Bath Iron Works Corp.

BATH IRON WORKS CORPORATION, ETC. 1069 RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, and upon the entire record in this case, it is recommended that the complaint be dismissed. Bath Iron Works Corporation (Hyde Windlass Company Divi- sion), Petitioner and Bath Marine Draftsmen's Association, Member of the Association of the National Council of Marine Draftsmen. Case No. 1-UC-4. September 8, 1965 DECISION AND ORDER Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hearing was held before 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. Thereafter, the Employer and the Union both filed briefs. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Fanning and Brown]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act and it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdic- tion herein. 2. The Employer-Petitioner, Bath Iron Works Corporation,' has requested clarification as to whether its contractual bargaining unit with Bath Marine Draftsmen's Association, member of the Association of the National Council of Marine Draftsmen,' should include or exclude certain employees employed by BIW's Hyde Windlass Com- pany Division .3 BIW is a Maine corporation engaged principally in shipbuilding. Since August 1940, BIW has recognized the Union as exclusive bar- gaining representative for certain of its employees. The most recent collective-bargaining agreement, effective from October 31, 1963, to April 18, 1967, covers a unit of all employees "... employed by the BIW as laboratory technicians, radiographers, draftsmen, and all others employed in the drafting and technical departments, excluding stenog- raphers, stenographic clerks, guards, engineers, and supervisors within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended . . . ." Hyde is engaged in the design and fabrication of marine deck equip- ment and various kinds of industrial equipment. On November 30, 1961, BIW purchased all of the outstanding stock of Hyde and there- 1 Hereinafter referred to as BIW. 2 Hereinafter referred to as the Union. 8 Hereinafter referred to as Hyde. 154 NLRB No. 85. 1070 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD after operated it as a wholly owned subsidiary. On January 24, 1962, pursuant to a consent election, the Board certified 4 the Union as exclu- sive bargaining representative for employees of Hyde in the following unit: "All employees of the engineering department employed at the Employer's Bath, Maine, plant, including draftsmen, material order clerks, and plan clerks, but excluding all other employees, all produc- tion and maintenance employees, all office clerical employees, profes- sional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act." Fol- lowing certification, Hyde and the Union entered into several collec- tive-bargaining agreements, the most recent of which is effective from November 15, 1963, to March 8, 1967. On September 1, 1964, during the term of this agreement, a merger was effected whereby Hyde lost its separate corporate status and became a division of BTW, which then assumed the agreement. The Union contends that the Hyde unit employees properly belong in the BIW unit because employees in both units perform essentially the same duties, and, as a result of the merger, the Hyde employees must now be considered employees of BIW. BIW contends that the merger has resulted in no change in operations; that the employees in the two units possess diverse skills and perform diverse functions. Accordingly, it would continue to recognize Hyde employees in the separate certified unit. The record discloses that there has been no significant change in Hyde's operations since the merger. Hyde is performing the same type of work as in the past and any work performed for BIW is by bid and contract, the same basis upon which Hyde does business with other customers. All management personnel have remained the same, except for the addition of a general manager who was hired by the president of Hyde. Although the Hyde and BIW properties are contiguous, each maintains its own security force, payroll, personnel office, and purchasing department. Both units are composed essentially of draftsmen. However, the Hyde employees are classified as component draftsmen, whereas the BIW employees are generally referred to as systems draftsmen. There is uncontroverted testimony in the record that BIW does not employ component draftsmen in its operations. There is no interchange between the two units and separate seniority lists are maintained. Wage increases for Hyde employees are approved by the president of Hyde. It is clear from the above that the changes in corporate reorganiza- tion have not effected such changes in the status of the employees as would require us to find that the two units have been merged. Nor are we satisfied that, on this record, we can say that only separate units are appropriate. For these reasons and because of the outstanding con- 4 Case No. 1-RC-6742. HAMMOND & IRVING, INCORPORATED 1071 tracts, we conclude that the issues raised here are not properly to be resolved at this time in this type of proceeding. Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petition.5 [The Board denied the petition to clarify the unit.] 5 At the hearing, the Union made a motion requesting the Board not to exercise jurisdic- tion in this case because of the pendency of a proceeding in the U.S. Federal District Court for Maine to determine the contractual rights of the parties. In view of our dis- position of this case, we deem it unnecessary to rule on this motion. Hammond & Irving, Incorporated and United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO. Case No. 3-CA-2321. September 9, 1965 DECISION AND ORDER On January 21, 1965, Trial Examiner John II. Eadie issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Deci- sion. He also found that the Respondent had not engaged in certain other alleged unfair labor practices. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision with a supporting brief and an addendum thereto, and the Respondent filed cross-excep- tions with a supporting brief.' Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Members Fanning, Brown, and Jenkins]. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the entire rec- ord in this case, including the Trial Examiner's Decision, the excep- tions and cross-exceptions, and the briefs and the addendum, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner to the extent consistent herewith. As more fully set forth by the Trial Examiner, on December 10, 1963, the Union, which had secured signed authorization cards from a majority of the 110 employees then in the appropriate unit, asked the Respondent for recognition as exclusive bargaining representative. 'The Respondent has requested oral argument. This request is hereby denied be- cause the record, exceptions and cross-exceptions, and briefs and the addendum, adequately present the issues and positions of the parties. 154 NLRB No. 84.