Cramp Shipbuilding Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 18, 1943

46 N.L.R.B. 1186 (N.L.R.B. 1943)

In the Matter of CRAMP SHIPBUILDING COMPANY and INDUSTRIAL
UNION OF MARINE AND SHIPBUILDING WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL
No. 42 ,
Case No. R-4678.-Decided January 18, 1943
Jurisdiction : shipbuilding industry
Investigation and Certification of Representatives : existence of question: stipu-
lation as to; election necessary.
Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining : all guards, corporals, and fire
guards, excluding the chief of plant protection, fire marshal, assistant fire
marshal and sergeants.
Drinker, Biddle, and Reath, by Mr. Leslie M. Swope and Mr. Hay-,
ward H. Coburn, of Philadelphia, Pa., for the Company.
Mr. M. H. Goldstein, of Philadelphia, Pa., for the Union.
.Mr. Robert Silagi, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon petition duly filed by the Industrial Union of Marine and
Shipbuilding Workers of America, Local No. 42, herein called the
Union, alleging that ti question affecting commerce had arisen con-
cerning the representation of employees of Cramp Shipbuilding Com-
pany, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, -herein called the Company, the
National Labor Relations Board provided for an appropriate hearing
upon due notice before Robert H. Kleeb, Trial Examiner. The hear-
ing was held at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on December 18, 1942.
The Company and the Union appeared, participated, and' were af-
forded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine
witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues.
During the hearing the Company made five motions to dismiss the
petition on which the Trial Examiner reserved ruling. The Company
first moved to dismiss on the ground that the Board lacked jurisdic-
tion over guards and fire guards whom it claimed were representatives
of management and not employees within the meaning of the National
Labor Relations Act. We have often considered this argument and
held otherwise; 1 accordingly the motion is hereby denied. With re-
1 See Matter of Yellow Truck & Coach Mtg Co and'United Oigamzeition of Plant Protec-
tion Employees, 39 N L R B 14.
46 N. L R B, No 144.
1186 -
CRAMP SHIPBUILDING COMPANY 1187
spect to the guards a motion to dismiss was made because'as members
of the United States Coast Guard Reserve Police they are not em-
ployees within the meaning of the Act., The motion is hereby denied.2
A third motion to 'dismiss was made on the ground that the issues
raised are res judicata. In a prior decisions we excluded guards from
the production and maintenance unit. Since we did not at.that time
have before us for consideration' the question of whether or not the
group of employees whom the Union now seeks to represent constituted
a separate unit appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining, our
prior decision cannot be regarded as having determined the issue pre-
sented by the petition in this proceeding. The motion is therefore
denied. The fourth motion seeks dismissal on the ground that the
Union lacks capacity to represent the unit claimed to be appropriate
in that it represents other groups of the Company's employees and
cannot act in a disinterested manner as bargaining agent for the
guards and fire guards. A similar contention was considered and re-
jected in a recent case involving the Company and the Union .4 The
motion is accordingly denied. A further motion to dismiss was made
on the ground that guards and fire guards together do not constitute
an appropriate bargaining unit. In view of our findings set forth in
Section IV, infra, this motion is denied. The Trial Examiner's rul-
ings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby,
affirmed. On December 26, 1942, the Company filed a brief which the
Board has considered.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes' the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Cramp Shipbuilding Company, a Pennsylvania corporation, main-
tains its principal office and place of business in Philadelphia, Pennsyl-
vania, where it is engaged in the construction of naval vessels for the
United States Navy and in the repair of cargo ships for the United
States Maritime Commission. During the past year a substantial;
percentage of the raw materials and supplies used by the Company
and valued in excess of $100,000 Waw shipped to the Company from
^ 2 See Matter c f Bethlehem Steel Company, Shipbuilding Division, Baltimore Yard and
Local 24, Industrial Union of Marine and-Shipbuilding-Workeis of America, C I `O', 45
N L. R B. 92.
3 Matter of Cramp Shipbuilding Company and American Federation of Labor, 37 N. L R B.
146.
4Matter of Cramp'Shipbwildang Company and Industrial Union of Marine cC Shipbuilding
Workers of America, Local 42, 46 N L R B. 115 See also Matter of Phelps Dodge
Copper Products Corp. and United Electrical, Radio i Machine Workers of America, Local
No. 441, C. 1 0, 41 N L R. B 973
i
1188 DECISIONS OF NATIONIAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
points outside' the State of Pennsylvania. During, the same period
the construction and repair work performed by the Company was
valued in excess of $100,000'-' The IC'ompany admits that it is engaged
in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The Industrial Union of Marine and Shipbuilding Workers of
America, Local No. 42, is a labor organization affiliated with the Con--
gress of Industrial Organizations, admitting to membership employees
of the Company. , ,
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The parties stipulated that on November 16, 1942, the Company
declined to recognize the Union as the exclusive bargaining repre-
sentative of the employees in\the unit petitioned for until the Union
was certified by the Board.
A statement of the, Regional Director introduced in evidence at
the hearing and a statement of the Trial Examiner made at the hear-
ing, indicate that the Union represents a substantial number of em-
ployees 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 seeks a unit comprised of all guards, including officers,
and fire guards but excluding the chief of plant protection, the fire
marshal, and the assistant fire marshal., The Company makes sev-
eral alternate contentions, the first being that a unit of both guards
and fire guards is inappropriate because the former group is a uni-
formed, semimilitary force all of whom are members of the Coast
Guard Reserve, whereas the latter group has none of-those charac-
The representation showing of the Union may be summarized as follows.
Employees
in unit
Cards sub-
matted ,
Cards in
unit
Guards---------------------------------------------- 156 140 •128
Fire guards -----'--------------------- ------------------ 19• 19 •19
Corporals-------- --------------------- ---------------- 15 8 8
Sergeants ----------------- --------------------- ------ 14 4 4
Not listed----------------------- ---------------------- ---------=---- 1
Total -------------------------------------------- 204 172 159
'Includes two cards with printed signatures in each group
,CRAMP SHIPBUILDING COMPANY 1189
teristics. While this is true, both groups', are constituent parts of
a single plant protection department, they have their chief supervisory
officers in common, and,their functions are similar in that they both
protect the property of the Company from damage.° -
The Company urges that all officers with the rank of corporal. and-
higher be excluded from the unit. The Union claims that corporals,
-sergeants , and top sergeants do not, possess such supervisory duties
as to warrant their exclusion. The record indicates that the corpo-
rals do not have authority to hire or discharge, nor do they have any
power to discipline or even recommend disciplining employees. They
check on the privates in the guard force to see that they are properly
stationed at their posts and, if necessary, substitute for them and
generally engage in the same kind of plant protection as do privates.
Corporals receive 8 cents an hour more than privates. Sergeants
police the plant generally, see that privates and corporals are prop-
erly performing their functions, and keep appropriate records when
acting as desk sergeant in the guardhouse. They make note of in-
fractions of rules and derelictions of duty and report them to the
chief of plant protection with a recommendation for disciplinary
action. Sergeants may also make recommendations for promotions.
,They receive 16 cents an hour more than privates.
We find that corporals bear a relationship to privates similiar to
that existing between working leaders and production men.7 On the
basis of the evidence we shall include corporals in the appropriate
unit. We find that sergeants are supervisory employees and as such
shall exclude them.
At the hearing, the Union moved that, in the event sergeants were
excluded from the guard unit, they be included in the union of quar-
termen and leadingmen in a case then pending before the Board.,' We
do not at this time pass upon the question whether the sergeants, who
are supervisors of the plant-protection force, should be included in
the same unit with quartermen and leadingmen, supervisors of the
production and maintenance employees, since the showing of repre-
sentation made by the Union with respect to sergeants is inadequate
to warrant the holding of a separate election on their behalf.
We find that all guards, corporals, and fire guards of the Company,
but excluding the chief of plant protection, the fire marshal, the
assistant fire marshal, and the sergeants, constitute a unit appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9 (b) of the Act.
6 See Matter of Sherunn-Williams Defense Corp ., Illinois O>dnance Plant and District 50.
United Mine Workers of America, Gas , Coke d Chemical Division , 45 N. L. it. B. 46.
7 See Bethlehem Steel Co. case , supra.
8 Matter of Cramp Shipbuilding Company and Industrial Union of Marine & Shipbuilding
Workers of America , Local No. 42, 46 N. L . R. B. 115, decision dated December 18, 1942
1190 DECISIONS OF -NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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 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 Cramp Shipbuild-
ing Company, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 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 and supervi-
sion of the Regional Director for the Fourth 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 all
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
such pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation or tem-
porarily laid off, and including employees in the armed forces of the
United States who present themselves in person at the polls, but ex-
cluding those employees who have since quit or been discharged for
cause, to determine whether or not they desire to be represented by
Industrial Union of Marine and Shipbuilding Workers of America,
Local No. 42, for the purposes of collective bargaining.