Sun Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Company

In the Matter of SUN SHIPBUILDING AND DRY DOCK COMPANY and PATTERN MAKERS' LEAGUE OF NORTH AMERICA Case No. R-865.Decided August 7, 1939' Shipbuilding and Repairing Industry-Investigation of Representatives: con- troversy concerning representation of employees: employer refuses to,recognize petitioning union ; rival organizations ; prior consent election, no bar to ; con- tract, no bar to-Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargainin g: controversy as to craft or plant-wide ; doubt as to desires of craft with regard to representation ; election to determine-Election Ordered Mr. Geoffrey J. Cwnniff, for the Board. Mr. Layton M. Schoch, of Philadelphia, Pa., for the Company. Mr. J. H. Ward Hinkson and Mr. Walter M. Appleby, both of Chester,' Pa., for the S. S. E. A. Mr. Ernest Umpleby, of Schenectady, N. Y., for the P. M. L. Mr. James A. Huddy, of Philadelphia, Pa., for the P. M. A. Mr. Philip H. Van Gelder, of Camden, N. J., for the Industrial. Mr. Seymour Simon, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION STATEMENT OF THE CASE On November 23, 1937, Pattern Makers' Association of Philadel- phia and Vicinity, herein called the P. M. A., filed with the Regional Director for the Fourth Region (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania), a petition alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen con- cerning the representation of employees of Sun Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Company, Chester, Pennsylvania, herein called the Com- pany, and requesting an investigation and certification of represent- atives pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. On May 11, 1938, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, acting pursu- ant to Section 9 (c) of the Act and Article III, Section 3, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 1, as amended, ordered an investigation and authorized the Regional 14 N. L. R. B., No. 23. 292 SUN SHIPBUILDING AND DRY DOCK COMPANY - 293 .Director to conduct it and to provide for an appropriate hearing upon due notice. On June 7, 1938, the Regional Director issued a notice of hearing, ccopies of which were duly served upon the Company, upon the Pat- tern Makers' League of North America, herein called the P. M. L., upon the Sun Ship Employees' Association, Inc., herein called the S. S. E. A., and upon the Industrial Union of Marine and Ship Build- ing Workers of America, herein called the Industrial, the latter two being labor organizations claiming to represent employees directly affected by the investigation. Pursuant to the notice, a hearing was held on June 23 and 24, 1938, at Chester, Pennsylvania, before Law- rence J. Kosters, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Board. A motion of the Industrial to intervene in order to protect the inter- ests of its members who were employees of the Company was allowed by the Trial Examiner. The Board, the Company, the P. M. A., the P. M. L., the S. S. E. A., and the Industrial were represented by -counsel or officers and participated in the hearing. Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to intro- duce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded all parties. During the ,course of the hearing the Trial- Examiner made several rulings on motions and on objections to the admission of evidence. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed. The rulings are hereby .affirmed. On August 23, 1938, and on July 18, 1939, after.due notice to all 'parties, oral argument was had before the Board in Washington,,D. -C. The-S. S. E. A., the P. M. A., and the Industrial were represented by counsel or by their officers and participated in.' the oral arguments. The S. S. E. A. and the Industrial filed briefs which have been con- sidered by the Board. 'In its brief,' the Industrial included a motion for dismissal of the petition. The motion-is hereby denied. Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY The Sun Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Company is a Pennsylvania -corporation with its principal place of business in the city of Chester, Pennsylvania, and is engaged in the construction and repair of ships, engines and parts, and refinery equipment. The raw materials used -by the Company consist principally of steel, iron, brass, lumber, paints, and oils. The, Company obtains approximately 10 per cent of its raw materials from outside Pennsylvania. - The finished products of. the Company during 1937, consisting prin- ccipally of ships, were valued at $10,000,000. Approximately 75 per 294 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD cent of the ships go to States other than Pennsylvania and to foreign countries. The Company employs approximately 4,100 persons. II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED Pattern Makers' Association of Philadelphia and Vicinity, a labor organization, is a branch of the Pattern Makers' League of North America, which consists of pattern makers' associations throughout the United States. The League, in turn, is affiliated with the American Federation of Labor. Only journeymen pattern makers and appren- tices who have qualified and served an apprenticeship of pattern mak- ing for 1 year are eligible for membership in the Association. The Sun Ship Employees' Association, Inc., is an unaffiliated labor organization, admitting to its membership all hourly paid employees of the Company except guards, draftsmen, and foremen. Industrial Union of Marine and Shipbuilding Workers of America is a labor organization affiliated with the Committee for Industrial Organization, admitting to its membership all employees of the Com- pany paid on an hourly basis.except guards, watchmen, draftsmen, office clerks, and certain supervisory employees. III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION On March 19, 1937, there was held under the direction of the Re- ,gional Director for the Fourth Region a consent election, in which the S. S. E. A. and the Industrial participated, among the hourly and piece-work employees of the Company, excluding draftsmen and guards. On March 22,1937, the Regional Director by letter informed the parties that out of the 3,853 ballots cast in the consent election, 2,398 had been cast for the S. S. E. A. and 1,412 for the Industrial. Shortly thereafter the Company and the S. S. E. A. entered into nego- tiations and reached an oral understanding with respect to wages and other conditions of employment applicable to all hourly workers, in- cluding pattern makers. The parties thereafter agreed from time to time upon changes in the terms of the understanding and the Com- pany posted signed bulletins setting forth the changes. On November 22, 1931, the P. M. A. stated in a letter to the Company that it repre- sented a majority of the employees in the pattern department and that it desired to discuss matters concerning conditions of employment in that department. On the following day the P. M. A. filed its peti- tion with the Board. Thereafter, the S. S. E. A. informed the Com- pany that 75 per cent or more of the employees in the pattern shop had signed cards stating that they wished to be represented by the S. S. E. A. On December 31, 1937, the Company and the S. S. E. A. SUN SHIPBUILDING AND DRY DOCK COMPANY 295 entered into a written contract with the Company in which the S. S. E. A. was recognized as exclusive representative of all workers of the Company employed upon an hourly or piece-work basis and which contained numerous provisions concerning wages, hours, and other conditions of employment. The agreement provided that it should be operative for a term of 1 year, and should thereafter remain in force and effect until terminated by either party giving to the other 60 days' written notice of an intention to terminate. On January 3, 1938, the P. Al. L. sent a letter to the Company, stating that it represented a majority of the pattern makers employed by the Company and asking the Company to bargain with it as such representative. At the hearing, the Company's representative stated that the Company refused to bargain with the P. M. A. following the letter of. January 3 because of the consent election held on March 19, 1937, and the written agreement of December 31, 1937, with the S. S. E. A. Under the circumstances and in view of the position, hereinafter .stated, taken by the S. S. E. A. of not objecting to an election among ,the pattern makers, neither the consent election nor the aforesaid agreement constitute any bar to any investigation or certification of representatives by the Board at this time. We find that a question has arisen concerning the representation of employees of the Company. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION UPON COMMERCE We find that the question concerning representation which, has arisen, occurring in connection with the operations of the Company described in Section I above, has a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and tends to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT The P. M. A. claims that the pattern makers and pattern makers' apprentices constitute an appropriate bargaining unit. It would ex- clude from such unit the handy men, timekeepers, helpers, and car- penters employed in the pattern shop. In connection with its claim, the P. M. A. points out that it is a long established labor organization admitting to its membership only the employees of the Company which it claims constitute an appropriate unit. It states, moreover, that the pattern makers and apprentices constitute a special, skilled group with interests differing from' those of other employees of the Company. 190935-40-vol. 14-20 296 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The S. S. E. A. and the Industrial claimed at the hearing that the pattern makers and pattern makers' apprentices should not be estab- lished as a separate bargaining unit, but should be grouped together with the other employees as regards collective bargaining. They stated that there is no past bargaining history in the plant which would indicate the appropriateness of separate bargaining for the group covered by the claim of the P. M. A. The reccrd shows as regards bargaining history at the plant that from about 1919 to 1925 or 1929 the Company dealt with a committee composed of various groups affiliated with the A. F. of L. relative to grievances, but it is not clear as to whether the pattern makers were represented upon the committee. The record also shows that a considerable number of pattern makers participated in the consent election of March 19, 1937. The Industrial and the S. S. E. A. also contended that the interests of the pattern makers are allied with those of the other employees of the Company and that they may be effectively bargained for together with the other employees. The P. M. A. submitted in evidence at the hearing membership cards, signed by 24 of the approximately 29 employees within the unit which it claimed as appropriate. Many of these cards were signed in the spring of 1937 or prior thereto. The S. S. E. A. intro- duced in evidence membership cards signed by a majority of the pat- tern makers in November and December 1937 and a petition desig- nating the S. S. E. A. as bargaining representative, signed by a majority of the pattern makers a few days before the hearing. A large number of pattern makers testified at the hearing that they desired to be represented by the S. S. E. A. The testimony of a number of them indicated, however, that they considered themselves as still retaining their membership in the P. M. A. The Industrial submitted no evidence and made no claim as. to membership among the pattern makers. Under the circumstances, we conclude that doubt exists as to the desires of the pattern makers with regard to representation for the purposes of collective bargaining. At the oral argument held before the Board on July 18, 1.937, J. H. Hinkson, representing the S. S. E. A., stated that the S. S. E. A. had no objection to an election among the pattern makers to deter- mine their desires with respect to representation and to the estab- lishment of a separate unit if a majority of the pattern makers indi- cated at an election that such was their desire. We have indicated above that the S. S. E. A. received a large majority of the votes cast at the election held on March 19, 1937, among the hourly and piece- work employees. The Industrial adhered at the oral argument to its position that a separate unit should not be established irrespective of the desires of the craft group. It concedes, however, that it has SUN SHIPBUILDING AND DRY DOCK COMPANY 297 no membership among the pattern makers and, iii its brief,. claimed a membership of only 300 or 400 of the approximately 4,000 persons employed by the Company in its other crafts and departments. Under all the circumstances, we find that weight should not be given in this proceeding to the contentions of the Industrial with regard to the bargaining unit. We conclude that an election should be held among the pattern makers and pattern makers' apprentices of the Company to determine whether they desire to be represented by the P. M. A. or the S. S. E. A. Upon the results of this election will depend in part the determination of the appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining. If a majority of such employees choose the P. M. A., then the pattern makers and pattern makers' apprentices will consti- tute a single bargaining unit; if they choose the S. S. E. A. they will have indicated that they do not desire such a unit. However, in view of the absence of a petition by the S. S. E. A. requesting a cer- tification of representatives in the unit it here claims to be appro- priate and the want of a question concerning the representation of employees other than- the pattern makers. and pattern makers", ap- prentices, it will not be necessary, if a majority of the pattern makers and pattern makers' apprentices choose the S. S. E. A., to determine that any unit is appropriate or whether the S. S. E. A. has been designated by a majority of the employees in a unit? Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : CONCLusION Or LAW A question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the repre- sentation of employees of Sun Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Com- pany, Chester, Pennsylvania, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act. 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 8, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2, it is hereby DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation ordered by the Board to ascertain representatives for collective bargaining with Sun Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Company, Chester, Pennsyl- 0 1 See Matter of Reading Transportation Company and Amalgamated Association of Street, Electric Railway, and Motor Coach Employees of America, 10 N. L. R. B. 15. . 298 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD vania, an election by secret ballot be conducted within fifteen (15) days from the date of this Direction, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Fourth Region, acting in this matter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject to Article III, Section 9, of said Rules and Regulations, among all the pattern makers and pattern makers' apprentices em- ployed by the Company during the pay-roll period next preceding the date of this Direction, to determine whether they desire to be represented by Pattern Makers' Association of Philadelphia and Vicinity or by Sun Ship Employees' Association, Inc., for purposes of collective bargaining. 0 MR. WILLIAM M. LEISERSON took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Direction of Election.