Knudsen Bros. Shipbuilding & Drydock Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 16, 1948

80 N.L.R.B. 320 (N.L.R.B. 1948)

In the Matter of KNUDSEN BROS. SHIPBUILDING & DRYDOCK Co.,
EMPLOYER and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, LOCAL
LODGE No. 343, PETITIONER
Case No. 18-RC-163.-Decided November 16,1948
DECISION
AND
ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before a hearing
officer of the National Labor Relations Board. The hearing officer's
rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are
hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
the case to a three-man panel consisting of the undersigned Board
Members.*
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the National Labor Relations Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent employees
of the Employer.
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer, within the meaning of Section 9
(c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, for the following
reasons:
The Petitioner requests a unit including all employees engaged in
the making, assembling, erecting, dismantling, and repairing of
machinery of all descriptions when such work is performed by the
Employer on or off its premises, excluding all other employees, office
and clerical employees, professional employees, watchmen, guards,
managerial, executive employees, and supervisors within the meaning
of the Act as amended. The Employer and the Intervenor I contend
* Houston, Reynolds , and Murdock.
i International Brotherhood of Boilermakers , Iron Ship Builders and Helpers of America,
Lodge 117, AFL.
80 N. L. R. B., No. 69.
320
KNUDSEN BROS. SHIPBUILDING & DRYDOCK CO . 321
that the unit sought is inappropriate for the reason that the bargain-
ing history of the Employer's plant has been on a plant-wide basis,
and because the unit sought is not a craft unit.
In September 1945, shortly after the Employer purchased its
Superior, Wisconsin, plant, the Superior Metal Trades Council, AFL,
hereinafter called the Council, an organization of unions including
the Petitioner and the Intervenor, was certified by the Wisconsin
Employment Relations Board as bargaining representative of all
employees excluding executives, supervisors, and office employees.
The last of the three contracts with the Council terminated July 1,
1948. The Employer thereafter refused to continue to recognize the
Council, but did enter into a temporary agreement with the Intervenor
which provided for an extension of the provisions of the expired
contract from July 1 to July 15, 1948, and for a wage increase. At the
time of the hearing the Employer and the Intervenor were abiding by
the terms of the expired contract as extended pending the outcome of
their negotiations for a new contract.
The Employer employs approximately 85 employees in its ship
repair and drydock operations. The Petitioner seeks to represent
approximately 8 employees who work in and out of the machine shop.
The Employer's operations are conducted in 7 or 8 buildings. One
building, called the punch shop, houses the punch or fabricating shop,
the blacksmith shop, the slab furnace, and the machine shop. The
machine shop, which is located at one end of the building and is parti-
tioned off from the rest of the shops, contains boring machines, mills,
lathes, drill presses, gear cutters, milling machines, and whetstones.
A machine shop foreman supervises the employees designated as ma-
chinists. Employees from the blacksmith shop and slab furnace use
the welding machines in the machine shop, and machinists in the
performance of machine work utilize certain mechanical facilities of
the punch shop outside the machine shop. Apparently, in these two
instances, there is no interchange of work.
The record discloses that the work regularly performed by a ma-
jority of the machine shop personnel is not limited to that ordinarily
associated with the machinists' trade. Three of these employees are
designated as "machinists," three as "machinist specialists," and two as
"machinist helpers." Of the three machinists, only one is considered a
first-class machinist, whereas another one installs deck engines, per-
forms welding, burning, and boiler work, and various other duties
including operation of the launch or of a derrick. Moreover, the
machinist who performs boiler work and other duties receives the same
rate of pay as the first-class machinist. The machinist specialists
regularly engage in the performance of boiler work and other duties
322 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
in addition to machinist work, and apparently are classified as inachin-
ist specialists for that reason. The machinist helpers likewise assist
the boilermakers. Since neither the machinists, with one exception,
nor the machines in the machine shop are equipped to turn out fine
machine work, the Employer is in the practice of letting out such work
to subcontractors.
The record further reveals that when working outside the machine
shop, the machinists work in close proximity with other employees as
part of repair crews. Moreover, they have the same seniority rights,
wages, working conditions, and vacation privileges as other employees
of the Employer.
Inasmuch, as the employees sought by the Petitioner do not appear
to be a craft group, and in view of the integration of the Employer's
plant, and the bargaining history in the plant-wide unit, we perceive
no justification for severing this group from the existing unit.2 We
find the proposed unit inappropriate and shall order that the petition
be dismissed.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the entire record in the case, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the petition filed in the instant
matter be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
2 Matter o f Marine Iron and Ship Building Company, 78 N. L. R. B . 309; Matter of
Norge Dtvi8ion, Borg-Warner Corporation, 76 N. L . R. B. 967.