Bethlehem Steel Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 16, 1945

60 N.L.R.B. 1245 (N.L.R.B. 1945)

In the Matter of BETHLEHEM STEEL COMPANY, SHIPBUILDING DIVISION
and TECHNICAL ENGINEERS, ARCHITECTS AND DRAFTSMEN'S UNION,
LOCAL 89, AFL, AND BAY CITIES METAL TRADES COUNCIL
Case No. 20-B-1256.-Decided March 16, 1945
Brobeck, Phleger, c Harrison, by Mr. Richard Ernest, of San Fran-
cisco, Calif., for the Company.
Messrs. J. A. Johnson and Justin Vanderlaan, of Oakland, Calif.,
for Local 89.
Mr. Donald H. Frank, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon a joint petition duly filed by Technical Engineers, Architects
and Draftsmen's Union, Local 89, AFL, herein called Local 89, and
Bay Cities Metal Trades Council, herein called the Council, alleging
that a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the repre-
sentation of employees of Bethlehem Steel Company, Shipbuilding
Division, herein called the Company, the National Labor Relations
Board provided for an appropriate hearing upon due notice before
Robert E. Tillman, Trial Examiner. Said hearing was held at San
Francisco, California, on January 25, 1945. The Company and Lo-
cal 89 appeared and participated.' All parties were afforded- full
opportunity 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. All parties were afforded an opportunity to file
briefs with the Board.
1 Although the Council petitioned jointly with Local 89 , the former did not appear or
participate at the hearing
Shipwrights , Joiners , Boat Builders , \iillmen and Loftsmen , Local #1149 , affiliated with
the Council and with the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, was
served with Notice of Hearing , but did not appear or participate
60 N L It B., No. 215
1245
1246 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Bethlehem Steel Company is a Pennsylvania corporation the stock
of which is owned by Bethlehem Steel Corporation, a Delaware cor-
poration. Among its activities, the Company is engaged in the
operation of a shipyard at 20th and Illinois Streets, San Francisco,
California. This San Francisco shipyard is the only operation of
the Company involved in the instant proceeding. There the Com-
pany repairs and builds ships, including naval and cargo vessels
employed in interstate and foreign commerce. For the operation
of the yard, the Company purchases annually'supplies and materials
valued in excess of $1,000,000, more than 50 percent of which comes
to the,shipyard through channels of interstate commerce. Annually
the value of the repairs and construction of ships at this yard exceeds
$2,000,000.
The Company admits that it is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, and we so find.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Technical Engineers, Architects and Draftsmen's Union, Local 89,
affiliated with the American'Federation of Labor, is-a labor organiza-
tion admitting to membership employees of the Company.
Bay Cities Metal Trades Council is a labor organization admitting
to membership employees of the Company.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Company has refused to grant recognition to Local 89 as the
exclusive bargaining representative of certain of its employees -until
Local 89 has been certified by the Board in an appropriate unit.
A statement of a Board agent, introduced into evidei ce at the
hearing, indicates that Local 89 represents a substantial number of
employees in the unit hereinafter found approprilite.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.
2 The Field Examiner reported that Local 89 submitted 15 designation cards all of
which bore apparently genuine original signatures • that the names of all persons appear-
ing on the cards were listed on the Company's pay roll of November 15, 1944 , which con-
tained the names of 15 employees in the appropriate unit : and that the cards were dated
October and November 1944 The cards jointly designated the Council and Local 89
BETHLEHEM STEEL COMPANY
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
1247 ,
Local 89 and the Council seek a unit consisting of all employees
of the Company in the Shipwright Department of the San Francisco
yard employed as junior chainmen, senior chainmen, junior transit-
men, senior transitmen, chiefs of party, and the subsupervisors
thereof. The employees thus described are engaged in ship surveying
duties, involving the use of the transit, rod and chain, gunners' quad-
rant, and various other surveying instruments.
Prior to 1938, the Company had no centralized group of employees
engaged in surveying work. Each department in the yard had some
employees who were capable of performing the necessary surveying
and who performed that work as an incident to the regular duties
typical of their positions as shipwright, machinists, etc., in the
department to which they belonged. In that year, upon a determina-
tion by the Company that the increased ,amount of work necessitated
the employment of full-time surveying employees, and a realization
by the Company of the potentialities of the extensive use of the transit,
the Compaliy began employing full-time surveying employees whom
it placed in the Shipwright Department.3
Pursuant' to a consent cross-check 4 of all production and main-
tenance employees, excluding among others "technical engineers," the
Company and the Council 5 signed on June 25, 1941, a collective bar-
gaining contract which is still in effect.6
The Company contends that the yard's bargaining history makes the
unit sought inappropriate, and claims that this is shown by the inclu-
sion of the 8mployees involved herein in the production and main-
tenance unit covered by the above contract. Testimony of an official
of the Company at the hearing revealed that the Company interprets
the exclusion of "technical engineers" as excluding the naval architect,
the chief engineer, and the chief draftsmen, but not the employees
involved herein. We find no basis for thips interpretation. The naval
architect, chief engineer, and chief draftsmen are clearly supervisory
employees who would have been excluded as such from the production
and maintenance unit, even if the words "technical engineers" had been
omitted. We note that Appendix "A" of the contract, which provides
the wage scales for classifications of employees, does not list any of
8 The yard is divided into three divisions, Hull, Engineering, and Outfitting. The Hull
Division is divided into four departments of which one is the Shipwright Department.
4 Case No. 20-R-505.
The Council signed as representative of all the local unions affiliated with it (including
Local 89), which represented employees covered by the contract.
a The contract would not under any circumstances act as a bar to a present determina-
tion of representation, since it provides that it shall continue in operation for the duration
of the National Emergency or for a period of 2 years, whichever is longer, and has already
been in operation for over 3 iA_ years.
1248 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the classifications involved herein. The contract provides as well
that its closed-shop provisions -apply only to those employee classifi-
cations listed in Appendix "A". That the contract was not intended
to apply to these employees is substantiated by the fact that the Coun-
cil, a signatory to the contract, is a joint petitioner herein,' and that
none of the affiliates of the Council appeared at the hearing to contest
the proceeding? We are of the opinion that nothing in the bargain-
ing history of the Company demonstrates that the unit sought is not
appropriate.
The Company further contends, however, that the unit sought is
based upon the use of certain surveying instruments and that the unit
is therefore inappropriate because the use of those instruments is not
confined to these employees. The record contains, conflicting testi-
mony as to what types of surveying work were performed by the regu-
lar production and maintenance employees prior to the establishment
of the centralized group, and.how much surveying work has been per-
formed by those regular production and maintenance employees since
that time. It is clear, however, that if the transit was used at all
prior to 1938, its use was extremely limited. Moreover, while it was
established that those regular production and maintenance employees
have continued to perform some surveying work at all times since
1938, their surveying has been of a less precise nature, and any survey-
ing they have performed has always been carried on from- a base line
or series of points established by the centralized group. Recently,
with the decrease in the number of employees in the centralized group
from 15 to 11, the amount of surveying performed by the regular
employees has, of necessity, increased. We note, however, that there
are, today, no regular production and maintenance employees who
use the transit in their present operations. The record reveals that
some of the employees in the centralized groups are college engineering
graduates, while most have had at least some college engineering
courses; that the employees in the unit sought are an easily identifiable
group, since all of them are in one department, engaged in one type
of work, using the same instruments, and having their own office
and supervisor. We are of the opinion that the employees in this
centralized surveying group constitute a separate appropriate unit for
the purposes of collective bargaining.
Local 89 and the Council would include in that unit the chiefs of
party and the subsupervisors thereof. The Company agrees that these
titles serve more as _a means of providing additional wage classifi-
cations than they do as a method of signifying supervisory functions.
A representative of Shipfitters and Helpers, Lodge #9, affiliated with the Council and
with the' International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Shipfitters and Helpers- of America,
appeared and stated for the record that his organization had no interest in the unit
sought herein. ,
BETE LEHEM STEEL COMPANY 1249
Employees in the two classifications hold substantially the same posi-
tion. Both are engaged in the use of the transit as extensively as are
senior transitmen, and they enjoy the same hours and working con-
ditions. At times, they direct parties of one to three men, much as a
mechanic would direct his helpers. They have no power to hire,
discharge, or promote. They have not been instructed to recommend
such action, although they may request that a man be transferred
from one individual party to another. The Shipwright foreman does
not rely upon their recommendations. Their powers may be con-
trasted with those of their supervisor, who is directly responsible to
the Shipwright foreman, and has effective power to recommend hire,
discharge, and promotion. The title "chief of party" designates a
supervisor with substantial authority when applied to land survey-
ing, but as applied here, to work on ship construction, it is a mislead-
ing term since the parties are considerably smaller and the authority
is centralized in the supervisor of the group. We are of the opinion
that subsupervisors and chiefs of party are not supervisory employees
within our usual definition and are properly included in the unit here-
inafter found appropriate.
We find that all employees of the Company in the Shipwright De-
partment of the San Francisco yard employed as junior chainmen,
senior chainmen, junior transitmen, senior transitmen, chiefs of party,
and the subsupervisors thereof, but excluding the supervisor thereof
and all other supervisory employees with authority to hire, promote,
discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of em-
ployees, or effectively recommend such action, constitute a unit ap-
propriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
V. THE DETERMINATION OF RF.P RESENTATIVES
The Union requested that eligibility to vote in the election herein-
after directed be determined by, the pay roll of the week ending prior
to the hearing. We find no persuasive reason, however, for departure
from our usual eligibility date. We shall direct that the question
concerning representation which has arisen be resolved by an election
by secret ballot among the employees 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-
628563-45-vol 60-80
1250 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
f ions Act, and pursuant to Article . III, Section 9, of National Labor
_ Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3, 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, Shipbuilding Division , ' San Francisco, California , an elec-
tion by secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible , but not
later than sixty ( 60) days from the date of this Direction, under the
direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Twentieth
Legion, acting in this matter as agent for the National Labor' Rela-
tions Board, and subject to Article III, Sections 10 and 11, of said
Rules and Regulations, 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 the said pay -roll period be-
cause they were ill or on vacation or temporarily laid off, and includ-
ing employees in the ' armed forces of the United States who present
themselves in person at the polls ,-but excluding any who have since
quit or been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or rein-
stated prior to the date of the election , to determine whether or not
they desire to be represented by Technical Engineers, Architects and
Draftsmen 's Union, Local 89, AFL, and Bay Cities Metal Trades
Council , for the purposes of collective bargaining.