Global Marine Development, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 28, 1975

216 N.L.R.B. 325 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

GLOBAL MARINE DEVELOPMENT, INC.
Global Marine Development, Inc. and International
Union of Operating Engineers, Local Union No.
12, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case 31-RC-2733
January 28, 1975
DECISION ON REVIEW
BY ACTING CHAIRMAN FANNING AND
MEMBERS JENKINS AND KENNEDY
On September 3, 1974, the Acting Regional
Director for Region 31 issued a Decision and
Direction of Election in the above-entitled proceed-
ing wherein he directed an election in a unit of all
crane operators, hoist operators, pipe handlers,
heavy-duty repairmen, rig mechanics, hydraulic
technicians, and electronic technicians employed by
the Employer in the mining division aboard its ship,
the Hughes Glomar Explorer, excluding, inter alia,
utility men; he made no disposition of issues raised
concerning the unit placement of welder foremen,
storekeepers, and laborers, and permitted them to
vote subject to challenge in the election. Thereafter,
in accordance with Section 102.67 of the National
Labor Relations Board's Rules and Regulations,
Series 8, as amended, the Employer filed a timely
request for review of the Acting Regional Director's
decision on the grounds that, in failing to exclude
hoist operators and welder foremen as supervisors
and failing to include utility men, storekeepers, and
laborers because of their community of interest with
mining division employees, he departed from preced-
ent and made findings of facts which are clearly
erroneous. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed opposition
to the Employer's request for review and itself sought
review as to the Acting Regional Director's inclusion
of electronic technicians.
By telegraphic order dated October 2, 1974, the
Employer's request for review was granted and the
election was stayed pending decision on review.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the entire record in this
case with respect to the issues under review' and
makes the following findings:
The Employer, a California corporation, is engaged
in the business of mining minerals at sea through the
operations of its deep sea vessel, the Hughes Glomar
Explorer here involved, which carries a crew of
approximately 170 people. The marine and engineer-
ing divisions are responsible for the ship's movement
and maintenance , whereas the mining division is
1 The Board rejects as untimely the Petitioner's request for review as to
the inclusion of the electronic technicians and in any event such request
216 NLRB No. 58
325
responsible only for the mineral exploration. The
Petitioner sought to include in its requested unit of
mining division employees all crane operators, hoist
operators, pipe handlers, heavy-duty repairmen, rig
mechanics, hydraulic technicians, welders and weld-
er ' foremen and to exclude utilitymen, electronic
technicians, storekeepers, and laborers. The Employ-
er contended that hoist operators and welder
foremen should be excluded as supervisors, and that
utilitymen, electronic technicians, storekeepers, and
laborers should be included on the basis of a
substantial community of interest shared by them
with the requested mining division employees. As
indicated, the Acting Regional Director found that
the hoist operators are not supervisors and that the
utilitymen lacked a sufficient community of interest
"to warrant their inclusion"; and he deferred
resolution of the unit placement of other disputed
categories of employees, permitting them to vote
under challenge.
Hoist operators work along with crane operators
and pipe handlers in a team, whose function is laying
pipe into the ocean floor for the purpose of mineral
exploration. The pipe handlers hook the pipe, which
is stored below deck, onto the crane which then drags
the pipe along a skate up to the work deck. The hoist
operator then hoists the pipe and sets it into another
piece of pipe. The two pipes are then screwed
together and lowered through the rig floor. The
Employer's manager of operations testified that hoist
operators direct crane operators, pipe handlers, and
laborers with regard to the derrick operation and lay
out work for them. The Petitioner contended that the
hoist operators spend a majority of their time
operating the equipment around the derrick and
merely relay instructions to fellow workers from the
mining foremen. There was disputed testimony as to
the role hoist operators play in adjusting grievances,
making recommendations regarding hiring, firing,
and promoting other employees, and attending
supervisory meetings. The hoist operators have better
living quarters on board ship than crane operators
and pipe handlers and are paid considerably more
than employees working in the other two categories.
In view of the conflicts in testimony, we have
concluded that the issues raised as to the supervisory
status of hoist operators can best be resolved through
the challenge procedure. Accordingly, we shall
permit them to vote subject to challenge.
The two welder foremen lay out welding work for
employees assigned to this function and direct their
work, but presently there are no welders aboard ship,
although there are two employees in other mining
division classifications who are assigned to welding
appears to raise no substantial issues warranting review.
326 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
duties on a temporary basis. On occasion, welders
are flown to the ship and work under the direction of
the welder foremen. The welder foremen also
perform welding duties themselves. Like the Acting
Regional Director, we view the record evidence
insufficient to determine whether the welder foremen
function as leadmen or supervisors with respect to
cross-trained employees and subcontract welders,
and we shall permit them to vote subject to
challenge.
The Employer contends that laborers are in the
mining division, ranked below hoist operators, crane
operators, and pipe handlers, and that they perform
menial work , such as painting and cleaning up, all
over the ship. The Employer further contends that
the laborers are responsible to the hoist operators
who give them their work assignments . A hoist
operator testifying on behalf of the Petitioner stated
that he had never heard of the laborer classification,
never directed the work of any employee in that
category, and had no idea what a laborer's function
is on the ship. As the evidence is insufficient to
permit us to resolve their unit placement , we agree
with the Acting Regional Director that the laborers
be allowed to vote subject to challenge.
The storekeepers or materials men maintain inven-
tory records, prepare requisition slips for new
supplies, and dispense equipment and supplies
needed for various ship operations including those of
the mining division. They come into contact with
employees in the mining division as regularly as they
do any other persons on the ship. A hoist operator
testified that, whenever he needs a tool, he goes to
the storekeeper's office and places an order; he is
then either given the tool there or the storekeeper
brings it to where the hoist operator is working.
When the ship is loaded with supplies, they are taken
on board by the mining department cranes. As the
mining division employees bring the supplies onto
the ship, the storekeepers work with them checking in
the new inventory. As the storekeepers spend a
substantial portion of their time serving the needs of
the mining division, performing a type of work which
is plant clerical in nature, we find that they must be
included in the unit herein.2
Utilitymen are assigned to the marine division on
the ship where they perform such duties as cleaning
the decks, making up bunks, doing laundry, and
working in the mess halls. They are under the
supervision of the chief steward, who also supervises
the cooks and bakers. There is no evidence. to
indicate to what extent, if any, utilitymen work with
mining division employees . In the circumstances, we
find that utilitymen do not share such a close
community of interest with mining division employ-
ees as to require their inclusion in the same unit. We
therefore affirm the Acting Regional Director's
decision to exclude them from the unit herein.
In view of the foregoing, the unit found appropriate
by the Acting Regional Director is, modified to read
as follows:
All crane operators, pipe handlers, heavy-duty
repairmen, rig mechanics, hydraulic technicians,
electronic technicians , and storekeepers employed
by the Employer in the mining division aboard its
ship, the Hughes Glomar Explorer; excluding all
other employees, office clerical employees, utility-
men, professional employees, guards, mining
foremen, and all other supervisors as defined in
the Act.
Accordingly, this case is hereby remanded to the
Regional Director for Region 31 for the purpose of
holding an election pursuant to his Decision and
Direction of Election, as amended herein, except that
the eligibility payroll period therefor shall be that
immediately preceding the date of this Decision on
Review. [Excelsior footnote omitted from publica-
tion.]
2 Pineville Kraft Corporation, 173 NLRB 863 ( 1968).