Moore Drydock Co.Download PDFNational Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsJun 25, 194877 N.L.R.B. 1431 (N.L.R.B. 1948) Copy Citation In the Matter Of MOORE DRYDOCIc COMPANY, EMPLOYER and FREDERIC W. SHAW, AN EMPLOYEE, PETITIONER Case No. 20-RD-2.-Decided June 25,1948 Broebeck, Phleger and Harrison, by Messrs. Richard Ernst and Peter H. Behr, of San Francisco, Calif., for the Employer. Mr. Frederic W. Shaw, of Berkeley, Calif., appearing in person as the Petitioner. Messrs. Adolph M. Koven and J. D. Vanderlaan, of San Francisco, Calif., for the Operating Engineers. DECISION AND ORDER Upon a petition for decertification duly filed, hearing in this case was held at San Francisco, California, on December 12 and 22, 1947, before Merle D. Vincent, hearing officer. A second hearing for the purpose of securing additional evidence, as indicated below, was held at San Francisco, California, on May 7, 1948, before Benjamin B. Law, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hear- ings are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed 1 Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations Board 2 makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT I. TiIE BUSINESS OF TILE EMPLOYER The Employer, a California corporation having its principal place of business at Oakland, California, is engaged in the business of ship- 1 At the original hearing, the hearing officer reserved for our determination a motion by the Technical Engineers , which was a party at the first hearing , to dismiss the petition on the basis of formal defects in the petition we are dismissing the petition on the grounds set forth below The hearing officer at the original hearing correctly excluded evidence concerning alleged unfair labor practices Federal Shipbuilding and Drydock Company , 76 N L B B 413. 2 Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three -man panel consisting of the uiid ' f itned lioaid Members [ Houston , Murdock, and Gray]. 77 N L R. B., No. 219 1431 1432 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD building, ship repair, and steel fabrication. During 1946 the Em- ployer purchased raw materials valued in excess of $250,000, of which approximately 90 percent came from points outside of California. During the same period the Employer sold finished products valued in excess of $1,000,000, of which approximately 75 percent was shipped to points outside of California, either directly or in the form of vessels which moved in interstate and foreign commerce from California after being repaired. The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce 'within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. II. THE PARTIES INVOLVED The Petitioner, an employee of the Employer, asserts that Technical Engineers', Architects', and Draftsmen's Union, Local 89, A. F. of L., herein referred to as Technical Engineers, is no longer the representa- tive of the Employer's employees as defined in Section 9 (a) of the Act. Technical Engineers was, at the beginning of this proceeding, a labor organization which had been recognized as the representative of employees of the Employer. Operating Engineers, Local No. 3, of the International Union of Operating Engineers, herein referred to as Operating Engineers, is a labor organization claiming to represent employees of the Employer. III. THE ALLEGED QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION On October 21, 1944, Technical Engineers was certified as the ex- clusive bargaining representative for the engineering employees in various departments of the Employer's operation, and a collective bargaining agreement was entered into on February 24, 1945.3 On July 21, 1947, a group of employees advised the Employer in writing that they no longer wished to be represented by Technical Engineers, and on October 28, 1947, the instant petition requesting decertification was filed. As noted above, a hearing was thereupon held on December 12 and 22, 1947. Subsequent to the close of this hearing, the Employer moved to re- open the hearing for the introduction of additional evidence pertaining to the status of Technical Engineers. The motion was granted, and a further hearing held. The evidence developed at this hearing indicates that on January 11, 1948, at a regular business meeting of Technical , 3 This aereement provided that it would continue in force and effect "during the period of the National Emeigency, as proclaimed by the President of the United States, and there- after from year to year unless either party shall desue a change and shall give the other party notice in writing of the proposed changes at least thirty (30) days prior to the expiration of any year " MOORE DRYDOCK COMPANY 1433 Engineers attended by over 50 percent of the entire membership, the following resolution was adopted : "Resolved that the membership of Technical Engineers, Architects, and Draftsmen's Union, Local 89, affiliate as a body with Local No. 3 of the Operating Engineers Union, effective 6: 00 p. in. January 11, 1948." Thereafter, the members of Technical Engineers who wished to become members of Operating Engineers signed individual application cards in the latter union. The International with which Technical Engineers was affiliated con- tinues to exist, but it no longer has an affiliate known as Local No. 89. The group which was formerly in Technical Engineers was established) as an administrative subdivision of Operating Engineers, known as Local No. 3 E, but Local No. 3 E has no separate officers or bylaws. The funds of Technical Engineers remaining after payment of debts, were established in a trust fund to be used "for beneficial activities" for the former members of Technical Engineers. The Employer has not rec- ognized Operating Engineers as the collective bargaining, representa- tive of its employees. Section 9 (c) (1) (A) (II) of the Act, as amended, provides for petitions for decertification of a labor organization "which has been certified or is being currently recognized . . . as the bargaining rep- resentative." The facts set forth above make it clear that Technical Engineers has ceased to exist. Operating Engineers contends that it is the successor to Technical Engineers for all purposes. This is not a case, however, where there has been a mere change in the name or affiliation of a labor organization 4 When Technical Engineers ceased to exist, its funds were not transferred to Operating Engineers. Tech- nical Engineers members were required to apply for new membership in Operating Engineers. Technical Engineers officers did not become officers of Operating Engineers. Former members of Technical Engi- neers who joined Operating Engineers were established in a subdi- vision of a union which was already in existence when Technical Engi- neers was abolished. Under these circumstances we find that Operat- ing Engineers is not the same union as Technical Engineers and does not inherit the certification and representative status of Technical Engineers. Therefore, there is at present no organization "which has been certified or is being currently recognized as the bargaining repre- sentative" of the employees herein involved. Under these circumstances, we find that no question affecting com- merce exists concerning the representation of employees of the Em- * Cf Hatter of American-Hawaiian Steamship Company, 10 N. L. It, B. 1355. 1434 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ployer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.5 ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition filed by Frederic W. Shaw, eriiployed by Moore Drydock Company, Oakland, California, for decertification of Technical Engineers', Architects', and Draftsmen's Union, Local 89, A. F. of L., as the bargaining representative of the Employer's engineering employees, be, and it hereby is, dismissed. 5If Operating Engineers desires to advance its claim to represent a majority of the em- ployees in the unit herein involved , it may file a petition for an election , or, if a demand for recognition should be made upon the Employer , the Employer may file a petition Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation