Electric Boat Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 28, 1948

80 N.L.R.B. 16 (N.L.R.B. 1948)

In the Matter of ELECTRIC BOAT COMPANY, EMPLOYER and LODGE No_
1871 OF THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS,
PETITIONER
Case No. 1-R-3897.-Decided October 28, 1948
DECISION
AND
ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before a hearing
officer of the National Labor Relations Board. The hearing officer's
rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are
hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the National Labor Relations Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent employees
of the Employer.'
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the represen-
tation of employees of the Employer, within the meaning of Section
9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act for the following
reasons:
The Petitioner seeks a unit of all machinists, their lay-out men,
riggers, inspectors, tool makers, tool grinders, crane operators, mill-
wrights, tool crib attendants and tool crib clerks, maintenance ma-
chinists, and all machinists' learners and helpers, in Departments
302, 303, 305, 307, 308, and 309 of the Employer's so-called inside
machine shop, and Departments 369 (Maintenance) and 386 (In-
spection) ; all outside machinists, their learners, helpers, and riggers
in Departments 333 and 335; all machinists, learners, helpers, and
test men in the Research Department (Department 414) and Develop-
ment Shop (Department 345) ; all test men testing machinists' work,
including those in the trial crew, in Departments 310 and 330; and all
' The Intervenor , Metal Trades Council of New London County, AFL , rests its claim on a
current contract with the Employer covering the production and maintenance employees
of the Employer generally , including the employees in the unit petitioned for. This con-
tract, however , was entered into subsequent to the filing of the petition herein, and, accord-
ingly, none of the parties urges it as a bar to this proceeding.
80 N. L. R. B., NQ. 6.
16
ELECTRIC BOAT COMPANY 17
sweepers who work in conjunction with the above-named machinists.
The Petitioner concedes, however, that it is in doubt as to its pro-
posed inclusion of certain fringe groups, and will, therefore, in a
secondary position, agree to any addition or substraction of such
groups,2 or even a division of the proposed unit into separate units.3
The Employer and the Intervenor both contend that the proposed
unit is inappropriate on the ground that only an industrial unit, in-
cluding all employees of the Employer with the usual exclusions, is
appropriate.
The unit sought is composed primarily of machinists possessing
the skills ordinarily identified with that craft,4 and includes the great
bulk of machinists employed by the Employer. However, it not only
excludes other machinists,' but at the same time includes certain
groups of riggers, inspectors, crane operators, tool crib clerks," and
sweepers whose craft status is not established by the evidence,? and
who, although they may spend large portions of their time working
with machinists, work with other trades as well. Moreover, the pro-
posed unit fails to include other groups in these non-craft classifica-
tions whose work, while done for other trades, is essentially the same
as that of the groups included. The evidence shows further that
the employees in the unit sought are rather widely scattered in sev-
eral different areas of the Employer's ship-yard; 8 that they work in
three of the four over-all departments of the Employer and in several
different divisions and subdivisions of these departments ; that, each
of the smaller departments in which these employees work has its own
supervisor; and that no single supervisor, except the general man-
ager who is at the very top of the supervisory hierarchy, is in charge
of all employees in the group sought.
Although the Petitioner's position in this respect is not entirely clear, the fringe groups
so referred to apparently include all groups in the proposed unit other than the inside
machinists and outside machinists, and certain other machinists in Departments 322 and
334 who are excluded from the proposed unit.
S This position apparently contemplates the possible establishment of one unit of inside
machinists, another of outside machinists, and the addition to, or subtraction from, such
units of appropriate fringe groups
4 Although the works manager of the Employer testified that they do not have the all-
around skill that used to be required of machinists in a shipyard, the evidence indicates
that they do have and use the skills now required of such machinists. There is presently a
learner and helper system for the machinists rather than an apprentice system, but there
is a possibility that the latter system, which was used some years ago, may be reinstituted.
6 As indicated above, the machinists in Departments 322 and 334 are excluded from the
proposed unit.
e Otherwise known as tool crib attendants.
The evidence not only clearly establishes that these employees do not possess the skills
usually associated with the machinist craft, but also leaves some doubt as to the craft
status of the lay-out men, tool grinders, millwrights, and maintenance machinists in the
proposed unit.
8 As a matter of fact, the trial crew ordinarily performs its functions miles at sea on
trial runs of submarines.
18 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
It is clear, therefore, that the proposed unit follows neither pure
craft nor departmental lines, and that it does not conform to any
functional division of the plant. It is rather an artificial grouping
which lacks the necssary homogeneity to be an appropriate unit for
the purposes of collective bargaining. Accordingly, we find that the
unit sought by the Petitioner is inappropriate s
As we have found that the unit sought by the Petitioner is inap-
propriate for purposes of collective bargaining, and there is no war-
rant for finding any modification of that unit appropriate, we shall
dismiss the petition.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the entire record in this case, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the petition filed in the instant
matter be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
MEMBERS HOUSTON and GRAY took no part in the consideration of
the above Decision and Order.
9 Matter of George S. Mepham Corporattion, 78 N. L. R. B. 1081.
As indicated above, the Petitioner, in a secondary position, will agree to any modification
of its proposed unit that the Board might deem necessary to perfect it. We are unwilling,
however, if not unable, to effect what we consider the major modification that would thus
be required . Cf. Matter of Credit Bureau of Greater Boston, Inc., 73 N. L. R. B. 410;
Matter of International Harvester Company, McCormick Works, 77 N. L. R. B. 520.