Bethlehem Steel Co.

BETHLEHEM STEEL COMPANY 241 APPENDIX B NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF LOCAL 135, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WARE- HOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, AFL, AND TO ALL EMPLOYEES OF HARGIS TRUCK LINE, INC. Pursuant to the Recommendations of a Trial Examiner of the National Labor Relations Board , and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended we hereby notify you that: WE WILL NOT cause nor attempt to cause Hargis Truck Line, Inc., its officers, agents, successors , or assigns , to discriminate against employees in regard to their hire or tenure of employment , or any term or condition of employment , in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the National Labor Relations Act. WE WILL NOT restrain or coerce employees of Hargis Truck Line , Inc., in the exercise of the rights guaranteed under Section 7of the Act, including the right to refrain from engaging in any or all of the activities guaranteed thereunder , except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment , as authorized in Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act. WE WILL make whole Floyd M. Skiles for any loss of earnings suffered because of the discrimination against him. WE WILL notify Hargis Truck Line, Inc., in writing , that we have no objection to the employment by said corporation of Floyd M. Skiles. LOCAL 135„ INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSE- MEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, AFL Dated . ............... By.............................................................................. ............ (Representative) (Title) This notice must remain posted for 60 days from the date hereof and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. BETHLEHEM STEEL COMPANY, SHIPBUILDING DIVISION, BEAUMONT YARD and PIPEFITTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 195, AFL, Petitioner. Case No. 39-RC-678. April 14, 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 Clifford W. Potter, 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 employees of the Employer. 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. The Employer's motion to dismiss is denied for reasons indicated herein. 108 NLRB No. 51. 339676 0 - 55 - 17 242 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 4. The Petitioner seeks to sever from the existing plantwide unit a separate craft unit of pipefitter leadermen , pipefitters, pipe welders, and pipefitter helpers. The Employer and the Intervenor oppose the requested unit and contend that only a plantwide unit is appropriate , essentially on the following grounds: (a) The long bargaining history on an industrial basis at the Beaumont Yard, at other shipyards of the Employer, and at major shipyards of other employers on the "Gulf Coast"; (b) the integrated nature of the Employer's ship building and re- pairing operations , and the high degree of coordination in the work of the various crafts employed; and (c) the mutuality of interest of employees in all the crafts. At its Beaumont Yard, the Employer is engaged in ship building and repairing , which entails about 75 percent of its operations , and in the fabrication of steel , which entails the remaining 25 percent . From 1938, when it was certified by the Board, until sometime in 1947, Beaumont Metal Trades Council, composed of various AFL craft locals, was recog- nized by and entered into collective -bargaining contracts with Pennsylvania Shipyards , Inc., the Employer ' s predecessor, on behalf of a plantwide bargaining unit. After the Employer ac- quired the plant in 1947, this relationship was continued un- changed: In 1950, Beaumont Metal Trades Counciland Local No. 395, International Association of Machinists, jointly, herein collectively referred to as the Intervenor, was certified by the Board as joint bargaining agent for a plantwide unit , and has held until the present successive bargaining contracts with the Employer . The Petitioner has been one of the craft unions comprising Beaumont Metal Trades Council and, as was testified , will still be qualified to continue such membership should it be certified hereinas the separate representative of the pipefitters. No contention has been made that the pipefitters in question are not craftsmen. These employees thread, bend, and fabricate pipe; they operate from blueprints and generally perform the traditional functions of the pipefitter trade . As of the present the Employer has no formal training program for pipefitters, although such a program was in operation during the war. The most recent contract provides for the formulation of a program for apprentices and, as appears in the contract, there is a program in effect for electricians. The Employer hires journeymen pipefitters or experienced pipefitter helpers, whom it later progresses to the full status of pipefitter. Journeymen pipefitters receive an hourly wage commensurate with that paid other skilled craftsmen of the Employer. The various crafts employed in the plant are accorded separate recognition and representation on the union committee which negotiates with the Employer and in the grievance procedures practiced by the contracting parties. Pipefitters assigned to the pipe shop spend substantially all their time fabricating pipe in the pipe shop, which is separately BETHLEHEM STEEL COMPANY 243 located and supervised. Pipefitters assigned to the maintenance department work together with other crafts on jobs around the plant under the supervision of a maintenance supervisor who is a machinist. Those assigned to ship building and repair also work in crews made up of various crafts which operate under a foreman who is himself in the boilermaker craft. It was testified on the part of the Employer that a high degree of coordination between the different crafts is necessary in the work of the plant maintenance crews and the ship building and repair crews. Under the Board's recently issued comprehensive rulings on the question of craft severance in the American Potash case ,' the factors of a plantwide bargaining history and integra- tion of production processes which are here asserted by the Employer and Intervenor in opposition to the Petitioner's severance request, are in any case not determinative of the appropriate bargaining unit. In our opinion, the facts here satisfy the affirmative criteria enunciated in American Potash governing the appropriateness of a unit for severance purposes. Thus, we find that the unit sought herein constitutes a true craft, as that term has been defined in American Potash, and that the Petitioner has traditionally represented the pipefitter craft. As above noted, the unit requested by the Petitioner includes pipe welders. The record shows that employees generally classified as welders are regularly assigned to work with the pipefitters. These employees have been hired as experienced welders or have had on-the-job training with the Employer. Under the terms of the contract they receive full journeymen's pay. On certain pipe welding jobs to be performed for the Employer, these employees must qualify by taking standard examinations testing their skill. Consistent with Board policy, we shall include in the pipefitters' unit those welders who are regularly assigned to work with this craft! Accordingly, we shall direct that a separate election be conducted among employees at the Employer' s Beaumont, Texas, yard, in the following voting group: All pipefitter leadermen; pipefitters, pipefitter helpers, welders regularly assigned to work with pipefitters, ex- cluding all other employees, guards, professional employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act. If a majority of the employees in the voting group vote for the Petitioner, they will be taken to have indicated their desire i American Potash & Chemical Corporation, 107 NLRB 1418. 2 See, e.g., Kennecott Copper Corp., 106 NLRB 390; Macon Craft Co., 100 NLRB 1509. 244 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD to be represented in a separate bargaining unit . If a majority of these employees vote for the Intervenor, the Regional Director shall issue a certification of results of the election to that effect and they will remain a part of the existing plantwide unit. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] Member Beeson took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Direction of Election. FRESH'ND-AIRE COMPANY, DIVISION OF CORY CORPORA- TION and DISTRICT NO. 140, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIA- TION OF MACHINISTS, AFL, Petitioner. Case No . 13-RC- 3190. April 14, 1954 THIRD SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION and CERTIFICATION OF REPRESENTATIVES On January 20, 1954, the Board issued its Second Supple- mental Decision and Direction herein, directing the Regional Director for the Thirteenth Region to open and count certain ballots which had been challenged in the election held herein on September 3, 1953, and to prepare and serve upon the parties a revised tally of ballots.' Pursuant thereto, the ballots in question were opened and counted, and a revised tally of ballots was prepared and served: The revised tally shows that 60 valid votes were counted, of which 42 were cast for the Petitioner and 18 were cast against the Petitioner; there were 10 void ballots; and there were 4 unopened chal- lenged ballots. On February 3, 1954, the Employer filed objections to the conduct of the election and to conduct which affected the results of the election. On February 5, 1954, the Regional Director issued his report on the objections, recommending that the objections be overruled and the Petitioner be certified as exclusive bargaining agent for the employees in the unit found appropriate. On February 26, 1954, the Employer filed exceptions to the Regional Director's report. The Board has considered the Regional Director's report, the exceptions, and the entire record in the case , and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Regional Director. As indicated above, the election herein was held on Septem- ber 3, 1953, and the Employer did not file its objections to that election until February 3, 1954, 5 months later, We find, therefore, as the . Regional Director did, that because the 1107 NLRB No. 183. 108 NLRB No. 56.