Federal Shipbuilding and Drydock Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 14, 1946

65 N.L.R.B. 410 (N.L.R.B. 1946)

In the Matter Of FEDERAL SHIPBUILDING AND DRYDOCK COMPANY and
INDUSTRIAL UNION OF MARINE & SHIPBUILDING WORKERS OF AMER-
ICA, LOCAL No. 16, CIO
In the Matter Of FEDERAL SHIPBUILDING AND DRYDOCK COMPANY and
UNITED OFFICE & PROFESSIONAL WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL No. 7,
CIO
Cases Nos. 2-R-5509 and .2-R-4969, respectively.-Decided
January 14, 1946
Mr. Richard J. Hickey, for the Board.
Messrs . J. C. Irwin and James H. Love , of Kearny , N. J., for the
Company.
Mr. W. J . Woolston , of Philadelphia , Pa., for the CIO.
Messrs. Pepsin c Pepsin, by Meyer Pepsin, and Mrs. Martha Davis,
of Jersey City, N. J., for the Shipyard Workers.
Messrs. Rothbard, Harris c Talisman , by Samuel L. Rothbard, and
Mr. Herman Meyrich, of Newark, N. J., for the UOPWA.
Mr. Sidney Grossman , of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon sep4rate petitions duly filed by the Industrial Union of Marine
& Shipbuilding Workers of America, Local No. 16, CIO, herein called
the CIO, and by the United Office & Professional Workers of America,
Local No. 7, CIO, herein called the UOPWA, each alleging that a
question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation
of employees of Federal Shipbuilding and Drydock Company, Kearny,
New Jersey , herein called the Company , the National Labor Relations
Board provided for an appropriate consolidated hearing upon due
notice before Arthur Leff, Trial Examiner . The hearing was held
at Newark, New Jersey, on May 22, July 10 and 31, and August 1, 2,
and 3, 1945. The Company, the CIO, the UOPWA, and the Ship-
yard Workers of America, unaffiliated , herein called the Shipyard
65 N. L . R. B., No. 73.
410
FEDERAL SHIPBUILDING AND DRY DOCK COMPANY 411
Workers, 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 . At the hearing , the Trial
Examiner reserved ruling upon the motion of the UOPWA to with-
draw its petition inasmuch as it had relinquished to the CIO juris-
diction of the employees it sought to represent . The motion of the
UOPWA is hereby granted, and we shall dismiss its petition. At
the hearing, the Company moved to dismiss the petition of the CIO
because of the alleged inappropriateness of the unit . The Trial
Examiner reserved ruling for the Board . For the reasons herein-
after set forth in Section III, infra , the motion is granted . The Trial.
Examiner 's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error
and are hereby affirmed. All parties were afforded opportunity to
file briefs with the Board.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Federal Shipbuilding and Drydock Company, a New Jersey corpo-
ration, with principal offices and place of business at Kearny, New
Jersey, is engaged in the construction of naval and merchant vessels
at its shipyards at Kearny and Port Newark, New Jersey. The prin-
cipal raw materials used by it in the construction of ships are steel
plates, boilers , turbine generators , and related equipment . During
the year ending February 28, 1945, the Company purchased raw mate-
rials in excess of $1,000,000 in value, of which approximately 70 per-
cent was secured from sources outside the State of New Jersey. Dur-
ing the same period it constructed and produced naval and merchant
vessels valued in excess of $1,000,000, of which approximately 90 per-
cent was shipped to places outside the State of New Jersey.
The Company admits that it is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Industrial Union of Marine & Shipbuilding Workers of America,
Local No. 16, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations,
is a labor organization admitting to membership employees of the
Company.
412 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Shipyard Workers of America, unaffiliated, is a labor organization
admitting to membership employees of the Company.'
III. THE ALLEGED APPROPRIATE UNIT
The CIO seeks a unit consisting generally of office and clerical em-
ployees who work inside the fence at the Company's Kearny and Port
Newark yards, excluding confidential and supervisory employees.
The Shipyard Workers requests a unit confined to clerical and pro-
fessional employees at the Port Newark yard. The Company con-
tends that the unit should comprise all salaried office and clerical em-
ployees at both yards regardless of their location with respect to the
fence, including those at its Newark office, and urges dismissal of the
petition.
The Kearny yard has been in operation since 1917. The Port
Newark yard, located about 41/2 miles from Kearny, was temporarily
established in 1942 as a wartime operation. For security reasons
each yard is enclosed within a fence. However, office and administra-
tion buildings are situated outside the fence or on the fence line, and
an office building is located in Newark approximately 3 miles from
either yard. Administration, higher supervision, and other mana-
gerial functions generally stem from Kearny. A common industrial
relations department, with a branch at Port Newark, serves both
yards; all female clericals are hired exclusively through Kearny. Em-
ployees have been transferred from one yard to the other, and, upon
discontinuance of the Port Newark yard after the war, Port Newark
employees will be transferred to Kearny. General functional integra-
tion exists between both yards and between common and comparable
departments therein. Moreover, the Company's past baraining his-in
and the CIO's successful organization of the clerical employees
at both yards, also demonstrate the appropriateness of a company-
wide unit. In view of the foregoing, we perceive no reason for dis-
associating the clericals at Port Newark from those at Kearny, as
requested by the Shipyard Workers. We therefore find that a unit
confined to the clericals at Port Newark alone is inappropriate for
the purposes of collective bargaining.
' The Company and the CIO contend that the Shipyard Workers is not a labor organiza-
tion within the meaning of the Act However, the evidence shows that the Shipyard
Workers is an organization formed for the purpose of engaging in collective bargaining on
behalf of employees of the Company regarding their hours , wages, and other conditions of
employment Accordingly , we find that the Shipyard Workers is a labor organization
within the meaning of Section 2 ( 5) of the Act. See Matter of E I. du Pont de Nemours
d Company, 63 N. L R. B . 1387 , Matter of Cleveland Cliffs Iron Company, 63 N. L. R. B.
674: Matter of Gielow, Incorpo7ated , 60 N. L R B 1477. -
2 The CIO has represented production and maintenance employees at both yards since
1942 ; in 1944 , cafeteria employees were added to the unit.
FEDERAL SHIPBUILDING AND DRYDOCK COMPANY 413
Clerical employees are segregated administratively into various
departments which,- in turn, are divided into one or more divisions
under separate immediate -supervision. The same department may
have employees both inside and outside the fence; some also have
employees in both yards. Generally, as indicated above, access to
the yard or to buildings situated on the fence line through time pass
gates serves as the criterion for inclusion in the unit proposed by the
CIO. If such criterion were adopted, employees would be excluded
from the unit despite the fact that they may perform similar work in
the same or comparable departments, in some instances under the
same supervision, as those whose inclusion is desired.3 Thus, it is ap-
parent that the unit sought by the CIO constitutes an artificial and
arbitrary grouping of employees, wholly lacking in the homogeneity
requisite to an appropriate bargaining unit. We find, therefore, that,
the unit petitioned for is inappropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining.
. IV. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
Since, as pointed out in Section III, above, the bargaining units
sought to be established by the CIO and the Shipyard Workers, re-
spectively, are inappropriate for the purposes of collective bargain-
ing with the Company, we find that no question has been raised con-
cerning the representation of employees of the Company, within the
meaning of Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the petitions for investigation
and certification of representatives of employees of Federal Ship-
building and Drydock Company, Kearny, New Jersey, filed by the
Industrial Union of Marine & Shipbuilding Workers of America,
Local 16, CIO, and by the United Office & Professional Workers of
America, Local No. 7, CIO, be, and they hereby are, dismissed.
CHAIRMAN HERZOG took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Order.
s As, for example , clericals are excluded in departments 6 (production ), 8 (office service),
and 18 ( plant engineering ) at Kearny , whereas clericals performing similar work in depart-
ments 22 (production and planning), 19 (office service ), and 38 (plant engineering) at
Port Newark are included Similarly, clericals performing similar work in departments 3,
10, and 20 are both included and excluded
n