Bethlehem-Hingham Shipyard, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 16, 1943

48 N.L.R.B. 1297 (N.L.R.B. 1943)

In the Matter of BETHLEHEM-HINGHA.W SHIPYARD, INC. and AMERICAN,
FEDERATION OF LABOR
Case No. R-5024-Decided April 16, 1943
Jurisdiction : slhpbuilding industry.
Investigation and Certification of Representatives : existence of question : refusal
to accord petitioner recognition until Board had determined whether it was
entitled to bargaining rights under the Act ; contemplated expansion of opera-
tions and pendency of unfair labor practice charges, found under the circum-
stances, not to warrant withholding immediate election.
Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining : production, maintenance, and ware-
house employees at one of two shipyards of the company found appropriate
notwithstanding contention of one of the labor organizations involved that
both of the yards constituted a single appropriate unit, when among other con-
siderations, both yards were operated as separate and distinct entities, with
separate working forces ; yard in question was an emergency wartime project,
engaged in specialized program, whereas the yard excluded was a long-estab-
lished enterprise; and neither labor organization sought an election among
the employees of the excluded yard. ,
Mr. Robert E. Greene and Mr. John W. Coddaire, for the Board.
Cravath, de Gersdorff, Swaine ch Wood, by Mr. Chester A. McLain
and 211r: John Post, of New York City, for the Company.
Mr. H. S. Thatcher, of Washington, D. C., for the A. F. of L.
Grant ci Ango fj, by Mr. Sidney S. Grant, of Boston, Mass., for the
C. I. O.
Mr. Joseph E. Gubbins, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon petition duly filed by American Federation of Labor, herein
called the A. F. of L., alleging that a question affecting commerce had
arisen concerning the employees of-Bethlehem-Hingham Shipyard,
Inc., Hingham, Massachusetts, herein called the Company, the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board provided for an appropriate hearing
upon due notice before Charles E.- Persons, Trial Examiner. Said
hearing was held at Boston, Massachusetts, on March 18 and 19, 1943.
48 N L R. B, No 163
1297
1298 DECI'SION'S OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Company, the A. F. of L., and Industrial Union of, Marine and
Shipbuilding Workers of America, affiliated with the C. I. 0., herein
called the C. I. 0., appeared, participated, and were afforded full op-
portunity to be heard, to examine .and cross-examine witnesses, and
to introduce evidence bearing on the issues.' The Trial Examiner's
rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are
hereby affirmed.
The A. F. of L. and the C. I. O. filed briefs on March 26, 1943, and
the Company filed a brief on March 31, 1943, which the Board has
considered.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board snakes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Bethlehem-Hingham Shipyard, Inc., is a Delaware corporation and
a subsidiary of Bethlehem Steel Corporation. The Company was in-
corporated on January 23, 1942, for the purpose of supervising the
construction of a shipyard at Hingham, Massachusetts, for the United
States Navy Department, and of operating such shipyard in the con-
struction of destroyer escort vessels for such Department. During
the period from February 1 until December 31, 1942, the value of all
materials used by the Company in the construction of vessels was,in
excess of $14,000,000, of which 90 percent was delivered to the shipyard
from points outside the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
American Federation of Labor and Industrial Union of Marine and
Shipbuilding Workers of America, affiliated with the Congress of
Industrial Organizations, are labor organizations, each admitting to
membership employees of the Company.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The A. F. of L. has requested the Company to recognize it as the
collective bargaining agent for the Company's employees, but the Com-
I The notice of hearing provided that evidence would be received on the issue of whether
Bethlehem-Hingham Shipyard Independent Union, herein called the Independent, was a
successor to or a continuation of General Body of Employees ' Representatives under the
Plan of Employees Representation at the Fore River Yard of Bethlehem Steel Company, an
organization previously ordered disestablished by the Board See Matter of Bethlehem
Shipbuilding Corporation, Limited and Industrial Union of Marine and Shipbuilding Work-
erg of America, Local No . 5, 11 N. L. R B. 105, enf'd Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp. v.
N. L R. B., 114 F . (2d) 030 (C.,C. A. 1). At the opening of the hearing counsel for the
Independent stated that the Independent , which had been served 'with notice of the hear-
ing, did not desire to intervene in the proceeding. The Independent did not therefore par-
ticipate in the hearing , and the issue of successorship was not litigated.
BETHLEHEM-HINGHAM SHIPYARD, INC. 1299
pany' stated that it 'would not grant the request until the Board will
have determined whether the A. F. of L. was entitled to such bargain-
ing rights under the Act.
A statement prepared by the Regional Director,* introduced in evi-
dence at the hearing, indicates that the A. F. of L. represents a sub-
stantial number of employees in the unit hereinafter found to be
appropriate.2
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the
representation of employees of the Company within the meaning of
Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The parties-have stipulated to the various categories to be included
in or excluded from the appropriate unit. There is a controversy; how-
ever, in that the Company and the A. F. of L. seek a unit confined to
the Company's Hingham Yard, whereas the C. I. 0. contends that the
"Hingham Yard and the Fore River Yard of Bethlehem Steel Com-
pany, which is situated approximately 4 miles from th'e Hingham
Yard,,should together constitute a single appropriate unit.3
While there are a number of considerations which tend to support
the contention of the C. I. 0. for a single unit of both yards, such as
the fact that substantially the same officials direct, both operations,
that there is some interchange of employees, -services, and materials,
and that,an employee's service record is not deemed broken, by transfer
-between the two yards for purposes of the pension, relief, and vacation
-plans, other factors establish that the Hingham Yard, alone consti-
tutes an appropriate unit. Thus, the Hingham Yard is an emergency
.wartime project, engaged in a specialized program, whereas the Fore
.River Yard is a long-established enterprise equipped to build various
types of vessels. The two yards are operated as separate and distinct
entities, with separate working forces. Interyard transfers involve
relatively few employees; when transfers occur, the employees are ter
2 The Regional Director 's statement shows that the A . F. of L submitted 5,076 authoriza-
tion cards , most of which bore apparently genuine signatures . On the basis of a spot check
of approximately , 718 cards against the Company's pay roll of March 15, 1943, which
contained about 13 , 000 names , the Regional Director reported that about 3,888 cards bore
names on this pay roll. Cards were dated within each month between January 1942 and
February 1943. Approximately 60 percent was dated between November 1942 and Febru-
ary 1943, and approximately 20 percent was undated.
The statement also shows that the C . 1 O. submitted 862 application -for-membership
cards, all of which bear apparently genuine signatures . A spot check of these cards revealed
that approximately 517 cards bear names of persons whose names are listed on said pay
roll . The cards were dated between January 1 942 and March 1943; 80 percent of which
was dated between January and February 1943; approximately 50 cards were undated.
' Bethlehem Steel Corporation, a holding company, owns all of the issued and outstand-
ing capital stock of Bethlehem Steel Company, which operates a number of shipyards,
including the Fore River Yard. As stated above, the Company is also a subsidiary of
Bethlehem Steel Corporation.
521247-43-83
1300 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
minated at one yard and -hired as new employees by the other.4 While
transfer between the yards does not break service for purposes of pen-
sion, relief, and vacation rights, the same policy applies to transfers
between other subsidiaries of Bethlehem Steel Corporation. Finally,.
neither organization is seeking an election among the Fore River Yard
employees. We find that the Hingham Yard constitutes an appro-
priate unit.'
We find, in accordance, with the foregoing findings and the stipula-
tion of the parties, that all, production, maintenance, and warehouse
employees of Bethlehem-Bingham Shipyard, Inc., at- the shipyard
operated by it at Bingham, Massachusetts, except the following: (a)
all executives, general office and clerical employees; (b) all supervisory
employees, including foremen, assistant foremen, quartermen, and
leading men ' (not including working leaders who work with tools) ;
(c) all plant-protection employees (including guards and fire fighters)
and office janitors and janitresses; and (d) all first-aid employees,
chauffeurs of company cars and drivers of beach wagons, timekeepers,
piece-work counters, technical' engineers, surveyors, transit men, ma-0
terial expediters who are paid on a salary basis, draftsmen, rate set-
ters, and time-study men, constitute a unit appropriate 'for the pur-
poses 'of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b)
of the Act.
V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
The C. I. 0. urges that-no•election should be conducted until a dis-
position has been made of charges filed, by it alleging that the Inde-
pendent, which has not intervened in this proceeding, is a company-
dominated organization." As a general rule, we do not proceed with
'elections where there are pending charges of unfair labor practices.
In the instant case, however, we are convinced upon the present record
that the purposes of the Act will best be effectuated by conducting
an election without delay. A very substantial number of employees
have indicated their desire to bargain collectively through either the
A. F. of L. or the C. I. 0., and the A. F. of L., which initiated,the
petition, has withdrawn its charges so that an election may be ex-
pedited. To withhold ordering an election until the charges are
disposed of would entail a considerable period of delay. In the
meantime the many thousands of workers involved would be without
4 At the time of the hearing about 4 percent of the Hingham Yard employees had pre-
viously worked at the Fore River Yard, and about 5 percent of those at 'the Fore River
Yard had been employed at the Hingham Yard.
6 These facts clearly distinguish this case from Matter of Todd-Bath from Shipbuilding
Corporation and South Portland Shipbuilding Corporation and Industrial Union of Marine
and Shipbuilding Workers of America , Local 50 ( C. I. 0.), 45 N. L. R . B. 1367, relied upon
by the C. I. O.
° Case No. 1-C-2123, filed December 14, 1942. Similar charges were filed by the A. F.
of L. on November 23, 1942, but were withdrawn without prejudice on Februaiy 25, 1943.
BETHLEHEM-HINGHAM SHIPYARD, INC. 1301
an established exclusive bargaining agent. We shall therefore not
withhold directing an election because of the pendency of the charges,
filed by'the C. 1. 0.
The C. I. O. also contends that an election should be postponed until
such time as the Company's yard, which is at present in a period 'of
expansion, will have been more nearly completed. The record shows
that the Company now employs more than 50 percent of the number
expected to be employed at its yard by December 31, 1913. We do not
believe that the large number of employees who are now working for
the Company should be deprived, at the present time of their right
to bargain collectively. We shall therefore proceed with an immediate
determination of representatives.?
Since the Independent did not intervene in the proceeding, pre-
sented no evidence of representation to the Regional Director, and
expressed no desire to participate in a determination of representatives,
the Independent will not appear on the ballot.
We shall direct that the question concerning representation which
has arisen ,be resolved by an election by secret ballot among the em-
ployees in the appropriate unit who were employed during the pay-roll
period immediately preceding the date of the Direction of Election
herein, subject to the limitations and additions set forth in the
Direction.
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 9, of National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2, as amended, it is
hereby
DIREOrED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain represent-
atives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Bethlehem-
Hingham Shipyard, Inc., Hingham, Massachusetts, 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, under the direction
:tnd supervision of the Regional Director for the First Region, acting
in this matter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and
subject to Article III, Section 10, of said Rules and Regulations,
among the employees in the unit found appropriate in Section IV
above, who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately
preceding the date of this Direction, including employees who did not
work during said pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation
or, temporarily lurid off, and including employees in the armed forces
See Matter of Hughes Tool Company and United Steelworkers of America, Local Unions
1'os. 1742 and 7457, C I C , 45 \ L. R B 821 , and cases cited therein
1302 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS' BOARD
of the United States who present themselves in person at the polls,
but excluding any who have since quit or been discharged for cause,
to determine whether they desire to be represented by the American
Federation of Labor or by Industrial Union of Marine and Ship-
building Workers of America, C. I. 0., for the purposes of collective
bargaining, or by neither.