Great Lakes Engineering Works

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 18, 1941

32 N.L.R.B. 809 (N.L.R.B. 1941)

In the Matter of GREAT LAKES ENGINEERING WORKS and DOWN RIVER
SHIPBUILDERS ASSOCIATION
Case No. B-2592.-Decided June 18, 1941
Jurisdiction : shipbuilding and ship repairing industry.
Practice and Procedure : petition dismissed where no appropriate unit, within
scope of petition.
Mr. Frank Le Feuvre, of River Rouge, Mich., for the Company.
Mr. Alex Wrobleski, of Ecorse, Mich., and Mr. Harry/ Laskowske,
of River Rouge, Mich., for the Association.
Mr. Carl S. Carlson, of Detroit, Mich., for the I. A. M.
Mr. Louis Cokin, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On February 15, 1941, Down River Shipbuilders Association, herein
called the Association, filed with the Regional Director for the Seventh
Region (Detroit, Michigan) a petition alleging that a question affect-
ing commerce had arisen concerning the representation of employees
of Great Lakes Engineering Works, River Rouge, Michigan, herein
called the Company, and requesting an investigation and certification
of representatives pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. On April 24, 1941,
the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, acting
pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the Act and Article III, Section 3, of
National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2,
as amended, ordered an investigation and authorized the Regional
Director to conduct it and to provide for an appropriate hearing upon
due notice.
On May 13, 1941, the Regional Director issued a notice of hearing,
copies of which were duly served upon the Company, the Association
and International Association of Machinists, herein called the I. A. M.,
a labor organization claiming to represent employees directly affected
_32N L R B, No 137
809
810 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
by the investigation. Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on May
27, 1941, at Detroit, Michigan, before Robert J. Wiener, the Trial
Examiner duly designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The Com-
pany, the Association, and the I. A. M., were represented and partici-
pated in the hearing. At the commencement of the hearing, the
Trial Examiner granted a motion to intervene filed by the I. A. M.
Full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses,
and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues was afforded all par-
ties. During the course of the hearing the Trial Examiner made
several rulings on motions and on objections to the admission of evi-
dence. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner
and finds that no prejudicial errors were committed. The rulings
are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Great Lakes Engineering Works is a Michigan corporation with
its principal office and plant at River Rouge, Michigan, where it is
engaged in the business of shipbuilding and ship repairing. During
1940 the Company purchased $759,500 worth of raw materials, 68.9
per cent of which were shipped to it from points outside the State
of Michigan. Although the Company did not build any ships during
1940, it received an income of $2,275,000 during such period for
repairing vessels, $1,293,000 of which represents income from
customers outside the State of Michigan.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Down River Shipbuilders Association is an unaffiliated labor
organization admitting to membership employees of the Company.
International Association of Machinists is a labor organization
affiliated with the American Federation of Labor. It admits to
membership employees of the Company.
III. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Association contends that the steam crane operators employed
by the Company should constitute a part of the unit which is covered
by a contract between it and the Company. The I. A. M. contends
that the petition should be dismissed because the steam crane oper-
ators are covered by a valid exclusive contract which is in existence
between the-I. A. M. and the Company. On March 12, 1940, the
Association and the Company entered into an exclusive bargaining
GREAT LAKES ENGINEERING WORKS 811
contract covering most of the production and maintenance employees
of the Company, but excluding the machine-shop employees and
steam crane operators. These latter employees are covered by an
exclusive bargaining contract between the I. A: M. and the Company
entered into on March 15, 1940. This latter contract is terminable
upon 30 days' notice by either party thereto. No such notice has
been given and the contract was in full force and effect at the time
of the hearing. A representative of the Company testified that the
Company considers the steam crane operators a part of its machine
shop. It appears that since June 1937, the I. A. M. has been
bargaining on behalf of these employees. We find that the unit
sought to be established by the Association in the present case is
inappropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining.
IV. TIIE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
Since, as is pointed out in Section III above, the bargaining unit
sought to be established by the Association is inappropriate for
the purposes of collective bargaining with the Company, we find
that no question has arisen concerning the representation of
employees in an appropriate bargaining unit.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire
record in the case, the Board makes the following:
Co oLusIONs OF LAW
No question concerning the" representation of employees of Great
Lakes Engineering Works, River Rouge, Michigan, in a unit which
is appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining has arisen,
within the meaning of Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations
Act.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and conclusions of
law, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the
petition for investigation and certification of representatives of
employees of Great Lakes Engineering Works, River Rouge, Michi-
gan, filed by Down River Shipbuilders Association be, and it hereby
is, dismissed.