Bethlehem Steel Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 22, 1943

50 N.L.R.B. 790 (N.L.R.B. 1943)

In the Matter of BETHLEHEM STEEL COMPANY, STATEN ISLAND YARN
and INDUSTRIAL UNION MARINE & SHIPBUILDING WORKERS OF
AMERICA, LOCAL 12, CIO \ I
Case No. R-5357.-Decided June 922, 194F3
Mr. Edward E. Kirwan, of New York City, Mr. James C. Phelps, of!
Bethlehem, Pa., and Messrs. William F. Barwick and Herbert Unger,
both of Staten Island, N. Y., for the Company.
Mr. Samuel L. Rothbard by Mr. Clarence Talisman, of Newark,
N. J., Messrs. Michael E. Shapiro, and Reginald P. Bigness, both of
Staten Island, N. Y., for the Union.
Mr. Glenn L. Moller, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a petition duly filed by Industrial Union, Marine & Ship-
building Workers of America; Local 12, CIO, herein called the Union,
alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the
representation of employees of Bethlehem Steel Company, Staten
Island Yard, Staten Island, New York, herein called the Company,
the National Labor Relations Board provided for an appropriate
hearing upon due notice before Richard J. Hickey, Trial Examiner.
Said hearing was held' at New York City, on May 13, 1943. The Com-
pany and the Union appeared, participated, and were afforded full
opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and
to introduce evidence bearing on the issues. The Company moved
to dismiss the petition on the ground that the unit sought by, the,
Union is inappropriate. The motion is,denied for the ,reasons here-
inafter set forth. The Trial Examiner's rulings made at the hearing
are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. On May 20,
1943, the Company filed a brief which the Board has considered.
Upon the entire record-in the case, the Board makes the following:
50 N. L R . B., No. 109.
790
.1
BETHLEHEM STEEL COMPANY
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
791-
Bethlehem Steel Company is a Pennsylvania corporation, having
the general offices of its shipbuilding division in New York City. The
shipbuilding division of the Company's operations is engaged in re-
pairing, reconditioning, and constructing ships at its shipyard, located
at Mariners' Harbor, Staten Island, New York. This shipyard, known
as the Staten Island Yard, during the year 1942 used materials valued
in excess of $10,000,000, of which over 60 percent was shipped to said
yard from points outside the State of New York. During the same
period the Company's gross income from its work at the yard was in
excess of $20,000,000, more than 95 percent of which was in payment
for work on vessels destined for use in interstate and foreign com-
merce or for the United States Navy or the United States Maritime
Commission.
The Company admits, for the purposes of this proceeding, that it
is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor
Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
Industrial Union, Marine & Shipbuilding Workers of America,
affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, is a labor
organization admitting to membership employees of the Company.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
On or about April 17, 1943, the Union wrote to the Company, re-
questing recognition as the exclusive bargaining representative of the
employees in the unit hereinafter foundi appropriate. The Company
has refused to grant such recognition until the Union is certified bye
the Board in an appropriate unit.
A statement of the Regional Director, introduced into evidence at
the hearing, indicates that the Union represents a substantial number
of employees in the unit hereinafter found appropriate.,
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 Union contends that all fire inspectors at the Staten Island
Yard, excluding lieutenants, captains, and the chief fire inspector,
'The Regional Director reported that the Union, submitted 62 authorization cards,
51 of which bore the apparently genuine signatures of persons listed on the Company's
pay roll of April 19, 1943, which contained the names of 88 employees in the appropriate
unit.
I
792 DECISIO\S, OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATION'S BOARD
constitute an appropriate, bargaining unit. The Company contends
that the fire inspectors are representatives of management and are,
therefore, not employees within the meaning of the Act. In the
alternative the Company contends that, in any event, first-class fire
inspectors should be excluded from the unit on the ground that they
supervise second-class fire inspectors and fire watchers.
The employees in the, unit sought by the Union comprise the Fire
Department, which is under the general supervision of a fire chief.
Immediately below him in authority are 3 captains,, one in charge of
each shift. Directly in charge of the fire inspectors are-13 lieutenants.
The parties are agreed and we find, that the chief, captains, and lieu-
tenants are supervisory employees and are properly excluded from
the unit. _
There are approximately 104 fire inspectors in the Fire Department.
About 20 to 25 of them are classed as first-class inspectors while the
remainder are classed as second-class inspectors. All employees in
the department are paid on a salary basis. The functions of the Fire
'Department are the prevention of fire and the protection of Company
property and vessels being repaired at the yard from loss by' fire.
Inspectors assigned to new construction and buildings merely patrol
the areas assigned to them and keep a sharp watch for fire and condi-
tions which constitute fire hazards. They are instructed either to
order the employees responsible for the conditions to remedy them' br
to remedy the conditions themselves. Second-class fire inspectors
generally are assigned to the inspection of new work and buildings.
Repair work creates greater fire hazards than the other activities at
the yard and is, therefore, more closely inspected. Most of the first-
class inspectors are assigned to the inspection of repair jobs.
The Company contends that fire inspectors are supervisory em-
ployees and therefore not employees within the meaning of the Act
,because they are authorized to stop welders, barners or other produc-
tion workers who may be working under conditions which the fire
inspectors deem to be unsafe. However, the foremen in charge of the
production workers have copies of the same instructions given to the
fire inspectors, and the fire chief admitted at the hearing that the
inspectors' merely remind the workers of conditions which should
already have been called to their attention by their foremen. We' find
that the fire inspectors are employees within the meaning of the Act,
that they are not supervisory employees, and that they may consitute
an iappropriate bargaining unit.
First-class fire inspectors, having had more experience than the
second-class inspectors, are assigned 'principally to repair work, al-
thoubh some of them are given other duties. The lieutenants in charge
of the inspectors who are assigned to repair work, inspect each ship
upon arrival and prepare diagrams calling to the attention of the•in-
BETHLEHEM STEEL COMPANY 793
spectoi's the fire hazards which they discover. The Company has-an-
other category of employees assigned to fire prevention work on repair
jobs, formerly classified as helpers, now kno-%=n as fire watchers. They
are not part of the Fire Department, but are attached to various pro-
duction groups engaged in repair work, and are not within the unit
herein claimed to be appropriate. The fire watchers work chiefly with
welders and burners, standing beside them as they work, holding fire
extinguishers available for instant use. They are assigned to their
positions by the- fire inspectors in charge of the areas in, which they
work. Where they are placed, however, is determined by rather rigid
regulations which leave little discretion to be exercised in the matter
by the inspectors. The fire inspectors have no direct authority to hire
or discharge fire watchers, their authority being limited to the right
to report neglect or derelictions on the part of the fire watchers to
their own lieutenants, who, in turn, may take up the matter with the
supervisors of the fire watchers. - One of the Company's alternative
contentions is that first-class fire inspectors are supervisory employees
because they supervise fire watchers. In view of the facts set forth
above, we find no merit in this contention.
.The Company further contends that first-class fire inspectors are
supervisory employees,on the ground that they supervise second-class
inspectors. The distinction between first- and second-class fire inspec-
tors appears to be one, typical of skilled trades, based upon experience
rather than supervisory authority. Most of the work of the second-
class inspectors is independent of that of the first-class inspectors, con-
sisting chiefly of patrolling buildings and new construction. They are
supervised by first-class inspectors only during the few days in which
they are trained as fire inspectors. This "supervision" consist of teach-
ing rather than direction of activities. We find that the first-class fire
inspectors are not supervisory employees.
We find that all fire inspectors in the Staten Island Yard of the
Company, excluding the fire chief, captains, and lieutenants, constitute
a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
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 Elec-
tion 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 Relations
794 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS 'BOARD
Act, and'pursuant to Article III, Section 9,'of National Labor Relations
Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2, as amended, it is hereby
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representa-
tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Bethlehem Steel'
Company, Staten Island Yard, Staten Island, New York, 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 direc-
tion 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 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 pre-
ceding, 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 laid off, and including employees in the armed forces of
the United States who present themselves in person at the polls, but
excluding those employees who have since quit or been discharged for
cause, to determine whether or not they desire to be represented by
Industrial Union, Marine & Shipbuilding Workers of America, Local
12, affiliated, with the Congress of Industrial Organizations for the
purposes of collective bargaining.
n