Craig Shipbuilding Co.

In the Matter of CRAIG SHIPBUILDING COMPANY and INDUSTRIAL UNION OF MARINE AND SHIPBUILDING WORKERS OF AMERICA, C. I. O. Case No. 21-B-2998.-Decided December 29, 1945 Messrs. O'Melrveny & Myers, by Messrs. W. B. Carman and John Whyte, both of Los Angeles , Calif., for the Company. Mr. Alexander Turoczy, of Wilmington, Calif., and Mr. Wm. T. Howell, of San Pedro, Calif., for the Union. Mr. David V. Easton, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon a petition duly filed by Industrial Union of Marine and Ship- building Workers of America, C. I. 0., herein called the Union, al- leging that a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation of employees of Craig Shipbuilding Company, Long Beach, California, herein called the Company, the National Labor Relations Board provided for an appropriate hearing upon due notice before Maurice J. Nicoson, Trial Examiner. The hearing was held at Los Angeles, California, on September 17, 1945. The Company and the Union appeared and participated. All parties were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues. At the hearing, the Company moved for dismissal of the petition. The Trial Examiner reserved ruling thereon for the Board. For reasons stated in Section IV, infra, the motion is denied. The Trial Examiner's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. All parties were afforded opportunity to file briefs with the Board. Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT Ir THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY Craig Shipbuilding Company, a California corporation, is engaged in the repair of ships. For this purpose, it operates a yard located 65 N. L. R B., No. 23. 97 98 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD at Long Beach, California, with which we are concerned herein. At this yard it repairs ships belonging to the United States Navy and to other government agencies, as well as privately owned vessels. During the past year, the Company purchased materials and equip- ment valued at approximately $500,000, of which about 50 percent was obtained from sources outside the State of California. During the same period, the Company received more than $1,000,000, for its services, the greater portion of which was performed upon gov- ernment vessels operating beyond the territorial waters of California. We find that the Company is engaged in commerce within the mean- ing of The National Labor Relations Act. II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Industrial Union of Marine and Shipbuilding Workers of Amer- ica is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, admitting to membership employees of the Company. III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION The Company has refused to grant recognition to the Union as the exclusive bargaining representative of certain of its employees until the Union has been certified by the Board in an appropriate unit. A statement of a Field Examiner for the Board, introduced into evidence at the hearing, indicates that the Union represents a sub- stantial number of employees in the unit hereinafter found appro- priate.' We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the representation of employees of the Company, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT The Union, which currently represents the Company's production and maintenance employees at its Long Beach, California, yard, seeks a separate unit of all plant-protection guards employed at this yard, excluding supervisory employees. The Company, in support of its motion to dismiss, contends, in effect, that the unit sought is inappro- priate because (a) guards are not "employees" within the meaning of the Act, since they are actually representatives of management and have duties which are incompatible with representation for the pur- poses of collective bargaining by a national labor organization; (b) ' The Field Examiner reported that the Union submitted 8 application cards, of which 5 bore the names of employees listed on the Company 's pay roll of August 17, 1945. There are approximately 12 employees in the appropriate unit. CRAIG SHIPBUILDING COMPANY 99 were the guards to be represented for these purposes, they would have divided loyalties and conflicting interests, especially if the Union herein is successful, since that organization already represents the production and maintenance workers; and (c) the Union, in ex- plicitly agreeing to the exclusion of guards in its contract with the Company covering the production and maintenance employees, im- plicitly agreed not to seek to represent them. In addition, the Com- pany asserts that two of the persons listed as "guards in the employ of the [Company]," Dailey and Zborowski, are actually employees of another employer. The record indicates that the Company's guards are armed and uniformed, and that several of them are deputized. They are charged with the responsibility of protecting the Company's property from damage by fire, theft, or violence, and with keeping order within the confines of the yard. It is evident from the record that their duties, although clearly monitorial, are in nowise confidential, supervisory, or managerial. In other cases we have had occasion to pass upon contentions similar to those advanced by the Company with respect to the general ap- propriateness of the unit sought, and have found them not to be per- suasive.2 We shall, consequently, permit the Company's plant protection guards to be represented for collective bargaining pur- poses in a unit separate from all its other employees. As to Dailey and Zborowski, the record indicates that they are the permanent resident watchmen employed on property leased by the Company on a part-time basis from the Standard Gypsum Company. It further appears that the Company considers the Standard Gypsum Company as having a priority on their services, and that these two in- dividuals do not enjoy the same privileges of employment available to regular employees of the Company. Under these circumstances, we shall exclude them. Accordingly, we find that all plant protection guards of the Com- pany, excluding Dailey, Zborowski, 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 collec- tive bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. 2 Matter of Standard Steel Spring Company, 62 N L. R B. 660; Matter of Aluminum Company of America, 63 N. L. R. B . 828; Matter of Muskegon Piston Ring Company, 63 N. L. R B 885 Matter of Granite City Steel Company, 63 N. L. R. B. 898; Matter of Alle- gheny Ludlum Steel Corporation, 64 N. L. R. B. 1284, and cases cited in,these decisions. See also Matter of Consolidation Coal Company, 63 N L. R. B. 169, and cases cited therein with respect to the union's alleged implicit agreement not to represent the plant guards. Matter of Briggs Indiana Corporation, 63 N. L. R. B. 201, does not apply, as the contract contained no express conimitinent by the union not to seek to represent guards in the immediate future. 100 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES We shall direct that the question concerning representation which has arisen be resolved by an election by secret ballot among employees in the appropriate unit who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of the Direction of Election herein, subject to the limitations and additions set forth in the Direction: DIRECTION OF ELECTION By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National Labor Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Rela- tions Act, and pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3, as amended, it is hereby DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain represent- atives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Craig Ship- building Company, Long Beach, California, an election by secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later.than sixty (60) days from the date of this Direction, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Twenty-first Region, acting in this matter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject to Article III, Sections 10 and 11, of said Rules and Reg- ulations, among 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, including employees who did not work during said pay-roll period because they were ill or on vaca- tion or temporarily laid off, and including employees in the armed forces of the United States who present themselves in person at the polls, but excluding those employees who have since quit or been dis- charged 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 Industrial Union of Marine and Shipbuilding Work- ers of America, C. I. 0., for the purposes of collective bargaining. MR. JOHN M. HOUSTON took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Direction of Election.