Bethlehem Steel Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 11, 1952

97 N.L.R.B. 1591 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

BETHLEHEM STEEL COMPANY 1591
2. All production and maintenance employees at the Fort Edward, New York,
plant, including tallymen, lumber handlers, lift operators, and truck drivers
and helpers, excluding office and clerical employees, lumber graders, watchmen,
guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate
for the purpose of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b)
of the Act.
3. United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL, was, on
or about Marcli 7, 1950, and at all times since has been the exclusive repre-
sentative within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act, of all employees
in the aforesaid unit for the purposes of collective bargaining. -
4. By refusing to bargain collectively with United Brotherhood of Carpen-
ters and Joiners of America, AFL, as the exclusive bargaining representative
of the employees in the appropriate unit, Charles R. Krimm Lumber Company
has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning
of Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act.
5. By such refusal to bargain and by interrogating, warning, and threaten-
ing its employees concerning their union affiliation, and offering, promising,
and granting them wage increases, thereby interfering with, restraining, and
coercing its employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section.7 of the
Act, Krimm has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within
the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
6. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
7. Northern Pine Corporation is, and since September 1, 1950, has been, the
successor of Charleg R. Krimm Lumber Company at the Fort Edward, New
York, lumber plant.
8. Northern is, and since September 1, 1950, has been, responsible for remedy.
ing the unfair labor practices engaged in by Krimm.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication in this volume.]
BETHLEHEM STEEL COMPANY (SHIPBUILDING DIVISION) and PATTERN
MAKERS' ASSOCIATION OF BOSTON AND VICINITY, PATTERN MAKERS'
LEAGUE OF NORTH AMERICA, AFL, PETITIONER. Case No. 1-BC-
0514. February 11, 1952
Decision and Direction of Election
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Raymond J. Smith, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Houston and Murdock].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
Act.
97 NLRB No. 205.
1592 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section
9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner seeks to sever the patternmakers and apprentices
employed at the Employer's Quincy, Massachusetts, shipyard, from
the contract unitnow represented by International Union, Marine and
Shipbuilding Workers of America, CIO, herein called the Intervenor.'
The Intervenor opposes severance, principally on the ground that
the multiplant bargaining pattern, described below, precludes sever-
ance of any group on a single-plant basis. The Employer contends
that the proposed unit is appropriate.
The Quincy patternmakers perform the usual tasks of their craft,
making wooden patterns, or models, which are in turn used in the
casting of various metal parts. They are located in a separate pattern
shop, with their own supervisor ,2 and there is little interchange with
other departments-3 Before acquiring journeyman status, an appren-
tice patternmaker must serve a regular 4-year apprenticeship. We
find, under these circumstances, and in accordance with well estab-
lished Board principles, that the patternmakers and their apprentices
constitute a traditional craft group, which is normally given separate
representation, if its members so desire 4
There remains, however, the question whether these Quincy pattern-
makers alone constitute an appropriate unit. For many years, they
have been represented by the Intervenor as part of a multiplant unit
including all production and maintenance employees at the Employer's
eight East Coast shipyards, located at Sparrows Point and Baltimore,
Maryland; Hoboken, New Jersey; Staten Island and Brooklyn, New
York; and Boston and Quincy, Massachusetts. Of the Employer's
patternmakers at the East Coast shipyards, only those employed at
Quincy are included in the Intervenor's multiplant production and
maintenance unit. The rest, employed at the other East Coast yards,
are represented by the Petitioner, but also in a single, multiplant unit.
In view of this bargaining pattern, it is apparent that the Quincy
patternmakers alone may not form an appropriate unit.5 But if they
so desire, they may become part of the multiplant unit represented
by the Petitioner. Accordingly, we shall direct that a self-determina-
I Neither the Intervenor nor the Employer asserts that their contract bars this proceeding.
m The pattern shop supervisor also supervises the foundry.
There have been no transfers between the pattern shop and other departments for the
past year . Previously , some interchange resulted from the plant -wide seniority system
required by the Intervenor's contract.
4 Layne & Bowler, Inc, 90 NLRB 1872.
E Robert (lair Company , Inc. (Natick Box and Board Division ), 77 NLRB 649 ; Central
Foundry Company, 74 NLRB 1026.
BETHLEHEM STEEL COMPANY 1593
tion election be conducted among them, as detailed below, to determine
whether they wish to become part of the Petitioner's multiplant unit
of patternmakers, or to remain part of the Intervenor's multiplant
unit.
There is also disagreement among the parties regarding the inclu-
sion of an expediter, an instructor, and the pattern shop handyman.
Of these employees, the Petitioner would include only the instructor;
the Employer would exclude both the instructor and the expediter,
but takes no position as to the handyman; the Intervenor asserts that
all should be included.
The expediter is a journeyman patternmaker, is classified and paid
on such basis, and is assigned full time to the pattern shop. Although
the record shows that a substantial amount of his time is spent outside
the pattern shop, it appears that his skill as a journeyman pattern-
maker -is necessary to the proper performance of his duties. Accord-
ingly, we shall include him in the voting group e The instructor, like
the expediter, is a journeyman patternmaker. Approximately 10
percent of his time is spent in the instruction of apprentices; the re-
mainder is spent in making patterns. As his interests, working con-
ditions, and most of his duties are indistinguishable from those of the
other patternmakers, we shall include him in the voting group. The
record shows that the pattern shop handyman is essentially a janitor.
Although his work is limited to the pattern shop, it does not appear
that his interests and functions differ in any way from those of the
other janitors and production and maintenance employees at the ship-
yard. We see no reason for including him with the craftsmen in the
pattern shop. Accordingly, we shall exclude him from the voting
group.7
The Board will make no final unit determination until it has ascer-
tained the desire of the employees involved. We shall direct that an
election be held among the employees in the following voting group :
All patternmakers and patternmakers' apprentices employed at the
Employer's Quincy, Massachusetts, shipyard, including the instructor
and the expediter, but excluding the handyman, all supervisors as
defined in the Act, and all other employees.
If a majority vote for the Petitioner, they will be taken to have indi-
cated their desire to be added to the multiplant unit now represented
by the Petitioner.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
See Link -Belt Company, 91 NLRB 1143
' See The Babcock h Wilcox Company, 72 NLRB 1256 . We note that the multiplant unit
now represented by the Petitioner is limited to patternmakers and their apprentices, and
does not include handymen.