Federal Shipbuilding and Drydock Co.

In the Matter Of FEDERAL SHIPBUILDING AND DRYDOCK COMPANY and INDUSTRIAL UNION OF MARINE & SHIPBUILDING WORKERS OF AMER- ICA, LOCAL No. 16, CIO In the Matter Of FEDERAL SHIPBUILDING AND DRYDOCK COMPANY and UNITED OFFICE & PROFESSIONAL WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL No. 7, CIO Cases Nos. 2-R-5509 and .2-R-4969, respectively.-Decided January 14, 1946 Mr. Richard J. Hickey, for the Board. Messrs. J. C. Irwin and James H. Love , of Kearny, N. J., for the Company. Mr. W. J. Woolston, of Philadelphia, Pa., for the CIO. Messrs. Pepsin c Pepsin, by Meyer Pepsin, and Mrs. Martha Davis, of Jersey City, N. J., for the Shipyard Workers. Messrs. Rothbard, Harris c Talisman, by Samuel L. Rothbard, and Mr. Herman Meyrich, of Newark, N. J., for the UOPWA. Mr. Sidney Grossman , of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND ORDER STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon sep4rate petitions duly filed by the Industrial Union of Marine & Shipbuilding Workers of America, Local No. 16, CIO, herein called the CIO, and by the United Office & Professional Workers of America, Local No. 7, CIO, herein called the UOPWA, each alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation of employees of Federal Shipbuilding and Drydock Company, Kearny, New Jersey, herein called the Company , the National Labor Relations Board provided for an appropriate consolidated hearing upon due notice before Arthur Leff, Trial Examiner . The hearing was held at Newark, New Jersey, on May 22, July 10 and 31, and August 1, 2, and 3, 1945. The Company, the CIO, the UOPWA, and the Ship- yard Workers of America, unaffiliated , herein called the Shipyard 65 N. L. R. B., No. 73. 410 FEDERAL SHIPBUILDING AND DRY DOCK COMPANY 411 Workers, 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 Trial Examiner reserved ruling upon the motion of the UOPWA to with- draw its petition inasmuch as it had relinquished to the CIO juris- diction of the employees it sought to represent. The motion of the UOPWA is hereby granted, and we shall dismiss its petition. At the hearing, the Company moved to dismiss the petition of the CIO because of the alleged inappropriateness of the unit . The Trial Examiner reserved ruling for the Board . For the reasons herein- after set forth in Section III, infra, the motion is granted . 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 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY Federal Shipbuilding and Drydock Company, a New Jersey corpo- ration, with principal offices and place of business at Kearny, New Jersey, is engaged in the construction of naval and merchant vessels at its shipyards at Kearny and Port Newark, New Jersey. The prin- cipal raw materials used by it in the construction of ships are steel plates, boilers , turbine generators, and related equipment . During the year ending February 28, 1945, the Company purchased raw mate- rials in excess of $1,000,000 in value, of which approximately 70 per- cent was secured from sources outside the State of New Jersey. Dur- ing the same period it constructed and produced naval and merchant vessels valued in excess of $1,000,000, of which approximately 90 per- cent was shipped to places outside the State of New Jersey. The Company admits that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED Industrial Union of Marine & Shipbuilding Workers of America, Local No. 16, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, is a labor organization admitting to membership employees of the Company. 412 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Shipyard Workers of America, unaffiliated, is a labor organization admitting to membership employees of the Company.' III. THE ALLEGED APPROPRIATE UNIT The CIO seeks a unit consisting generally of office and clerical em- ployees who work inside the fence at the Company's Kearny and Port Newark yards, excluding confidential and supervisory employees. The Shipyard Workers requests a unit confined to clerical and pro- fessional employees at the Port Newark yard. The Company con- tends that the unit should comprise all salaried office and clerical em- ployees at both yards regardless of their location with respect to the fence, including those at its Newark office, and urges dismissal of the petition. The Kearny yard has been in operation since 1917. The Port Newark yard, located about 41/2 miles from Kearny, was temporarily established in 1942 as a wartime operation. For security reasons each yard is enclosed within a fence. However, office and administra- tion buildings are situated outside the fence or on the fence line, and an office building is located in Newark approximately 3 miles from either yard. Administration, higher supervision, and other mana- gerial functions generally stem from Kearny. A common industrial relations department, with a branch at Port Newark, serves both yards; all female clericals are hired exclusively through Kearny. Em- ployees have been transferred from one yard to the other, and, upon discontinuance of the Port Newark yard after the war, Port Newark employees will be transferred to Kearny. General functional integra- tion exists between both yards and between common and comparable departments therein. Moreover, the Company's past baraining his- in and the CIO's successful organization of the clerical employees at both yards, also demonstrate the appropriateness of a company- wide unit. In view of the foregoing, we perceive no reason for dis- associating the clericals at Port Newark from those at Kearny, as requested by the Shipyard Workers. We therefore find that a unit confined to the clericals at Port Newark alone is inappropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining. ' The Company and the CIO contend that the Shipyard Workers is not a labor organiza- tion within the meaning of the Act However, the evidence shows that the Shipyard Workers is an organization formed for the purpose of engaging in collective bargaining on behalf of employees of the Company regarding their hours , wages, and other conditions of employment Accordingly , we find that the Shipyard Workers is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 ( 5) of the Act. See Matter of E I. du Pont de Nemours d Company, 63 N. L R. B . 1387 , Matter of Cleveland Cliffs Iron Company, 63 N. L. R. B. 674: Matter of Gielow, Incorpo7ated, 60 N. L R B 1477. - 2 The CIO has represented production and maintenance employees at both yards since 1942 ; in 1944 , cafeteria employees were added to the unit. FEDERAL SHIPBUILDING AND DRYDOCK COMPANY 413 Clerical employees are segregated administratively into various departments which,- in turn, are divided into one or more divisions under separate immediate -supervision. The same department may have employees both inside and outside the fence; some also have employees in both yards. Generally, as indicated above, access to the yard or to buildings situated on the fence line through time pass gates serves as the criterion for inclusion in the unit proposed by the CIO. If such criterion were adopted, employees would be excluded from the unit despite the fact that they may perform similar work in the same or comparable departments, in some instances under the same supervision, as those whose inclusion is desired.3 Thus, it is ap- parent that the unit sought by the CIO constitutes an artificial and arbitrary grouping of employees, wholly lacking in the homogeneity requisite to an appropriate bargaining unit. We find, therefore, that, the unit petitioned for is inappropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining. . IV. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION Since, as pointed out in Section III, above, the bargaining units sought to be established by the CIO and the Shipyard Workers, re- spectively, are inappropriate for the purposes of collective bargain- ing with the Company, we find that no question has been raised con- cerning the representation of employees of the Company, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act. ORDER Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the petitions for investigation and certification of representatives of employees of Federal Ship- building and Drydock Company, Kearny, New Jersey, filed by the Industrial Union of Marine & Shipbuilding Workers of America, Local 16, CIO, and by the United Office & Professional Workers of America, Local No. 7, CIO, be, and they hereby are, dismissed. CHAIRMAN HERZOG took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Order. s As, for example , clericals are excluded in departments 6 (production ), 8 (office service), and 18 ( plant engineering ) at Kearny , whereas clericals performing similar work in depart- ments 22 (production and planning), 19 (office service ), and 38 (plant engineering) at Port Newark are included Similarly, clericals performing similar work in departments 3, 10, and 20 are both included and excluded n