Steamship Trade Association of Baltimore, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 23, 1954

108 N.L.R.B. 6 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

6 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
found that 1 such employee , Cecil Fore , was a supervisor and
recommended that the challenge to his ballot be sustained.
However, he found that the other 2 employees , Elam and
Pritchett, were not supervisors and recommended that the chal-
lenges to their ballots be overruled . The Petitioner excepted to
this finding and contends that all 3 employees are supervisors.
As no exception was taken to the Regional Director ' s action
insofar as he found that Fore was a supervisor , we adopt this
finding and sustain the challenge to his ballot. As the other
two challenged ballots are insufficient to affect the results of
the election ,4 we find it unnecessary to rule on them.
Accordingly , we will overrule the objections to the election,
and as the majority of the ballots were cast in favor of the Inter-
venor , we will certify it as the representative of the employees
in the appropriate unit.
[The Board certified Coolidge Corporation Independent Union
as the designated collective -bargaining representative of all
production and maintenance employees employed by the Em-
ployer at its Middletown , Ohio, plant , including leadmen, in-
spectors , and shop clericals , but excluding office clerical
employees , draftsmen , engineers , guards, and supervisors as
defined in the Act.]
Member Beeson took no part in the consideration of the
above Supplemental Decision and Certification of Represen-
tatives.
4 As we have sustained the challenge to Fore's ballot , the maximum number of valid votes
cast, including the 2 other challenged ballots , would be 95 , of which the intervenor received 48.
STEAMSHIP TRADE ASSOCIATION OF BALTIMORE, INCOR-
PORATED and INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S ASSO-
CIATION, Petitioner . Case No. 5-RC-1363. March 23, 1954
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 ( c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Sydney Smith,
hearing officer . The hearing officer's rulings made at the
hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby af-
firmed.'
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.
1The name of the Employer as it appears in the formal papers was amended at the hearing
to the form shown above.
108 NLRB No. 3.
STEAMSHIP TRADE ASSOCIATION OF BALTIMORE, INCORPORATED 7
2. The labor organization involved claims to representcer-
tain employees of the Employer.2
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the
representation 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:
Steamship Trade Association of Baltimore , Incorporated,
herein called the Association , is an association of individual
member companies engaged in the maritime industry in Balti-
more and vicinity . The Association and the Petitioner, which
is the recognized representative of stevedores and dock la-
borers employed by the Association ' s member companies,
negotiate contracts for the wages and working conditions of
these employees.
In the instant proceeding , the Petitioner seeks to represent
in an associationwide unit timekeepers employed by the indivi-
dual member companies of the Association , not hitherto repre-
sented for bargaining purposes . The Association , contending
that certain timekeepers as a group are essentially office
clerical employees and should not be included in a unit apart
from other office clerical employees of its member companies.
We agree with this contention.
Disregarding certain timekeepers who may be supervisors
or managerial or confidential employees , timekeepers gen-
erally perform the following duties : For a short period each
day timekeepers work on the docks, assigning identification
tags to longshoremen and taking their time . They pay long-
shoremen on Fridays . They spend , however, the great majority
of their working hours in the pier offices or in the uptown
offices of their member companies , computing cost or per-
formance figures based upon the labor hours worked and the
amount of a given commodity handled . They are paid on a salary
basis and , in general , share the vacation , sick-leave , and in-
surance benefits of office clerical employees . They perform
their duties with access to office records of their member
companies . Under these circumstances , we find that time-
keepers in general are office clerical employees.3
Because timekeepers comprise only a segment of the office
clerical staffs of the Association ' s member companies, we
find that the proposed unit limited to timekeepers from which
other office clerical employees are excluded is not an appro-
priate unit.4 We therefore dismiss the petition.
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
Member Beeson took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Order.
2 Wm. L. Hoge & Co., Incorporated , 103 NLRB 20.
9 Gastonta Weaving Company , 91 NLRB 899, 900.
4 Cf. F. H. McGraw & Company, 106 NLRB 624.