Manitowoc Shipbuilding, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 29, 1971

191 N.L.R.B. 786 (N.L.R.B. 1971)

786 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Manitowoc Shipbuilding , Inc. and The Manitowoc
Company, Inc. and International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, Local 751, AFL-CIO, Union-
Petitioner.' Cases 30-RC-1386 and 30-UC-65
June 29, 1971
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS JENKINS
AND KENNEDY
Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9(b) and (c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a
hearing was held before Hearing Officer Larry R. Bren-
nan of the National Labor Relations Board. Following
the hearing and pursuant to Section 102.67 of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations,
Series 8, as amended, the Regional Director for Region
30 issued an order transferring this case to the Board
for decision. Thereafter, the Employer and the Peti-
tioner filed briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act,
the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
these cases to a three-member panel..
The Hearing Officer's rulings made at the hearing are
free from prejudicial error and they are hereby
affirmed.
Upon the entire record in these cases, the Board
finds:
1. Manitowoc Shipbuilding, Inc., hereinafter re-
ferred to as MSI, is a wholly owned subsidiary of The
Manitowoc Company, Inc., hereinafter referred to as
MCI, a Wisconsin corporation operating in Manito-
woc, Wisconsin. Manitowoc Engineering Company,
hereinafter referred to as MEC, an operating division
of MCI, is located on the same Manitowoc premises
together with MSI. MSI is engaged in the building and
repair of ships, and the fabricating of weldments for
various types of cranes built by MEC. MSI also oper-
ates trucks and cranes, and provides painters, carpen-
ters, pipefitters, etc., to do maintenance work for the
various operations located on the premises of MCI.
MCI furnishes all administrative services needed by
MSI and MEC, including financial, accounting, pay-
roll, data processing, industrial and plant engineering,
and electrical service for production and maintenance.
MEC secures a great deal of its semifinished product
from MSI. MEC in turn supplies machinist services to
MSI.
MCI and_MSI iiave common officers and directors.
There is centralized^control of'labor relations and per-
sonnel policies for the two companies. We find that
' Hereinafter referred to, as IBEW or Petitioner.
they are an integrated enterprise and constitute a single
employer within the meaning of the Act.2
During the 1970 calendar year , each of the compa-
nies shipped more than $50,000 worth of products to
points outside the State of Wisconsin . We find that they
are engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
Act and that it will effectuate the policies of the Act to
assert jurisdiction herein.
2. The Petitioner is a labor organization claiming to
represent certain employees of the Employer.
3. The Employer contends that the unit -clarification
petition in Case 30-UC-65 should be dismissed be-
cause the Board has not authority to clarify noncer-
tified bargaining units established by agreement of the
parties, and an existing collective-bargaining agree-
ment with the Boilermakers Union which includes
crane operators is a bar to the representation petition
in Case 30-RC-1386.
We find no merit in the Employer's contention that
the Board lacks authority to clarify bargaining units
established by agreement of the parties and not certified
by the Board , for the reasons fully set forth in the
Board 's decision in Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen
and Enginemen.3
With respect to the Employers ' contention that there
is a contract bar, to the proceedings in Case 30-RC--
1386, the record shows that the Employer and the Boil-
ermakers Union agreed , on May 1, 1970, to include the
crane operator classification in their collective -bargain-
ing contract. However, as the Boilermakers Union has
disclaimed any interest in representing the employees
involved in this proceeding, we find that this contract
is not a bar.4
For about 25 years the Petitioner was the recognized
bargaining representative for a unit of electrician jour-
neymen, electrician helpers, and electric crane opera-
tors employed by MSI . S The parties ' latest collective-
bargaining contract ran from May 1, 1966 , until April
30, 1969 . Prior to the termination of this agreement
Petitioner met with John D. West, president of MCI
and MSI , and bargained over the terms of a new con-
tract. These negotiations resulted in an agreement to
transfer the IBEW unit employees to the payroll of
MCI, the parent company . The transfer was completed
for all unit employees on May 1 , 1969 . During the
negotiations, the Employer proposed that as crane op-
erators retired or left the employment of MCI all newly
hired crane operators should be placed on the payroll
of MSI inasmuch as they performed a service for MSI,°
Manitowoc Company„Inc, ,186 NLRB-^Noo 145,:
145 NLRB 1521, 1522-24.
° National By-Products Company, 122,)ILRB 334.
' MSI has bargained with the Boilermakers 'Union for its production
employees, with the Teamsters for its drivers, with the OperatingEngineers,,,
Carpenters, Painters, and Pipefitters for their respective crafts, and with the
Office Employees Union for the clerical employees.
191 NLRB No. 137
MANITOWOC SHIPBUILDING, INC. 787
and should be covered by the collective-bargaining con-
tract with the Boilermakers Union.' However, the Peti-
tioner refused to relinquish its jurisdiction and bargain-
ing rights for electric crane operators and rejected the
proposal. The employees represented by Petitioner
have continued to work without a bargaining contract.
Thereafter, the Employer hired a number of crane
operators to fill vacancies and placed them on the pay-
roll of MSI. The Petitioner filed the instant petitions to
add those crane operators to its existing bargaining unit
either by way of unit clarification or, in the alternative,
by the elective process.
The crane operator classification, by agreement of
the parties, has been included in the Petitioner's unit
for many years. The crane operators who are members
of that unit and those recently hired by the Employer
operate electrically powered gantry cranes in the
"burn" shop and in the storage yard, and the electric
bridge cranes in the "burn" shop and in the "fab" shop
for MSI.' The other employees in Petitioner's unit regu-
larly substitute for all crane operators in case of emer-
gency. Thus, at the time of the hearing, the newly hired
crane operators were operating the same cranes in the
6 MSI and the Boilermakers Union did negotiate a contract which in-
cludes the job classification "crane operator " Historically their collective-
bargaining contracts did not cover this classification. Subsequently, as noted
supra, the Boilermakers disclaimed any interest in representing crane opera-
tors
7 At all times material herein the, cranes were owned by MCI.
same areas , and were doing the same type of work as
the crane operators who are included in the Petitioner's
unit.
In view of the long bargaining history for all crane
operators as part of the IBEW's unit, the fact that
newly hired crane operators on the payroll of MSI are
performing the same work under the same conditions
as the older crane operators on the MCI payroll, and
the further fact that MCI and MSI constitute a single
employer within the meaning of the Act, we find that
the crane operators on the MSI payroll are part of the
unit represented by IBEW. Accordingly, we shall
clarify Petitioner's unit by including therein the crane
operators on the MSI payroll. We shall also dismiss the
petition in Case 30-RC-1386, inasmuch as there is no
question of representation to be resolved by an election.
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the unit of journeymen
electricians, electrician helpers, and electric crane oper-
ators represented by International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, Local 751, AFL-CIO, be, and it
hereby is, clarified by including therein the electric
crane operators on the payroll of Manitowoc Ship-
building, Inc.
IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that the petition
in Case 30-RC-1386 be, and it hereby is, dismissed.