International Longshoremen's Association

INTERNATIONAL, LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSOCIATION, 59 In the event that employees are needed in the warehouse, they are obtained from the production force. In the event that an intraplant driver is needed he is obtained from among the warehousemen if a qualified man is available. The intraplant drivers and warehousemen do not work in production or maintenance unless transferred, but do have rights, along with production and maintenance employees, to bid for vacant jobs in the production and maintenance departments. This opportunity is not offered the over-the-road and mine drivers. In view of the foregoing, we find that the intraplant drivers and warehousemen do not exercise genuine craft skills, nor do they con- stitute a functionally distinct department identified with a traditional trade or occupation having special interests distinct from other em- ployees 1 Accordingly, we conclude that the unit sought by the Teamsters is inappropriate for separate representation.' In view of the conclusion that the intraplant drivers and ware- housemen cannot be severed from the existing production and main- tenance unit, and as all parties agree that the production and main- tenance unit is appropriate, we find that the following employees constitute a unit appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act : All production and maintenance employees employed at the, Em- ployer's Lock Haven, Pennsylvania, operation, including intraplant drivers and warehousemen, but excluding over-the-road drivers, mine truckdrivers, salaried technical employees, office clerical employees, professional employees, guards, and all supervisors as defined in the Act. - [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] 4American Potash cE Chemical Corporation, 107 NLRB 1418. See also Virginia-Carolina Chemical Corporation, 101 NLRB 1336; General Electric Company, 89 NLRB 726, 739, 740. Vanadium Corporation of America, 117 NLRB 1390 (warehousemen). Cf. United States Smelting, Refining and Mining Company, ' 116 NLRB 661, 665, 666; Jocie Motor Lines, Inc., 112 NLRB 1201, 1209. BAs we have concluded that these employees are not severable we deem it unnecessary to consider the various unit contentions of the Teamsters. International Longshoremen's Association, Independent, South Atlantic and Gulf Coast District, and Locals 1758 and 1763 and Eellco Industrial Engineering Co., et al. Cases Nos. 39- CD-26,27,28. October 992,1957 DECISION AND DETERMINATION- OF DISPUTE This proceeding arises under Section 10 (k) of the Act, which pro- vides that "whenever it is charged that -any person has engaged in an unfair labor practice within the meaning of paragraph (4) (D) 119 NLRB No. 16. 60 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD of Section 8 (b), the Board is empowered and directed to hear and determine the dispute out of which such unfair labor practice shall have arisen. . . ." On April 17, 1957, Bellco Industrial Engineering Co., herein called Bellco Engineering, and Pittsburgh-Des Moines Steel Co., herein called Pittsburgh Steel, filed with the Regional Director for the Six- teenth Region separate charges against International Longshoremen's Association, Independent, herein called the ILA, South Atlantic and Gulf Coast District, and its affiliated Locals 1758 and 1763. On April 18, 1957, Vogt & Conant Company, Tuloma Builders, Inc., Al Johnson Construction Company, Frederick Snare Corporation, K. J. Hargus Mechanical Contractors, Stein and Dawson, Inc., Harrison Construction Co., Exco, Inc., R. B. Butler, Inc., Coastal Electric Co., and Commercial Contracting Co. filed charges against the above- named labor organizations. The charges alleged that the Respondents had engaged in and were engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (4) (D) of the Act, in that the Re- spondents had induced and encouraged the employees of the Charging Parties to engage in a strike or a concerted refusal to work in the course of their employment with an object of forcing or requiring Bellco Engineering and Pittsburgh Steel to assign the work of unload- ing from barges building materials to be used by Bellco Engineering and Pittsburgh Steel in connection with a construction project at the Aluminum Company of America, Point Comfort Works, herein called Alcoa, to members of the Respondents rather than to employees of Bellco Engineering and Pittsburgh Steel. Thereafter, pursuant to Section 10 (k) of the Act and Sections 102.71 and 102.72 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, the Regional Director investigated the charges and, after consolidating the cases for purposes of hearing, provided for a hearing upon due notice to all parties.' The hearing was held before Edwin Youngblood, hear- ing officer, on May 2, 3, and 6, 1957, at Houston, Texas. All parties appeared at the hearing and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to adduce evidence bearing on the issues. All parties waived any notice of hearing to which they may have been entitled. The rulings of the hearing of- ficer made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. ' Order consolidating cases, notices of charges filed , and notice of hearing were served on the Charging Parties , the Repondents, and on Alcoa at its construction project, Point Comfort, Texas , and on the following labor organizations : Iron Workers Local 510, Pipe Fitters Local 790, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers , Local 278 , Boiler- makers Local 577, and Building Trades Council, AFL-CIO, Corpus Christi, Texas. In addition , the following interested parties entered an appearance : Operating Engineers Local Union No. 450, and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union 66. Motion to intervene by the Electrical Workers, Local 66 was granted on the ground that it has members affected by the work stoppage. INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSOCIATION 61 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 [Chairman Leedom and Members Murdock and Rodgers]. Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The businesses of the Charging Parties The parties stipulated that the Aluminum Company of America, in connection with its Point Comfort, Texas, works, had shipped out- side the State of Texas during the past months and/or during the year 1956 goods valued in excess of $1,000,000. The parties further stipulated that the Charging Parties are either subcontractors under Alcoa, the general contractor, or subcontractors under the prime subcontractor, and that the volume of their businesses in connection with the Alcoa construction project at Point Comfort, Texas, was as follows : Pittsburgh-Des Moines Steel Co. is a Pennsylvania corporation engaged in design, steel fabrication, warehousing, and commercial construction. During the calendar year of 1956, the company's gross profit was in excess of $40,000,000. During the same period the com- pany has performed under a contract work for Alcoa in excess of $8,000,000. Bellco Industrial Engineering Co. is a corporation organized in the State of Texas. It is engaged in industrial construction and main- tenance and repairs of industrial plants. During the company's fiscal year from March 1, 1956, to March 1, 1957, it has performed work for Alcoa, such work valued in excess of $1,000,000. Its gross revenue for its past fiscal year was in excess of $2,000,000. Vogt & Conant Company is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Ohio. It is engaged in the erection of structural steel and machinery. During the past 12 months it has performed work for Alcoa valued in excess of $1,000,000. Its gross revenue for the same period has been in excess of $2,000,000. Al Johnson Construction Company, a Delaware corporation, is en- gaged in industrial and heavy construction work. During the com- pany's past fiscal year, which was the calendar year 1956, it has per- formed work for the Aluminum Company of America at its Mary- ville, Tennessee, plant valued in excess of $1,000,000, and its gross revenue was in-excess of $5,000,000. Frederick Snare Corporation, a Delaware corporation, has per- formed work for the Alcoa project in excess of $1,000,000. Its gross revenue for the same period was in excess of $10,000,000. 62 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Stein and Dawson, Inc., a Texas corporation, is engaged in plumb- ing, heating, and air-conditioning work. During the company's fiscal year, which ended September 30,1956, it performed work for the Com- mercial Contracting Co. of San Antonio, Inc., in connection with the Alcoa project, valued in excess of $85,000. It also performed work for the Noser Construction Company in connection with the U. S. Naval Landing Field, Port Isabel, Texas, valued in excess of $150,000. Harrison Construction Co., a Delaware corporation, is engaged in the construction of plants, dams, highways, and airports. During the past fiscal year it performed work at the Alcoa project valued in excess of $2,000,000. Exco, Inc., is a Texas corporation engaged in dirt moving, paving, and road construction. During the past 12 months it performed work for the Alcoa project valued in excess of $200,000. Its gross revenue during the same period was in excess of $1,000,000. R. B. Butler, Inc., is a Texas corporation engaged in the construc- tion of commercial and industrial buildings. During the past 12 months it has performed work for Alcoa in excess of $1,000,000. Coastal Electric Co., a Texas corporation, is engaged in industrial and commercial work in connection with electrical construction. During the past 12 months it has performed work on the Alcoa project for Commercial Contracting Co. in excess of $100,000. Commercial Contracting Co., itself, shipped goods outside the State of Texas during the past 12 months valued in excess of $50,000. On the basis of the foregoing facts we find that the Charging Parties are engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act, and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein .2 2. The labor organizations involved International Longshoremen's. Association, Independent, South Atlantic and Gulf Coast District, and Locals 1758 and 1763; United Association of Plumbers and Pipe Fitters, Local 790; International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union 278; Hoisting and Portable Operating Engineers, Local Union 450; International Broth- erhood of Teamsters, Warehousemen, Chauffeurs, et al., Houston Local Union ; International Association of Bridge and Structural Iron Workers, Local Union 510; International Association of Sheet Metal Workers,, Galveston, Texas, Local ; International Union of Brick- layers, Victoria, Texas, Local; International Hod Carriers Union and Association, Local Union 1179; International Association of Carpen- ters, Joiners, et al., Local Union 1423; International Union of Painters and Paperhangers, Local Union 735; International Union of In- sulators, Asbestos Fixtures, et al., Local Union 489; International Pile 2 Jonesboro Grain Drying Cooperative, 110 NLRB 481; Whippany Motor Co., Inc., 115 NLRB 52; The T. H. Rogers Lumber Company, 117 NLRB 1732. INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSOCIATION 63 Drivers Union, Houston, Texas, Local Union; International Mill- wrights Union, Corpus Christi, Texas, Local Union; International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, et al., Local Union 577; and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union 66, are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 3. The dispute a. The facts The jurisdictional dispute between the Respondents and the various named craft unions arose over the assignment of the work of unload- ing from barges construction materials consigned to subcontractors engaged in work on the Alcoa project. The Longshoremen claimed that the work of unloading barges by tradition and custom belonged to them. The craft unions on the other hand took the position that the employers engaged on the project were free to assign the work of unloading construction materials to those of their employees, mem- bers of craft unions, who use these materials in their work. Alcoa, who acted as a general contractor, had no craft employees of its own employed at the project, and therefore was not involved directly in the dispute. The Employers involved directly in the dispute were four subcontractors, to whom various construction materials were consigned to be installed at the project by members of craft unions employed by them. Of these, Coastal Electric Co. was the first one to use its own elec- tricians to unload from barges the electrical equipment to be installed by the contractor at the project. In April 1957, shortly before the picketing began, the company also informed its electricians, members of the Electrical Workers Union, that in the future the work of un- loading the electrical equipment to be used by them would be assigned to them. When Pittsburgh-Des Moines began its operations on the Alcoa project in 1956, on several occasions it used its own boiler- makers and ironworkers to unload structural steel and plate steel consigned to the project. Following this pattern, Bellco Engineering and Vogt-Conant assigned the work of unloading pipes and parts of tanks to their pipefitters, ironworkers, and boilermakers. In December 1956 the Respondents, in an attempt to change these work assignments, arranged for a conference with Job Manager Dar- row of Pittsburgh Steel. They informed Darrow that the work of un- loading barges at the Alcoa dock as waterborne commerce belonged traditionally to longshoremen and that they would like to have it assigned to them. Darrow replied that Pittsburgh Steel was using its own ironworkers and boilermakers for that work and that he saw no reason to change the work assignment. Darrow, nevertheless, referred them to Keefer, general construction superintendent of the 64 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Alcoa project, for a final decision. A meeting with Keefer could not be arranged. until February 1957. By that time two barges with the construction material arrived and were unloaded by members of the craft unions. At the meeting Keefer told the Respondents' repre- sentatives that he could not arrange for the change in the assignment of the unloading work to the Longshoremen because all of Alcoa sub- contractors were hiring only AFL people and that if this work were to be assigned to the Longshoremen, the craft unions would call a jurisdictional strike. Keefer, however, agreed to attempt to arrange a meeting with all parties concerned, including the craft unions, to consider the matter. Shortly thereafter, Keefer gave up the idea as he had been informed that the Ironworkers would set up a picket line, if the unloading work was assigned to the Longshoremen. The Respondents' efforts to secure the disputed work having proved unsuccessful, the Respondents in April 1957 decided to set up a picket line against the above-mentioned employers. With respect to the picketing, the parties stipulated at the hearing as follows : That on Monday, April 8, 1957, representatives and agents of International Longshoremen's Association, Independent, and its constituent Local Unions 1758 and 1763, Port Lavaca area, es- tablished or caused to be established a picket at the intersection of Texas State Highway No. 35 and the county road . . . and at the intersection of Texas State Highway No. 35 and the South- ern Minerals Road; I that the pickets engaged in picketing ac- tivities at these two intersections on April 8 carried from 6: 30 a. in. until about noon a picket sign reading : Jack Walton- Material-Contractor-Unfair to ILA Local 1758 and LU 1763- Port Lavaca area, and from about noon until about 4: 30 p. M. a picket sign reading Bellco Eng.-Contractor-Unfair to ILA Local 1758-LU 1763-Port Lavaca Area. That the picket sign named Bellco Industrial Engineering Company during the entire picketing activities which occurred at the two intersections on April 9. That on April 10 there was one picket ' at each of the above intersections engaged in picketing activities. The picket carried a sign reading: Pittsburgh-Des Moines-Contractor-Unfair to ILA Local 1758-LU 1763-Port Lavaca Area; and that the 3A map, in evidence, of the general area of the Alcoa project at Point Comfort, Texas, shows the seven potlines, either completed or in the process of completion, and the Alumina Plant. It shows 2 entrances to the project : an entrance to the construction site of the Alumina Plant located at the intersection of the Texas State Highway No. 35 and the county road, and the entrance to the construction site of the 7 potlines, which is located at the intersection of the above highway and the Southern Minerals Road. In April 1957, the- four subcontractors involved in dispute were engaged in construction of the Alumina Plant and their employees were normally using the county road entrance as the closest to the Alumina Plant. INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN 'S ASSOCIATION 65 picketing directed against Pittsburgh-Des Moines Steel Company continued on April 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18 and for the most part of April 19 on each of said days. With respect to the object of the picketing, the parties stipulated that it was to "force or require" the above-named contractors "to assign the work of unloading certain construction materials from barges at the Alcoa dock, which materials were to be used by said contractors in connection with the construction project at the Alumi- num Company of America, Point Comfort, Texas plant, to individuals who are members of the International Longshoremen's Association, Independent, its constituent local unions numbers 1758 and 1763, rather than to employees of said contractors , who at the time picketing commenced had been assigned the work of unloading from barges the construction materials referred to above." With respect to the effect of the picketing which lasted from April 8 to April 19, inclusive, the parties stipulated that "some or all of the employees of the above-mentioned contractors honored the said picket lines by refusing to cross said picket . lines to the aforementioned job sites during the course of said picketing." Witnesses for the Charg- ing Parties, who testified without contradiction, left no doubt as to the effectiveness of the picketing . Thus, as a result of the picketing, craft employee's of Bellco 'Engineering stopped all work, including the unloading of the barge that was partly unloaded on April 6 by the pipefitters, for-the duration of the picketing. The picketing "cur- tailed 'all work" for the duration of the picketing of R. B. Butler, Inc., which at the time employed between 225 and 250 craftsmen. During the first 'week of picketing, all craft employees of Pittsburgh Steel, except ironworkers , refused to cross the .picket lines. . During the second week, boilermakers . and ironmakers crossed the picket lines, but as the operating engineers were still honoring the picket lines, they were unable to perform their'normal services. At Al Johnson Con- struction Company none of its 400 to 450 employees , except iron- workers, showed up for work during the 2 weeks of picketing, although ,the company at no time had engaged in any unloading operations from barges, nor had any discussion with any of the ILA representa- tives concerning this matter. The picketing continued at the Southern Minerals Road entrance until 4 p. m. on April 18 and at the county road entrance until 2 p. in. on April 19, when it was discontinued pursuant to an agreement between the Respondents and the contractors involved. This agree- ment, inter alia, provided that "all work assignments made to craft employees will be continued without change ; provided, however, that such assignments are subject to change by said contractors by' the Determination of Dispute Order issued by the National Labor Re:- 476321-58-vol. 119-6 66 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD lations Board." It further provides that the Respondents and the contractors "agree to cooperate with the National Labor Relations Board with a view toward an early setting of a 10 (k) hearing." b. Contentions of the parties The Employers and the craft unions involved in the jurisdictional dispute with the Respondents over the work assignment contend that by the above-described conduct the Respondents violated Section 8 (b) (4) (D) of the Act. The Respondents do not claim that the Employers involved in the dispute have failed or were failing to conform to an order or certifica- tion of the Board determining the bargaining representatives for the employees performing such work at any time material herein. Nor do the Respondents claim that they or either of them have now or at any time material to the charges filed herein have had any form of agreement, oral or otherwise, or any form of contractual relation- ship with any of the above-named Employers pertaining to or relat- ing to the work in dispute herein, or that any members of either of the Respondent Local Unions 1758 or 1763 worked for Alcoa or any of its contractors on its project at Point Comfort, Texas. The Re- spondents, however, do contend that they are entitled to the disputed work because by tradition and custom in the South Atlantic and gulf coast area such work has been performed by Longshoremen. In addition to the oral testimony purporting to support this conten- tion, the Respondents rely upon the ILA constitution which provides that jurisdiction of the ILA "shall include all work done directly and indirectly in connection with loading and unloading operation of all floating structures . . . whether they be conducted on docks, piers, marine warehouses, or on board vessels . . ." and upon various agree- ments between the owners and operators of seagoing vessels and barges in that area and the ILA, defining "longshore work." The Boilermakers, Ironworkers, Plumbers, and Electrical Workers local unions take the position that (1) the Employers involved in the dispute made definite and firm assignments of the work of unloading material and equipment to their employees on a craft basis in that each of the particular groups of craft employees involved was as- signed to unload material and equipment they were to work on or with, and (2) such assignments were made by the said Employers pursuant to an agreement written or otherwise with one or more of the local AFL craft unions named above. They ask, therefore, that in accordance with the recent decision of the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. in N. L. R. B. v. United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe fitting Industry of the United States and. Canada, Locals 420 and 428, AFL (Frank W. INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSOCIATION 67 Hake), 242 F. 2d 722, the Board should also make a determination that the said craft unions are entitled to the disputed work. The Employers and the craft unions further contend that as the Respondent Unions neither represent any of the employees of the contractors involved in the dispute nor have any contractual or other lawful basis upon which to predicate a demand for assignment of particular work tasks, the issue of tradition and custom in the industry with respect to unloading operations is irrelevant. They move, there- fore, to strike all of the testimony and other evidence concerning tra- dition and custom in the area in unloading ships and barges. In the alternative, and if the Board should deny the motion to strike, they ask the Board to reopen the hearing to permit them to introduce evi- dence as to custom and tradition with respect to the assignment of this work to members of the craft unions. c. Merits of the dispute It is well established that an employer is free to make work assign- ments without being subject to strike pressure of a labor organiza- tion, unless the employer is failing to conform to an order or certifica- tion of the Board, or unless the employer is bound by an agreement to assign the disputed work to the claiming union .4 There exists no such order or certification with respect to the disputed work involved herein. The Respondents, however, contend that the Employers were not free to make the work assignment to members of the craft unions, because by tradition and custom in the maritime industry members of the Respondents are entitled to this work. We find no merit in this contention and hereby grant the Employers' and the craft unions' motion to strike out evidence as to tradition and custom in the in- dustry. Where, as here, a union with no bargaining or representative status makes demands on an employer for the assignment of work to the exclusion of the employer's own employees, who are perform- ing the work, the evidence as to tradition or custom in the industry is irrelevant. The Board said in the Juneau Spruce case : We turn now to the Respondent's contention that in any event, ILWU members have a "right" to load the Company's barges because that work is "traditionally" longshore work. Inasmuch as we have found that the ILWU neither represented any of the Company's employees nor had any certification, or contractual or other lawful basis upon which to predicate a right to the assign- 4 International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union (Juneau Spruce Corpora- tion ), 82 NLRB 650, 660; Local 16, International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union (Denali-MCCray Construction Company), 118 NLRB 109; Bay Counties District Council of Carpenters, et al. (Associated Home Builders of San Francisco , Inc.), 115 NLRB 1757 ; General Drivers, Warehousemen and Helpers, Local Union No. 968, et al. (Farnsworth A Chambers Co., Inc.), 115 NLRB 617, 620. 68 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ment of these particular work tasks, we find it unnecessary to consider the so-called tradition or custom alleged with respect to such work tasks.' Accordingly, we find that the Respondents are not entitled by means proscribed by Section 8 (b) (4) (D) to force or require Bellco In- dustrial Engineering Co., Pittsburgh-Des .Moines Steel Co., Vogt & Conant Company, and Coastal Electric Co. to assign the disputed work to its members rather than to their employees who are members of craft unions. However, we are not by this action to be regarded as assigning the work in question to the members of local unions of Boilermakers, Ironworkers, Pipefitters, and Electricians. The Charging Parties and the craft unions introduced in evidence testimony and certain contracts purporting to show that the assign- ment of the disputed work to members of the craft unions had been made by the Employers pursuant to certain verbal and/or written agreements with the craft unions. They contend that for this reason the Board should make an affirmative determination that the craft unions are entitled to the disputed work. However, for the reasons set forth in the Moore Drydock Company 5 case, we will limit our determination solely to the question as to whether or not the Re- spondents have the right to demand the assignment of the disputed work to their members.' DETERMINATION OF DISPUTE Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in this case, the Board makes the following determina- tion of dispute pursuant to Section 10 (k) of the Act. 1. International Longshoremen's Association, Independent, South Atlantic and Gulf Coast District, and Locals 1758 and 1763 and their agents are not and have not been entitled, by means proscribed by Section 8 (b) (4) (D) of the Act, to force or require Bellco Indus- trial Engineering Co., Pittsburgh-Des Moines Steel Co., Vogt & Conant Company, and Coastal Electric Co. to assign the work of unloading barges at the dock of the Aluminum Company of America, Point Comfort, Texas, to members of said unions rather than to their own employees who are members of craft unions. 5 Lodge 68 of the International Association of Machinists , et al. (Moore Drydock Company), 81 NLRB 1108 ; see also Los Angeles Building and Construction Trades Council ( Westinghouse Electric Corporation ), 83 NLRB 477, 482. 6In Denali-McCray Construction Company, 118 NLRB 109 , the Board respectfully noted its disagreement with the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in the Hake case earlier cited. Although the Hake decision is consistent with views expressed in his own dissents in early 10 ( k) cases as to the obligation of the Board to make a real determination of jurisdictional disputes , Member Murdock deems himself bound by the decision of a majority of the Board not to accept the Hake decision and to adhere to established practice in the disposition of jurisdictional dispute cases. MONSANTO CHEMICAL COMPANY 69 2. Within ten (10) days from the date of this Decision and Deter- mination of Dispute, International Longshoremen's Association, In- dependent, South Atlantic and Gulf Coast District, and Locals 1758 and 1763, and their agents shall notify the Regional Director for the Sixteenth Region in writing whether or not they will refrain from forcing or requiring Bellco Industrial Engineering Co., Pittsburgh- Des Moines Steel Co., Vogt & Conant Company, and Coastal Electric Co. by means proscribed by Section 8 (b) (4) (D) of the Act, to as- sign the work in dispute to members of International Longshore- men's Association, Independent, South Atlantic and Gulf Coast Dis- trict, and Locals 1758 and 1763 rather than to employees of Bellco Industrial Engineering Co., Pittsburgh-Des Moines Steel Co., Vogt & Conant Company, and Coastal Electric Co. Monsanto Chemical Company (John F. Queeny Plant ) and Local No. 562, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 14-RC-3164. October 22,1957 DECISION AND ORDER On January 28, 1955, the Petitioner duly filed a petition under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act.' The Regional Director dismissed this petition on March 3, 1955, on the ground that it sought to sever a unit which was inappropriate for bargaining purposes. Thereafter, on April 7, 1955, the Board reinstated the pe- tition and a hearing was held before William F. Trent, hearing officer. The Board, on March 7, 1956, dismissed the above petition on the ground that the Petitioner had permitted its compliance with Section 9 (g) of the Act to lapse,' and, in January 1957, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed a proceeding instituted by the Petitioner to require the Board to decide the case on the merits 3 Thereafter, on February 8, 1957, the Petitioner filed the instant petition, seeking to sever the same classifications of employees as it had sought in the prior proceeding, from the existing plantwide unit at the Employer's Queeny plant in St. Louis, Missouri, represented by the Intervenor.' A hearing upon this petition was held before Wil- ' Case No. 14-RC-2701. 2 Monsanto Chemical Company (John F. Queeny Plant ), 115 NLRB 702. 3 Local 562, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO v. Leedom et al., 39 LRRM 2356 (D. C., D. C.). 'Local # 16, International Chemical Workers Union , AFL-CIO, herein called the Intervenor, was permitted to intervene in this proceeding on the basis of its contractual interest. 119 NLRB No. 6.