J. G. White Engineering Corp.

In the Matter of J. G. WHITE ENGINEERING CORPORATION of NEW YORK AND LOUISIANA SHIPYARDS, INC. and INTERNATIONAL FEDERA- TION OF TECHNICAL ENGINEERS, ARCHITECTS AND DRAFTSMEN'S UNIONS, LOCAL 91, AFFILIATED WITH THE A. F. OF L. Case No. R40630.Decided August 9, 1941 Jurisdiction : shipyard construction industry. Investigation and Certification of Representatives : existence of question: both Companies refused to recognize or negotiate with the union because each contended that the other Company was the employer of the employees in question ; election necessary. Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining : all employees of the Companies working under the supervision of a sub-contracting company, including the chief field inspector, inspector engineers, the sewerage engineers, the chief inspector, inspectors, inspector helpers, instrument men, levelmen, rodmen, chairmen, the field progress engineer, an engineer, the chief designing engineer, designers, electrical engineers, draftsmen, a tracer and a progress engineer, excluding the office and clerical force, timekeepers, material checkers, the resident manager, the resident engineer, and the navy consultant. Definitions : non-profit corporation having contract to build shipyard and sub- contractor engaged to do the work held to be employers of employees hired and supervised by the subcontractor. Mr. Walter Carroll, of New Orleans, La., for the Companies. Mr. Albert Sharp Williams, of New Orleans, La., for the Union. Mr. Ralph S. Clifford, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION STATEMENT OF THE CASE On May 31, 1941, International Federation of Technical Engineers, Architects, and Draftsmen's Unions, Local 91, affiliated with the A. F. of L., herein called the Union, filed with the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region (New Orleans, Louisiana) a petition alleging that a question affecting commerce had, arisen concerning the repre- sentation of employees of J. G. White Engineering Corporation of New York, and Louisiana Shipyards Inc., New Orleans, Louisiana, herein called the Companies, and requesting an investigation and certification of representatives pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the Na- 34 N L. R. B., No. 10. 83 84 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD tional Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. On June 4, 1941, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, acting pursuant to Section, 9 (c) of the Act, and Article III, Section 3, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regula- tions-Series 2, as amended, ordered an investigation and authorized the Regional Director to conduct it and to provide for an appropriate hearing upon due notice. On June 6, 1941, the Regional Director issued a notice of hearing, copies of which were duly served upon the Companies and the Union. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on June 13, 1941, at New Or- leans, Louisiana, before C. Paul Barker, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The Companies and the Union were represented and participated in the hearing. Full oppor- tunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence -bearing on the issues was afforded all parties. During the hearing the Trial Examiner made 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. Pursuant to leave granted by the Board, a brief was filed on behalf of the Com- panies on June 26, 1941, and by the Union on June 30, 1941. The Union also filed a reply brief on July 1, 1941. The Board has con- sidered the briefs so filed. Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE COMPANIES A. The business of the Companies The J. G. White Engineering Corporation of New York, herein called the White Company, is a Delaware corporation , having its principal offices in New York City, and is engaged in general engi- neering and construction work throughout the United States and is engaged in designing , engineering, and supervising construction for a shipyard at New Orleans, Louisiana," under contract with Louisiana Shipyards, Inc., herein called the Louisiana Company. The Louisiana Company, a non-profit corporation , having its only business offices in New Orleans , Louisiana , was incorporated in Decem- ber 1940, for the purpose of building a shipyard under contract with the United States Maritime Commission. The Companies do not deny jurisdiction of the Board. i This proceeding is concerned only with employees of the J. G. White Engineering Cor- poration employed in New Orleans, Louisiana. J., G. WHITE ENGINEERING COMPANY 85 B. The relationship between the Companies The Louisiana Company has a contract with the United States Maritime Commission to build a shipyard at New Orleans, Louisiana, and has a sub-contract with the White Company by the terms of which the White Company is to do the designing, engineering, and supervising of construction for the shipyard. Under the terms of the sub-contract, which purports to be an agency contract, a fee of $150,000 plus costs is to be paid to the White Com- pany. The Louisiana Company provides the funds for the pay roll and for petty cash needed. The White Company purchases the materials needed for the Louisiana Company's account as agent. The invoices are received by the White Company and forwarded to the Louisiana Company's auditor for payment. The employees are hired and supervised by the White Company. The employees are paid from funds advanced by the Louisiana Company and the signature on the checks is "Louisiana Shipyards, Inc., the J. G. White Engineering Corporation, Agent." The 'chief accountant and resident manager of the White Company sign and countersign the checks. The Louisi- ana Company retains the right to indicate persons it does not wish employed and employees it wishes discharged, and the right to approve rates fixed and the number of employees hired by the White Company. We find that J. G. White Engineering Corporation of New York and Louisiana Shipyards, Inc., are each an employer of the 'employees involved in this proceeding within the meaning of Section 2 (2) of the Act 2 II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED The International Federation of Technical Engineers, Architects, and Draftsmen's Unions, Local 91, affiliated with the American Fed- eration of Labor, is a labor organization admitting to membership employees of the Companies. III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION Both Companies refused to recognize or negotiate with the Union because each contended that the other Company was the employer of the employees in question. At the hearing the Union submitted evidence of substantial repre- sentation in the unit hereinafter found to be appropriate 3 - 2 "The term `employer' Includes any person acting in the interest of an employer, directly or indirectly * * •." 2 At the hearing the Union submitted 33 application cards and a list of 6 applicants, with the statement that the cards of the 6 applicants were in the possession of the secre- tary of the Union who was out of the city. The Trial Examiner reported that 32 of the signatures on the submitted cards appeared to be genuine and original and appeared on the Company's pay roll of June 11, 1941. The record shows that the unit hereinafter found to be appropriate includes approximately 70 employees. 451269-42-vol. 34-7 86 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD We find that a question has arisen concerning the representation of employees of the Companies. 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 Companies 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 Union contends that all employees of the Companies working under the supervision of the White Company, including the chief field engineer, inspector engineers, the sewerage engineer, the chief inspector, inspectors, inspector helpers, instrument men, levelmen, rodmen, chainmen, the field progress engineer, an engineer, the chief designing engineer, designers, electrical engineers, draftsmen, a tracer, and a progress engineer, excluding the office and clerical force,4 time- keepers, material checkers, the -resident manager, the resident engi- neer, and the navy consultant, constitute an appropriate unit. The Companies contend that the proposed unit is inappropriate, and that engineers,5 the chief inspector and inspectors, instrument men, and draftsmen should not be grouped with levelmen, rodmen, chainmen, inspectors' helpers, and tracers, because skilled technical employees should not be grouped with unskilled labor. The Companies further contend that should the Board conclude that it should not, by order, eliminate skilled technical men from the bargaining unit, it should allow this group, by a separate election, to decide for themselves whether they should be in the proposed bargaining unit. The record discloses that engineers, often work as inspectors, instru- ment men, and draftsmen. They make plans, lay out jobs, and deter- mine specifications. The inspectors inspect material, check the prog- ress being made, and often supervise such activities as cement mixing and sewer building. The various classes of employees often work to- gether as a party. A party often includes an instrument man who has charge of the instruments, a chainman who runs the chain, a levelman who handles the level, and a rodman who handles the rod. The sal- * The record discloses that the office and clerical force Includes clerks, stenographers, typists, office boys, an accountant , and a bookkeeper. r The Companies contend that engineers Include the chief engineer , the inspector engi- neer, the sewerage engineer , progress engineers, the chief designing engineer, designers, and electrical engineers. J. G. WHITE ENGINEERING C'OMPAN'Y 87 aries of the engineers range from $200 to $375 per month. The in- spectors' salaries range from $200 to $250,per month. The chief in- spector's salary is $350 per month. Instrument men receive $216.66 per month. Draftsmen receive from $200 to $300 per month. Levelmen receive $150 per month. Chainmen and rodmen receive $125 per month. It is clear that the above employees are functionally and in their interests closely related. The record discloses that a substantial number of the employees whom the Companies wish excluded from the appropriate unit are members or applicants for membership in the Union. We find that all employees of the Companies working under the supervision of the J. G. White Engineering Corporation of New York, including the chief field engineer, inspector engineers, the sewerage engineer, the chief inspector, inspectors, inspector helpers, instrument men, levelmen, rodmen, chainmen, the field progress en- gineer, an engineer, the chief designing engineer, designers, electrical engineers, draftsmen, a tracer, and a progress engineer, excluding the office and clerical force, timekeepers, material checkers, the resident engineer, and the navy consultant, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining, and that said unit will insure to employees of the Company the full benefit of their right to self- organization and to collective bargaining and otherwise effectuate the policies of the Act. VI. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES We find that the question which has arisen concerning the repre- sentation of employees of the Companies can best be resolved by means of an election by secret ballot. We shall direct that such an election be held. In accordance with our usual practice, we shall direct that all employees of the Companies in the appropriate unit who were employed during the payroll period immediately preceding the date of this Direction of Election, subject to such limitations and additions as are set forth in the Direction ,6 shall be eligible to vote. Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : CONCLusIONS OF LAW 1. A question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the repre- sentation of employees of the J. G. White Engineering Corporation Among the limitations noted In the Direction is the provision that temporary employees shall be excluded from participation in the election . The record discloses that the Com- panies have hired an undetermined number of college students to work during the summer. The Union contends these employees should not be allowed to vote. The provision In our Direction excluding temporary employees from participation in the election shall be construed to cover and exclude from participation in the election only such student workers. 11 88 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD of New York and Louisiana Shipyards, Inc., in New Orleans, Louisi- ana, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act. 2. All employees of the Companies working under the supervision of the J. G. White Engineering Corporation of New York, including the chief field engineer, inspector engineers, the sewerage engineers, the chief inspector, inspectors, inspector helpers, instrument men, levelmen, rodmen, chainmen, the field progress engineer, an engineer, the chief designing engineer, designers, electrical engineers, drafts- men, a tracer and a progress engineer, excluding the office and'clerical force, timekeepers, material checkers, the resident manager, the resi- dent engineer, and the navy consultant, constitute' a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Sec- tion 9 (b) of the National Labor Relation 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 Re- lations Act, and pursuant to Article, III, Section 8, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2, as amended, it is hereby DutxcmD that, as part of the investigation authorized by the Board to ascertain representatives for the purpose of collective bargaining with J. G. White Engineering Corporation of New York and Louisi- ana Shipyards, Inc., New Orleans, Louisiana, an election by secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than thirty (30) days from the date of this Direction of Election, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Fifteenth Region, acting in this matter as agent for the National Labor Rela- tions Board, and subject to Article III, Section 9, of said Rules and regulations, among all employees of the Companies working under the supervision of the White Company, who were employed during the payroll period immediately preceding the date of this Direction df Election, including the chief field engineer, inspector engineers, the sewerage engineer, the chief inspector, inspectors, inspector helpers, instrument men, levelmen, rodmen, chainmen, the field progress en- gineer, an engineer, the chief designing engineer, designers, electrical engineers, draftsmen, a tracer, and a progress engineer, employees who did not work during such pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation or in the active military service or training of the United States, or temporarily laid off, but excluding the office and clerical force, timekeepers, material checkers, the resident manager, the resi- J. G. WHITE ENGINEERING CORPORATION 89 dent engineer, the navy consultant, temporary employees, and em- ployees who have since quit or been discharged for cause, to de- termine whether or not they desire to be represented by International Federation of Technical Engineers, Architects, and Draftsmen's Union, Local 91, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, for the purposes of collective bargaining.