Foss Launch & Tug Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 23, 1955

111 N.L.R.B. 774 (N.L.R.B. 1955)

774 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
cer. 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, whose construction employees are sought by the
Petitioner, is a wholly owned subsidiary of Marcalus Manufacturing
Company, Inc., and was established for the sole purpose of construct-
ing a building, in New Jersey, for the use of the parent Company.
Upon completion of the building approximately 2 years hence, the par-
ent Company plans to dissolve its subsidiary and to maintain the build-
ing in connection with its operations. As the subsidiary appears to be
controlled by the parent Company and has as its only function the con-
struction of a building which is to be used by the latter Company ex-
clusively, we find that the two Companies constitute a single Employer
for the purpose of asserting jurisdiction. During the past year, the
purchases of the parent Company were in excess of $1,000,000, of which
approximately 60 percent came from outside the State of New Jersey.
During the same period, its sales were in excess of $1,000,000, of which
approximately 80 percent represented direct shipments outside New
Jersey. Accordingly, as the direct outflow of the parent Company is
more than $50,000 per annum, we find that the subsidiary Company is
engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act and that it will
effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.'
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain ein-
ployees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of certain employees of the Employer within the meaning of Sec-
tion 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The following employees constitute a unit appropriate for pur-
poses of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of
the Act: All construction employees of the Employer in East Pater-
son, New Jersey, including electricians, pipefitters, pipefitter helpers,
laborers, welders, carpenters, and machine assemblers, but excluding
office clerical employees and supervisors as defined in the Act.2
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
1 Jonesboro Gratin Drying Cooperative, 110 NLRB 481.
' The unit conforms to the stipulation of the parties.
Foss LAUNCH & Tuo Co.' and METAL TRADES COUNCIL OF TACOMA AND
VICINITY, METAL TRADES DEPARTMENT, AFL, PETITIONER. Case
No. 19-RC-1552. February 23, 1955
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 Donald D. McFeely,
1 The name of the Employer appears as amended at the hearing.
111 NLRB No. 124.
FOSS LAUNCH & TUG CO. 775
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are
free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.2
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
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9
(c) (1) andSection 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner seeks a unit of all machine shop and shipways
employees at the Employer's Tacoma, Washington, shore operation,
including helpers and laborers 4 The Intervenor contends that the
employees sought by the Petitioner should remain in the existing
multiemployer unit along with the crew members who operate the
Employer's barges and tugs on the ground that the crew members also
perform shoreside maintenance and repair work. Alternatively, the
Intervenor would favor two separate units of shipways and machine
shop employees. In the event the Board decides that the overall unit
contended for by the Intervenor is inappropriate, the Employer re-
quests that the machine shop employees be included in a unit to-
gether with the crew members, or, alternatively, that the former em-
ployees constitute a separate unit.
The Employer, with headquarters in Tacoma, Washington, is en-
gaged in the business of furnishing towing service and in the carriage
of goods by tug and barge. In connection with these operations, the
Employer maintains at Tacoma repair facilities such as machine
shops and a shipways plant. The mechanics and electricians who com-
prise the machine shop group maintain and repair the engines and
machinery of the tugs and barges. The shipways group, consisting
of such employees as carpenters, caulkers, blacksmiths, and welders,
is concerned with drydocking and the repair of the vessels themselves.
Although the machine shop and shipways employees interchange in-
2 The Petitioner contends that the hearing officer improperly permitted the National
Organization of Masters , Mates and Pilots of America and Inland Boatmen 's Union of the
Pacific to intervene on the basis of a master contract with the Northwest Towboat Asso-
ciation of which the Employer is a member . The contract covers the Employer's crew
members but not the employees sought by the Petitioner . We find that the hearing officer
properly permitted intervention on the basis of the existing contract . The Intervenor,
however , has made no showing of interest among the employees requested . In view of our
finding that only a separate unit of machine shop and shipways employees is appropriate,
we shall not accord the Intervenor a place on the ballot.
E The Intervenor refused to stipulate that the Petitioner is a labor organization within
the meaning of the Act . We find that the Petitioner is a labor organization as defined in
the Act as it exists for the purpose of representing employees with respect to wages, hours,
and other conditions of employment.
* Although the proposed unit is described by the Petitioner as one consisting of produc-
tion and maintenance employees , it appears from the record that the employees sought by
the Petitioner are the machine shop and shipways employees who comprise the Employer's
shoreside complement. -
776 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
frequently, have different assignments, and are under separate imme-
diate supervision, the record shows that they all have maintenance
and repair functions, frequently work together, have substantially
the same hours and rates of pay, and are under the general super-
vision of the Employer's Tacoma manager.
The crew members, particularly the engineers and oilers, spend a
comparatively small amount of their time at shoreside tasks in the
machine shops or assist in mechanical work on the vessels when they
are brought in for repair. As indicated above, only the crew mem-
bers are covered by the multiemployer master contract which deals
with their special problems as crew members and provides for rates
of pay and conditions of employment that are basically different from
those of the machine shop and shipways employees.
In view of the foregoing, we find that the machine shop and ship-
ways employees have sufficient interests in common as shoreside main-
tenance employees to constitute an appropriate unit.' As the crew
members have a bargaining history as part of a multiemployer con-
tract unit and have interests pertaining essentially to their principal
job of operating the Employer's vessels, we shall not include them
in the maintenance unit.
Accordingly, we find that the following employess of the Employer
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargain-
ing within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act: All machine shop
and shipways employees at the Employer's Tacoma, Washington,
shore operation, including helpers and laborers, but excluding all
crew members, clerical employees, guards, and supervisors as defined
in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
6 George R Tollefson and Margaret A Tollefson d/b/a Tollefson Brothers, 108 NLRB
1666. Cf The Curtis Bay Towing Company, 105 NLRB 524.
MORRIS I;IRSCHDIAN & Co., INC. AND VICTOR KIRSCHMAN BARGAIN
ANNEX, INC.' and GENERAL TRUCK DRIVERS, CHAUFFEURS, WARE-
HOUSEMEN AND HELPERS LOCAL UNION No. 270, INTERNATIONAL
BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND
HELPERS OF AMERICA, AFL, PETITIONER. Case No. 15-RC-1174.
February 23,1955
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 Fred A. Lewis, hearing
1 The name of the Employer appears as corrected at the hearing.
111 NLRB No. 123.