Atlantic Basin Iron Works, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 12, 1946

71 N.L.R.B. 973 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

In the Matter of ATLANric BASIN IRON WORKS, INc., EMPLOYER and
LOCAL 39, INDUSTRIAL UNION ,OF MARINE AND SHIPBUILDING WORKERS
OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER
Case No. 2-R-6982.-Decided December 1°2, 1946
Messrs. Frank B. Devlin and Albert C. Jordan, of Yonkers, N. Y.,
for the Employer.
Messrs. Edvwrd Duffy, of Brooklyn, N. Y., and Roy Granata, of
New York City, for the Petitioner.
Mr°. Ralph Winkler, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at New
York City, on October 25, 1946, before Sidney Reitman, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations
Board makes the following:
FINDIN (:S OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Atlantic Basin Iron Works, Inc., Is a New York corporation en-
gaged in the repair, equipment , and maintenance of vessels of both
domestic and foreign registry , operated In coastal and foreign com-
merce. This proceeding is concerned with the Employer 's Brooklyn
plant. In connection with its operations at the Brooklyn plant during
the fiscal year ending September 1, 1946, the Employer purchased
materials valued in excess of $1,500,000 , more than 30 percent of which
was obtained outside the State of New York.
The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
IL THE O12GANIZATION INVOLVED
The Petitioner is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress
of Industrial Organizations, claiming to represent employees of the
Employer.
71 N L R B., No. 16:3 973
974 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Employer refuses to recognize the Petitioner as the exclusive
bargaining representative of the police guards at its Brooklyn plant,
contending (1) that guards are not employees within the meaning
of the Act; and (2) that the Petitioner is estopped from seeking to
represent the, guards in view of a collective bargaining agreement
covering production and maintenance employees in which the parties
excluded these employees from the unit therein agreed upon.
The guards are not militarized or deputized. Their duties include
the protection of property against theft by employees or outsiders,
the maintenance of order and discipline, and the patrolling of en-
trances permitting only authorized personnel to enter and leave the
premises. We have already held that guards comparable to those
involved herein are employees within the meaning of the Act.1
The Employer's second contention is also without merit. In the
negotiations preceding and culminating in the afore-mentioned con-
tract the Petitioner sought, unsuccessfully, to have the guards in-
cluded within the unit. Apart from the exclusion of these employees
in the recognition clause of the contract, there was no undertaking
by the Petitioner not to seek representation for these employees.
Tinder these circumstances, we find that the Petitioner is not pre-
cluded from instituting the present proceeding.'
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Employer, within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. TIIE APPROPRIATE UNIT
There is no disagreement as to the grouping of the employees in
the proposed unit. Accordingly, we find that all police guards em-
ployed at the Employer's Brooklyn plant, but excluding all supervi-
sory employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline,
or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or effec-
tively recommend such action, constitute a unit appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b)
of the Act.
1 Matter of Monsanto Chemical Company, 71 N. L R B. 11. See, also, the cases cited in
footnote '2, below
Matter of Florence Stove Company , 67 N. L. it. B 146 ; Matter of Granite City Steel
Company, 67 N L R B 1185, Matter of The American Biass Company, 66 N. L. R B.
1199, Matter of Chrysler Motors of California, 65 N L R B. 893, 895 , Matter of Craig
Shipbuilding Company, 65 N. L It B 97; Matter of Jones R Laughlin Steel Corporation,
66 N I, R B 3S6 Cf Matter of Briggs Indiana Corporation , 63 N. L . R. B 1270.
ATLANTIC BASIN IRON WORKS, INC.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
975
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
purposes of collective bargaining with Atlantic Basin Iron Works,
Inc., Brooklyn, New York, an election by secret ballot shall be con-
ducted as early as possible, but not later than thirty (30) days from
the date of this Direction, under the ,direction and supervision of the
Regional Director for the Second Region, acting in this matter as
agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and subject to Sections
203.55 and 203.56, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and
Regulations-Series 4, among the employees in the unit found ap-
propriate in Section IV, above, who were employed during the pay-
roll period immediately preceding the date of this Direction, includ-
ing employees who did not work during said pay-roll period because
they were ill or on vacation or temporarily laid off, and including em-
ployees in the armed forces of the United States who present them-
selves in person at the polls, but excluding those employees who have
since quit or been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or
reinstated prior to the date of the election, to determine whether or
not they desire to be represented by Local 39, Industrial Union of
Marine and Shipbuilding Workers of America, CIO, for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining.
Ma. JAMES J. REYNOLDS, JR., dissenting :
For the reasons stated in my dissenting opinion in the Monsanto
Chemical Coinpany case,' which I find equally applicable here, I
would dismiss the present petition.
3 71 N L R. B 11.
717734-47-vo] 71-63