Bradley Transportation Line

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 17, 1962

137 N.L.R.B. 1372 (N.L.R.B. 1962)

13 7 2 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
SCHEDULE F
SIX REPLACEMENTS HIRED AFTER THE ELIGIBILITY DATE BUT PRIOR
TO THE ELECTION
Bradshaw, Leo
Haibel, Rosalyn
Keys, William Wilkinson, Robert
Summers, Roger D. Willis, Elwood
SCHEDULE G
SEVENTEEN REPLACEMENTS
Alixopulos, Hedrick
Alper, Craig
Cole, Bernice
Cox, Casey
Crabb, Ronald
Duray, Paul
Garcia, George
Keys, Linda
Leibrock, Sylvia
Baker, Cecil
ALLEGEDLY NOT PERMANENT
Maun, Joy
Morriss, Leslie
Owens, Tom
Reynolds, John
Sears, Richard
Smith, James
Vander Meulen, Richard
Young, Justine
SCHEDULE H
Two TERMINATED EMPLOYEES
Murphy, William
SCHEDULE I
THREE EMPLOYEES ASSIGNED TO UNIT WORK
Ingalls, Richard Maxey, James Toothman, Mary
Bradley Transportation Line , Michigan Limestone Division,
United States Steel Corporation 1 and Associated Maritime
Officers Division , Marine Engineers Beneficial Association,
AFL-CIO, Petitioner . Case No. 7-RC-5243. Jidy 17, 196
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 Marie B. Poston, 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 McCulloch and Members Rodgers and Leedom].
1 The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing.
137 NLRB No. 148.
BRADLEY TRANSPORTATION LINE, ETC. 1373
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
Act.
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. Petitioner seeks to represent a unit of conveyormen aboard the
ships of the Employer. The Intervenor and the Employer contend
that the conveyormen should be included in the unit of all unlicensed
seamen aboard the Employer's ships which the Intervenor has repre-
sented since 1952. The conveyormen have been specifically excluded
from the existing and prior collective-bargaining agreements by stipu-
lation of the parties.
The Employer is engaged in the transportation of bulk commodities
by means of self-unloader vessels upon the Great Lakes. It has 8 ves-
sels, each of which is manned by approximately 11 licensed personnel
and 24 unlicensed personnel. One conveyorman and one conveyor-
man helper, both unlicensed, are also employed on each ship.
The conveyorman is primarily responsible for the repair and mainte-
nance of conveyor belts and other machinery used to load and un-
load the bulk goods from the ship. He spends at least 90 percent of
his time doing manual labor and is assisted by a conveyorman helper,
who is a member of the bargaining unit. It is clear, however, that
although the conveyorman directs the helper, their relationship is
merely that of a more skilled to a less skilled employee' Further,
although the conveyorman is a salaried employee and receives con-
siderably more than the other unlicensed personnel who are paid an
hourly wage, he works in the same area as the other unlicensed per-
sonnel, is occasionally assigned tasks otherwise performed by some of
these personnel, and receives the same benefit and privileges granted
the other unlicensed seamen. All unlicensed seamen, including the
conveyormen, are supervised by the chief engineer. Evidence sub-
mitted at the hearing shows that on most ships engaged in the type of
transportation here involved, the conveyormen are included in con-
tract units of unlicensed seamen.
From all the above, we find that the conveyormen do not possess
any recognized craft or technical skills or that they constitute a func-
tionally distinct departmental group. However, as the Board has
2 District 50, United Aline Workers of America, Ind, inteivened on the basis of a con-
tract interest.
3At the hearing, neither the Employer nor the Intervenor asserted any contract bar to
the petition The petition herein was filed on March 16, 1962, subsequent to the second
anniversary date of the present contract which commenced on February 22, 1960, and
expires on December 31, 1962.
4 The Employer made no contention at the hearing that the conveyormen are supervisors.
1374 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
held that a unit of all unlicensed seagoing employees is appropriate,'
and as the conveyormen appear to be the only remaining unrepresented
group of unlicensed employees aboard the Employer's ships, having
been excluded from the existing unit by agreement of the parties, we
find that the conveyormen may constitute an appropriate residual unit,
or may be appropriately added to the existing unit. Accordingly, we
will make no final unit determination at this time but will direct a
self-determination election in the following voting group :
All conveyormen employed on all self-unloaded vessels of the
Bradley Transportation Line, Rogers City, Michigan, excluding
all other employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
If a majority of the employees in the voting group vote for MEBA,
they will be taken to have indicated their desire to constitute a separate
appropriate unit, and the Regional Director is instructed to issue a
certification of representatives for MEBA for such unit, which the
Board under the circumstances finds appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining. If a majority of the employees in the voting
group vote for District 50, UMW, they will be taken to have expressed
their desire to become part of District 50's present unit of unlicensed
seamen, and District 50 may bargain for them as part of such unit. If
a majority of the employees in the group vote for neither, they will be
deemed to have expressed their desire to remain unrepresented.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
s Pacific Maritime Association and Its Member Companies , 110 NLRB 1647.
Ideal Laundry and Dry Cleaning Co. and Dry Cleaning and
Laundry Workers Local Union Number 304, Dry Cleaning
and Dye House Workers International Union , Petitioner.
Case No. 27-RC-208f. July 17, 1962
RULING ON REQUEST FOR REVIEW
On June 21, 1961, the Regional Director issued a Decision and Di-
rection of Election in the above-entitled proceeding [not published
in NLRB volumes] in which he found appropriate a unit of produc-
tion and maintenance employees, excluding, inter ialia, salaried and
commission drivers. In accordance with the Board's Rules and Regu-
lations, Series 8, the Employer filed a timely request for review, con-
tending that the unit should also embrace office clerical employees and
truckdrivers. The Board, by telegraphic order dated July 17, 1961,
denied the request for review and directed that the unit description
137 NLRB No. 147. 1