the mechanics, and the tool-crib attendants as they are not craftsmen nor are they in the direct line of suc- cession to the machinist classification. The Petitioner also seeks to include machinist welders and helpers in the unit. It appears from the record that no em- ployees are employed in these classifications. It is inferred that the Petitioner has reference to two employees who trans- fered from the Abernathy plant and were working temporarily on a doughnut cutter assembly project in the machine shop. Neither of thernwas working as a machinist's helper and neither has any craft skills. At the time of the hearing the Employer did not know how they would be employed after the doughnut cutter job was finished. Under these circumstances, we will exclude them. Accordingly, we will direct that an election be held in the following group of employees of the Employer at its Duluth, Minnesota, plant: All machinists and machinist apprentices, excluding all other employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. 4107 NLRB 1418, at pp. 6-8. 5 Charleston Shipyards, Inc., 97 NLRB 379. 174 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD If a majority vote for the Petitioner , they will be taken to have indicated their desire to constitute a separate unit, which the Board finds, under the circumstances , to be appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining ; and the Regional Director is instructed to issue a certification of representatives to the Petitioner for such unit . If a majority vote for the Intervenor, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to remain a part of the existing appropriate plantwide unit and the Regional Director is instructed to issue a certification of results of election to that effect. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] Member Beeson took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Direction of Election. CHICAGO PNEUMATIC TOOL COMPANY and INTERNA- TIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, AFL, Petitioner and UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO CHICAGO PNEUMATIC TOOL COMPANY and LOCAL UNION 116, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, AFL, Petitioner and INTERNATIONAL ASSO- CIATION OF MACHINISTS and UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO. Cases Nos. 16-RC-1420 and 16-RC- 1425. April 6, 1954 DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the Act and thereafter consolidated , a hearing was held before John F. White, a hearing officer of the National Labor Relations Board. 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 co mmerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. 2. The labor organizations named below claim to represent certain employees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the re- presentation of certain employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 ( c) and Section 2 (6) and ( 7) of the Act. 4. The Employer ' s Fort Worth , Texas, plant , here involved, was constructed in 1953 to manufacture rock bits. To this plant the Employer plans to transfer the rock bit department of its Franklin , Pennsylvania , plant. At the time of hearing about 200 production and maintenance employees of a contem- plated employee complement of 500 were employed at Fort Worth with all classifications represented and all production 108 NLRB No. 36.