Global Marine Development, Inc.

GLOBAL MARINE DEVELOPMENT, INC. Global Marine Development, Inc. and International Union of Operating Engineers, Local Union No. 12, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case 31-RC-2733 January 28, 1975 DECISION ON REVIEW BY ACTING CHAIRMAN FANNING AND MEMBERS JENKINS AND KENNEDY On September 3, 1974, the Acting Regional Director for Region 31 issued a Decision and Direction of Election in the above-entitled proceed- ing wherein he directed an election in a unit of all crane operators, hoist operators, pipe handlers, heavy-duty repairmen, rig mechanics, hydraulic technicians, and electronic technicians employed by the Employer in the mining division aboard its ship, the Hughes Glomar Explorer, excluding, inter alia, utility men; he made no disposition of issues raised concerning the unit placement of welder foremen, storekeepers, and laborers, and permitted them to vote subject to challenge in the election. Thereafter, in accordance with Section 102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, the Employer filed a timely request for review of the Acting Regional Director's decision on the grounds that, in failing to exclude hoist operators and welder foremen as supervisors and failing to include utility men, storekeepers, and laborers because of their community of interest with mining division employees, he departed from preced- ent and made findings of facts which are clearly erroneous. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed opposition to the Employer's request for review and itself sought review as to the Acting Regional Director's inclusion of electronic technicians. By telegraphic order dated October 2, 1974, the Employer's request for review was granted and the election was stayed pending decision on review. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel. The Board has considered the entire record in this case with respect to the issues under review' and makes the following findings: The Employer, a California corporation, is engaged in the business of mining minerals at sea through the operations of its deep sea vessel, the Hughes Glomar Explorer here involved, which carries a crew of approximately 170 people. The marine and engineer- ing divisions are responsible for the ship's movement and maintenance , whereas the mining division is 1 The Board rejects as untimely the Petitioner's request for review as to the inclusion of the electronic technicians and in any event such request 216 NLRB No. 58 325 responsible only for the mineral exploration. The Petitioner sought to include in its requested unit of mining division employees all crane operators, hoist operators, pipe handlers, heavy-duty repairmen, rig mechanics, hydraulic technicians, welders and weld- er ' foremen and to exclude utilitymen, electronic technicians, storekeepers, and laborers. The Employ- er contended that hoist operators and welder foremen should be excluded as supervisors, and that utilitymen, electronic technicians, storekeepers, and laborers should be included on the basis of a substantial community of interest shared by them with the requested mining division employees. As indicated, the Acting Regional Director found that the hoist operators are not supervisors and that the utilitymen lacked a sufficient community of interest "to warrant their inclusion"; and he deferred resolution of the unit placement of other disputed categories of employees, permitting them to vote under challenge. Hoist operators work along with crane operators and pipe handlers in a team, whose function is laying pipe into the ocean floor for the purpose of mineral exploration. The pipe handlers hook the pipe, which is stored below deck, onto the crane which then drags the pipe along a skate up to the work deck. The hoist operator then hoists the pipe and sets it into another piece of pipe. The two pipes are then screwed together and lowered through the rig floor. The Employer's manager of operations testified that hoist operators direct crane operators, pipe handlers, and laborers with regard to the derrick operation and lay out work for them. The Petitioner contended that the hoist operators spend a majority of their time operating the equipment around the derrick and merely relay instructions to fellow workers from the mining foremen. There was disputed testimony as to the role hoist operators play in adjusting grievances, making recommendations regarding hiring, firing, and promoting other employees, and attending supervisory meetings. The hoist operators have better living quarters on board ship than crane operators and pipe handlers and are paid considerably more than employees working in the other two categories. In view of the conflicts in testimony, we have concluded that the issues raised as to the supervisory status of hoist operators can best be resolved through the challenge procedure. Accordingly, we shall permit them to vote subject to challenge. The two welder foremen lay out welding work for employees assigned to this function and direct their work, but presently there are no welders aboard ship, although there are two employees in other mining division classifications who are assigned to welding appears to raise no substantial issues warranting review. 326 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD duties on a temporary basis. On occasion, welders are flown to the ship and work under the direction of the welder foremen. The welder foremen also perform welding duties themselves. Like the Acting Regional Director, we view the record evidence insufficient to determine whether the welder foremen function as leadmen or supervisors with respect to cross-trained employees and subcontract welders, and we shall permit them to vote subject to challenge. The Employer contends that laborers are in the mining division, ranked below hoist operators, crane operators, and pipe handlers, and that they perform menial work, such as painting and cleaning up, all over the ship. The Employer further contends that the laborers are responsible to the hoist operators who give them their work assignments. A hoist operator testifying on behalf of the Petitioner stated that he had never heard of the laborer classification, never directed the work of any employee in that category, and had no idea what a laborer's function is on the ship. As the evidence is insufficient to permit us to resolve their unit placement , we agree with the Acting Regional Director that the laborers be allowed to vote subject to challenge. The storekeepers or materials men maintain inven- tory records, prepare requisition slips for new supplies, and dispense equipment and supplies needed for various ship operations including those of the mining division. They come into contact with employees in the mining division as regularly as they do any other persons on the ship. A hoist operator testified that, whenever he needs a tool, he goes to the storekeeper's office and places an order; he is then either given the tool there or the storekeeper brings it to where the hoist operator is working. When the ship is loaded with supplies, they are taken on board by the mining department cranes. As the mining division employees bring the supplies onto the ship, the storekeepers work with them checking in the new inventory. As the storekeepers spend a substantial portion of their time serving the needs of the mining division, performing a type of work which is plant clerical in nature, we find that they must be included in the unit herein.2 Utilitymen are assigned to the marine division on the ship where they perform such duties as cleaning the decks, making up bunks, doing laundry, and working in the mess halls. They are under the supervision of the chief steward, who also supervises the cooks and bakers. There is no evidence. to indicate to what extent, if any, utilitymen work with mining division employees . In the circumstances, we find that utilitymen do not share such a close community of interest with mining division employ- ees as to require their inclusion in the same unit. We therefore affirm the Acting Regional Director's decision to exclude them from the unit herein. In view of the foregoing, the unit found appropriate by the Acting Regional Director is, modified to read as follows: All crane operators, pipe handlers, heavy-duty repairmen, rig mechanics, hydraulic technicians, electronic technicians, and storekeepers employed by the Employer in the mining division aboard its ship, the Hughes Glomar Explorer; excluding all other employees, office clerical employees, utility- men, professional employees, guards, mining foremen, and all other supervisors as defined in the Act. Accordingly, this case is hereby remanded to the Regional Director for Region 31 for the purpose of holding an election pursuant to his Decision and Direction of Election, as amended herein, except that the eligibility payroll period therefor shall be that immediately preceding the date of this Decision on Review. [Excelsior footnote omitted from publica- tion.] 2 Pineville Kraft Corporation, 173 NLRB 863 (1968).