Moore Drydock Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 25, 1948

77 N.L.R.B. 1431 (N.L.R.B. 1948)

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