Higgins, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 24, 1947

73 N.L.R.B. 543 (N.L.R.B. 1947)

In the Matter of HIGGINS, INC. (PLANT No. I), EMPLOYER and INDUS-
TRIAL UNION OF MARINE & SHIPBUILDING WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO,
PETITIONER
In the Matter of HIGGINS, INC. (PLANT No. I), EMPLOYER and NEW
ORLEANS METAL TRADES COUNCIL, AFFILIATED WITH THE AMERICAN
'FEDERATION OF LABOR AND INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHIN-
ISTS, ACTING JOINTLY, PETITIONER
Cases Nos. 15-R-1680 and 15-R-1833, respectively:Decided
April 24,1947
Messrs. Fontaine Martin, Jr., and-Stuart S. Hellman, of New Or-
leans, La., for the Employer.
Messrs. William, T. Grist, H. H. Derby, and Frank Bruno, of New
Orleans, Lei., for the CIO.
Messrs. D. 0. Spears and Jokn Carlton, of New Orleans, La., and
111r. E. B. Rowan, of Washington, D. C., for the MTC-IAM.
Miss Irene R. Sitriber, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon separate petitions' duly filed, hearing in this case was held at
New Orleans,, Louisiana, on October 16, 1946, before T. Lowry Whit-
taker, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hear-
ing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. At the
hearing, both the Employer and the CIO moved to dismiss thepetition.
For reasons stated hereinafter, the motions are hereby denied. The
Employer has requested oral argument. This request is hereby denied
inasmuch as the record, in our opinion, adequately presents the issues
and the positions of the parties.
Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations
Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
.
1. THE' BUSINESS OF' THE EMPLOYER
Higgins, Inc., a Louisiana corporation, operates three plants, two
of which are located in New Orleans, Louisiana, and are known ' as
• I These cases were consolidated by order of We Board on October 1, 1946
73 N. L . R. B., No. 108.
739926-47-vol 73-36 543
544 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Plants No . II and No. III , while the third is located in Higgins, Loui-
siana, and is known as Plant No . I. The only plant involved in-this
proceeding is Plant No. I. At this plant, the Employer is engaged in
the manufacture of pleasure boats , lumber, veneer , plywood, carbon
parts, camp trailers , and plastic products . During the 10-month
period preceding the date of the hearing , purchases of raw material for
Plant .No. I exceeded $1;000,000, of 'which nlore than 90 4percent was
obtained from points outside the State of Louisiana . During the same
period, finished products of Plant No . I exceeded $1,000,000, of which
more than 90 percent was shipped to out-of-State destinations.
The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
11. THE OltGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Industrial Union of Marine and Shipbuilding Workers of America,
herein called the CIO, is a labor organization affiliated with the Con-
gress of Industrial Organizations, claiming to represent employees of
the Employer.
New Orleans Metal Trades Council, affiliated with the American
Federation of-Labor, and International Association of Machinists,
herein jointly, called the MTC-IAM, are labor organizations claim-
ing to represent employees of the Employer.,
111. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Employer was incorporated on January 9, 1946; on January
31, 1946, it acquired from Higgins Industries, Inc.," Plant No. II, Plant
No. III, and a third plant known as Plant'No. IV.3 On December 29,
1945, more than a month before the transfer of the afore-mentioned
plants to the Employer,4 the Board directed that an election 5 be.con-
ducted amolig, the production and maintenance employees of =these'
three plants, excluding certain categories. The CIO won the election
and was certified on April 18,1946.
On March 15, 1946, the Employer acquired possession of Plant No.
1.6 There were 21 employees working in this plant at that time; but
on April 17, when the CIO requested the Employer to recognize it as
the exclusive bargaining representative of Plant No. I employees,
there were over 400 employees working there. The Employer refused
the CIO's request and on April 29, 1946, the CIO filed its petition
2 This corporation is iii the process of liquidation
3 Plant No IV is, now being dismantled. .
4Prioi to theirttransfei , Plants No. II , No III , and No. IV wei e'knoNN n ' as Industrial
Canal Plant, City Park Plant, and Bayou St. John Plant; respectively
c Dfatter of Higgins hidustries , The, 65 N L R B 50 - -
3 Plant No I had pieviously been known , as the Michaud Plant , and was transferred to
the Emplover by a subsidiary of Higgins Industries, Inc.
HIGGINS, INC. (PLANT NO. 1) 545
herein. At conferences held during,May and June 1946, the IAM
and other affiliated organizations of the MTC-IAM informed the
-Employer and the CIO of their claim to,represent the employees at
Plant No. I; they also demonstrated to the Board's Regional Office
their representative interest supporting such claim. On July 12,
1946, the Employer nevertheless recognized and entered into a contract
with the CIO" as the-bargainilag ,representative of employees at Plant
No. I as well as Plants No. II and No. III.'
On July 15, 1946, the CIO requested the Regional Director's per-
mission . to withdraw its petition. As stated above, the Regional
Office was by that time aware of the representative interest of the
MTC-IAM affiliates. The Regional Director, therefore, properly de-
nied the CIO's request for withdrawal -of its petition. On July 31,
1946, the MTC-IAM filed its petition herein. - -
The Employer and the CIO contend that the present proceeding is
barred by the afore-mentioned certification of the CIO. This conten-
tion is lacking in merit. The employees of Plant No. I did not, as
such, vote in the election and the certification by its very terms did
not cover Plant No. I. While some of the present employees at Plant
No. I were transferred from Plants No.-II and No. III after partici-
pating in the election, they constitute a minority of the total number
of employees currently working at Plant No. I:8
The Employer and the CIO further, contend that the July 1946
contract was executed more than 10 days before the filing. of the MTC-
IAM's petition herein, and, therefore,, under the General Electric
X-Ray 9 doctrine, the contract also constitutes a bar to this proceed-
ing. This contention overlooks the fact that the CIO's petition herein
had been filed on April 29, 1946, and that it was pending, as it still is,
at the time the contract in question was executed. Under the circum-
stances, we find.that the General Electric X-Ray doctriie is inappli-
cable and the contrai;t,riat a bar herein.
We find that a. question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Employer, within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) and Section (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT ; THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
.The MTC-IAM requests a unit consisting of all the production and
maintenance employees of the Employer at Plant No. I, including
leadermen and assistant foremen, but excluding all construction em-
ployees, boat crews, plant-protection employees, production clerks, in-
spectors, office `and°clerical workers, foremen and all other supervisory
7 The contract terminates on June 23, 1947
'The record shows that 290 of the 1172 employees now employed in Plant No. I have
been transferred from Plants No II and No III
Matter of General Electric X-Ray Corporation , 67 N.'L R. B 997.
546, DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employees. Although the Employer and the CIO agree as to the
composition of the unit proposed by the MTC-I AM, they urge an
Employer-wide unit including Plants No. I, No. II, and No. III.
Unlike Plants No. II and No. III, where only boats are built, Plant
No. I manufactures a variety of products, including boats. The
operations of Plant No. I are carried on through divisions, the larger
of which are the Boat Building Division, the Lumber Products Divi-
sion, the Carbon Division, and the Trailer Division. The Boat Build-
ing Division had been housed in Plant No. III before the Employer
acquired possession of Plant No. I, but thereafter its operations as well
as some of its personnel -,were gradually moved to its present site. By
the time of the hearing; the move was complete and production in
Plant No. III had virtually' ceased.10 Employment at Plant No. I
has increased from 21 when the Employer took possession of the plant
to 1,172 at the time of the hearing. Of the 1,172 employees, 290 had
been transferred from. Plants No. II and No. III, the majority of the
transfers having been effected since August 1946.
While the Employer's plants are separately supervised, their busi-
ness•and,labor policies are centralized. There is one pay-roll depart-
ment for all plants and a central personnel office for hiring and for
maintaining personnel records. ' Working conditions, pay scales, and
employee privileges are the same in all plants. The boat building
operations in all plants require the same employee skills and each
plant utilizes unskilled as well as semi-skilled and, skilled labor. There
is, moreover, some integration of operations in the three plants. For
example, all tooling operations are performed at Plant No. I. This
operational and personnel relationship between. all the Employer's
plants would warrant establishing a unit comprised of the personnel
of all three plants. -
On the other hand, Plant No. I is 12 miles away from the Em-
ployer's other plants and there is little personnel interchange between
them. Although 290 employees were transferred to Plant No. I
from Plants No. II and No. III, most of the transfers were of ei ctecl
because the operations of Plant No. III were moved ,to Plant No. I.
There is no showing in the record that the employees in Plant No. I
have been transferred to jobs in other plants. In addition, a separate
pay roll is maintained for each plant. Plant No. I, moreover, employs
i greater proportion of semi-skilled and unskilled workers than do
the other, plants.. Under these circumstances, a,unit confined to the
employees of Plant No. I would also be feasible. -,
In view of the foregoing, we believe that the determination of
the proper unit should depend, in part, upon the desires of the em-
ployees themselves. We shall, therefore, make no final determination
10 while, the Employer testified that this plant is now for sale, the record , indicates that
there are still employees in this plant.
HIGGINS, INC. (PLANT NO. I) 547
of the appropriate unit at this time, but shall direct that an election
be held among the employees in the following voting group to deter
mine their desires respecting this matter : All production and mainte-
nance employees of the Employer at Plant No. I, including'leadernien
and assistant foremen; but excluding all construction employees, boat
crews, plant-protection employees, production clerks, inspectors, office
and clerical workers, foremen, and all other supervisory employees
with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or, otherwise
effect changes, in the status of employees or effectively recommend such
action.
If a majority of these employees select the MTC-IAM as,their bar-
gaining representative they will be taken to have indicated their desire
to constitute a separate appropriate unit. If, however, they select
the CIO, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to constitute,
together with the employees in Plants-No. II and No. III, a 3-plant
bargaining unit.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION 11
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
purposes of collective bargaining with Higgins, Inc., New Orleans,
Louisiana, an election by secret ballot shall be conducted as early
as possible, but not later than thirty (30) days from the date of this
Direction, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Direc-
tor for the Fifteenth Region, acting in this matter as agent for the
National Labor Relations Board, and subject to Sections 203.55 and
203.56, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-
Series 4, among the employees in the voting group described in Section
IV, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately
preceding the date of this Direction; including employees who did not
work during said pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation
,or temporarily laid off, and including employees in the armed forces
of the United States who, present themselves in person at the polls,
but excluding those eniployees,who have since quit or been discharged
for cause and have not been rehired or reinstated prior to the date of
the election, to determine whether they desire to be represented by
Industrial Union of Marine & Shipbuilding Workers of America, CIO,
or by New Orleans Metal Trades Council, affiliated with the American
Federation of Labor, and International Association of Machinists, for
the purposes of collective bargaining, or by neither.
11 Any participant in the election herein ,may, upon, its prompt request to, and approval
thereof by, the Regional Director, have its name removed from the ballot