J. G. White Engineering Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 9, 1941

34 N.L.R.B. 83 (N.L.R.B. 1941)

In the Matter of J. G. WHITE ENGINEERING CORPORATION of NEW
YORK AND LOUISIANA SHIPYARDS, INC. and INTERNATIONAL FEDERA-
TION OF TECHNICAL ENGINEERS, ARCHITECTS AND DRAFTSMEN'S
UNIONS, LOCAL 91, AFFILIATED WITH THE A. F. OF L.
Case No. R40630.Decided August 9, 1941
Jurisdiction : shipyard construction industry.
Investigation and Certification of Representatives : existence of question: both
Companies refused to recognize or negotiate with the union because each
contended that the other Company was the employer of the employees in
question ; election necessary.
Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining : all employees of the Companies
working under the supervision of a sub-contracting company, including the
chief field inspector, inspector engineers, the sewerage engineers, the chief
inspector, inspectors, inspector helpers, instrument men, levelmen, rodmen,
chairmen, the field progress engineer, an engineer, the chief designing engineer,
designers, electrical engineers, draftsmen, a tracer and a progress engineer,
excluding the office and clerical force, timekeepers, material checkers, the
resident manager, the resident engineer, and the navy consultant.
Definitions : non-profit corporation having contract to build shipyard and sub-
contractor engaged to do the work held to be employers of employees hired and
supervised by the subcontractor.
Mr. Walter Carroll, of New Orleans, La., for the Companies.
Mr. Albert Sharp Williams, of New Orleans, La., for the Union.
Mr. Ralph S. Clifford, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On May 31, 1941, International Federation of Technical Engineers,
Architects, and Draftsmen's Unions, Local 91, affiliated with the A.
F. of L., herein called the Union, filed with the Regional Director for
the Fifteenth Region (New Orleans, Louisiana) a petition alleging
that a question affecting commerce had, arisen concerning the repre-
sentation of employees of J. G. White Engineering Corporation of
New York, and Louisiana Shipyards Inc., New Orleans, Louisiana,
herein called the Companies, and requesting an investigation and
certification of representatives pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the Na-
34 N L. R. B., No. 10.
83
84 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tional Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. On
June 4, 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 Regula-
tions-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 June 6, 1941, the Regional Director issued a notice of hearing,
copies of which were duly served upon the Companies and the Union.
Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on June 13, 1941, at New Or-
leans, Louisiana, before C. Paul Barker, the Trial Examiner duly
designated by the Chief Trial Examiner. The Companies and the
Union were represented and participated in the hearing. Full oppor-
tunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to
introduce evidence -bearing on the issues was afforded all parties.
During the hearing the Trial Examiner made rulings on motions and
on objections to the admission of evidence. The Board has reviewed
the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial
errors were committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. Pursuant
to leave granted by the Board, a brief was filed on behalf of the Com-
panies on June 26, 1941, and by the Union on June 30, 1941. The
Union also filed a reply brief on July 1, 1941. The Board has con-
sidered the briefs so filed.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE COMPANIES
A. The business of the Companies
The J. G. White Engineering Corporation of New York, herein
called the White Company, is a Delaware corporation , having its
principal offices in New York City, and is engaged in general engi-
neering and construction work throughout the United States and
is engaged in designing , engineering , and supervising construction
for a shipyard at New Orleans, Louisiana," under contract with
Louisiana Shipyards, Inc., herein called the Louisiana Company.
The Louisiana Company, a non-profit corporation , having its only
business offices in New Orleans , Louisiana , was incorporated in Decem-
ber 1940 , for the purpose of building a shipyard under contract with
the United States Maritime Commission.
The Companies do not deny jurisdiction of the Board.
i This proceeding is concerned only with employees of the J. G. White Engineering Cor-
poration employed in New Orleans, Louisiana.
J., G. WHITE ENGINEERING COMPANY 85
B. The relationship between the Companies
The Louisiana Company has a contract with the United States
Maritime Commission to build a shipyard at New Orleans, Louisiana,
and has a sub-contract with the White Company by the terms of
which the White Company is to do the designing, engineering, and
supervising of construction for the shipyard.
Under the terms of the sub-contract, which purports to be an agency
contract, a fee of $150,000 plus costs is to be paid to the White Com-
pany. The Louisiana Company provides the funds for the pay roll
and for petty cash needed. The White Company purchases the
materials needed for the Louisiana Company's account as agent. The
invoices are received by the White Company and forwarded to the
Louisiana Company's auditor for payment. The employees are hired
and supervised by the White Company. The employees are paid from
funds advanced by the Louisiana Company and the signature on the
checks is "Louisiana Shipyards, Inc., the J. G. White Engineering
Corporation, Agent." The 'chief accountant and resident manager
of the White Company sign and countersign the checks. The Louisi-
ana Company retains the right to indicate persons it does not wish
employed and employees it wishes discharged, and the right to
approve rates fixed and the number of employees hired by the White
Company.
We find that J. G. White Engineering Corporation of New York
and Louisiana Shipyards, Inc., are each an employer of the 'employees
involved in this proceeding within the meaning of Section 2 (2) of
the Act 2
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
The International Federation of Technical Engineers, Architects,
and Draftsmen's Unions, Local 91, affiliated with the American Fed-
eration of Labor, is a labor organization admitting to membership
employees of the Companies.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
Both Companies refused to recognize or negotiate with the Union
because each contended that the other Company was the employer of
the employees in question.
At the hearing the Union submitted evidence of substantial repre-
sentation in the unit hereinafter found to be appropriate 3 -
2 "The term `employer' Includes any person acting in the interest of an employer,
directly or indirectly * * •."
2 At the hearing the Union submitted 33 application cards and a list of 6 applicants,
with the statement that the cards of the 6 applicants were in the possession of the secre-
tary of the Union who was out of the city. The Trial Examiner reported that 32 of the
signatures on the submitted cards appeared to be genuine and original and appeared on
the Company's pay roll of June 11, 1941. The record shows that the unit hereinafter
found to be appropriate includes approximately 70 employees.
451269-42-vol. 34-7
86 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
We find that a question has arisen concerning the representation of
employees of the Companies.
IV. THE, EFFECT OF THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION UPON
COMMERCE
We find that the question concerning representation which has
arisen, occurring in connection with the operations of the Companies
described in Section I, above, has a close, intimate, and substantial
relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and
tends to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce
and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Union contends that all employees of the Companies working
under the supervision of the White Company, including the chief field
engineer, inspector engineers, the sewerage engineer, the chief
inspector, inspectors, inspector helpers, instrument men, levelmen,
rodmen, chainmen, the field progress engineer, an engineer, the chief
designing engineer, designers, electrical engineers, draftsmen, a tracer,
and a progress engineer, excluding the office and clerical force,4 time-
keepers, material checkers, the -resident manager, the resident engi-
neer, and the navy consultant, constitute an appropriate unit. The
Companies contend that the proposed unit is inappropriate, and that
engineers,5 the chief inspector and inspectors, instrument men, and
draftsmen should not be grouped with levelmen, rodmen, chainmen,
inspectors' helpers, and tracers, because skilled technical employees
should not be grouped with unskilled labor. The Companies further
contend that should the Board conclude that it should not, by order,
eliminate skilled technical men from the bargaining unit, it should
allow this group, by a separate election, to decide for themselves
whether they should be in the proposed bargaining unit.
The record discloses that engineers, often work as inspectors, instru-
ment men, and draftsmen. They make plans, lay out jobs, and deter-
mine specifications. The inspectors inspect material, check the prog-
ress being made, and often supervise such activities as cement mixing
and sewer building. The various classes of employees often work to-
gether as a party. A party often includes an instrument man who has
charge of the instruments, a chainman who runs the chain, a levelman
who handles the level, and a rodman who handles the rod. The sal-
* The record discloses that the office and clerical force Includes clerks, stenographers,
typists, office boys, an accountant , and a bookkeeper.
r The Companies contend that engineers Include the chief engineer , the inspector engi-
neer, the sewerage engineer , progress engineers , the chief designing engineer, designers,
and electrical engineers.
J. G. WHITE ENGINEER ING C'OMPAN'Y 87
aries of the engineers range from $200 to $375 per month. The in-
spectors' salaries range from $200 to $250,per month. The chief in-
spector's salary is $350 per month. Instrument men receive $216.66
per month. Draftsmen receive from $200 to $300 per month.
Levelmen receive $150 per month. Chainmen and rodmen receive
$125 per month. It is clear that the above employees are functionally
and in their interests closely related. The record discloses that a
substantial number of the employees whom the Companies wish
excluded from the appropriate unit are members or applicants for
membership in the Union.
We find that all employees of the Companies working under the
supervision of the J. G. White Engineering Corporation of New
York, including the chief field engineer, inspector engineers, the
sewerage engineer, the chief inspector, inspectors, inspector helpers,
instrument men, levelmen, rodmen, chainmen, the field progress en-
gineer, an engineer, the chief designing engineer, designers, electrical
engineers, draftsmen, a tracer, and a progress engineer, excluding the
office and clerical force, timekeepers, material checkers, the resident
engineer, and the navy consultant, constitute a unit appropriate for
the purposes of collective bargaining, and that said unit will insure
to employees of the Company the full benefit of their right to self-
organization and to collective bargaining and otherwise effectuate
the policies of the Act.
VI. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
We find that the question which has arisen concerning the repre-
sentation of employees of the Companies can best be resolved by
means of an election by secret ballot. We shall direct that such an
election be held. In accordance with our usual practice, we shall
direct that all employees of the Companies in the appropriate unit
who were employed during the payroll period immediately preceding
the date of this Direction of Election, subject to such limitations and
additions as are set forth in the Direction ,6 shall be eligible to vote.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire
record in the case, the Board makes the following :
CONCLusIONS OF LAW
1. A question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the repre-
sentation of employees of the J. G. White Engineering Corporation
Among the limitations noted In the Direction is the provision that temporary employees
shall be excluded from participation in the election . The record discloses that the Com-
panies have hired an undetermined number of college students to work during the summer.
The Union contends these employees should not be allowed to vote. The provision In
our Direction excluding temporary employees from participation in the election shall be
construed to cover and exclude from participation in the election only such student workers.
11
88 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of New York and Louisiana Shipyards, Inc., in New Orleans, Louisi-
ana, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7)
of the National Labor Relations Act.
2. All employees of the Companies working under the supervision
of the J. G. White Engineering Corporation of New York, including
the chief field engineer, inspector engineers, the sewerage engineers,
the chief inspector, inspectors, inspector helpers, instrument men,
levelmen, rodmen, chainmen, the field progress engineer, an engineer,
the chief designing engineer, designers, electrical engineers, drafts-
men, a tracer and a progress engineer, excluding the office and'clerical
force, timekeepers, material checkers, the resident manager, the resi-
dent engineer, and the navy consultant, constitute' a unit appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Sec-
tion 9 (b) of the National Labor Relation Act.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National
Labor Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Re-
lations Act, and pursuant to Article, III, Section 8, of National
Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2, as amended,
it is hereby
DutxcmD that, as part of the investigation authorized by the Board
to ascertain representatives for the purpose of collective bargaining
with J. G. White Engineering Corporation of New York and Louisi-
ana Shipyards, 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 of Election, under the
direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Fifteenth
Region , acting in this matter as agent for the National Labor Rela-
tions Board, and subject to Article III, Section 9, of said Rules and
regulations, among all employees of the Companies working under
the supervision of the White Company, who were employed during
the payroll period immediately preceding the date of this Direction
df Election, including the chief field engineer , inspector engineers, the
sewerage engineer, the chief inspector, inspectors, inspector helpers,
instrument men, levelmen, rodmen, chainmen, the field progress en-
gineer , an engineer , the chief designing engineer, designers, electrical
engineers , draftsmen, a tracer, and a progress engineer, employees
who did not work during such pay-roll period because they were ill or
on vacation or in the active military service or training of the United
States, or temporarily laid off, but excluding the office and clerical
force, timekeepers , material checkers, the resident manager , the resi-
J. G. WHITE ENGINEERING CORPORATION 89
dent engineer, the navy consultant, temporary employees, and em-
ployees who have since quit or been discharged for cause, to de-
termine whether or not they desire to be represented by International
Federation of Technical Engineers, Architects, and Draftsmen's
Union, Local 91, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor,
for the purposes of collective bargaining.