Sun Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 1, 1944

59 N.L.R.B. 714 (N.L.R.B. 1944)

In the Matter of SUN SHIPBUILDING & DRY DOCK COMPANY and SUN
SHIP EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, INC.
Case No. 4-R-1566.-Decided December 1, 1944
Mr. Sylvan H. Hirsch, of Philadelphia, Pa., and Mr. John G. Pew,
of Chester, Pa., for the Company.
Messrs. Guy W. Davis and Guy G. DeFuria, of Chester, Pa., for
the Employees Association.
Mr. M. H. Goldstein, of Philadelphia, Pa., for the C. I. O.
Mr. James A. Cochrane, of Chester, Pa., and Mr. John J. Tague,
of Philadelphia, Pa., for the Supervisors Association.
Mr. Thomas A. Ricci, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon an amended petition duly filed by Sun Ship Employees Asso-
ciation, Inc., herein called the Employees Association, alleging that
a question affecting commerce 'had arisen concerning the representa-
tion of employees of Sun Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Company, Ches-
ter, Pennsylvania, herein called the Company, the National Labor
Relations Board provided for an appropriate hearing upon due
notice before Melton Boyd, Trial Examiner. Said hearing was held
at Chester, Pennsylvania, on November 3, 1944. The Company, the
Employees Association, Industrial Union of Marine and Shipbuilding
Workers of America, and its Local No. 2, C. I. 0., herein collectively
referred to as the C. I. 0., and Shipbuilding Supervisors Association,
Unit #1, herein called the Supervisors Association, appeared and
participated. All parties were afforded full opportunity to be heard,
to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence
bearing on the issues. At the hearing, the C. I. O. moved to dismiss
the petition. The Trial Examiner referred the motion to the Board
for determination. For,reasons set forth in Section III, infra, the
motion is denied. The Trial Examiner's rulings made at the hear-
59 N. L. R. B., No. 144.
714
SUN SHIPBUILDING & DRY DOCK COMPANY 715
ing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. All
parties were afforded an opportunity to file briefs with the Board.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Sun Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Company, a Pennsylvania corpora-
tion, has its principal place of business at Chester, Pennsylvania,
where it operates a shipyard and is engaged in the construction and
repair of ships. During the, fiscal year preceding the date of the
hearing, its volume of business was in excess of $150,000,000. During
that period more than one-half its raw materials was received from
points outside the State of Pennsylvania, and during the same period
more than one-half of its finished products was shipped to points
outside that State.
The Company admits that it is engaged in, commerce within the
meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Sun Ship Employees Association, Inc., is a labor organization
admitting to membership employees of the Company.
Industrial Union of Marine and Shipbuilding Workers of America,
and its Local No. 21, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Or-
ganizations , are labor organizations admitting to membership em-
ployees of the Company.
Shipbuilding Supervisors Association, Unit #1, is a labor organi-
zation admitting to membership employees of the Company."
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
Immediately following June 30, 1943,2 and repeatedly thereafter,
the Employees Association requested the Company to recognize it
The constitution of the Supervisors Association , introduced into evidence at the hearing,
states that "the object of this organization shall be to more closely unite the supervisors
of Sun Shipbuilding Company for the common benefit of all : to disseminate useful Informa-
tion, to encourage relations of goodwill and respect among supervisors , men, and manage-
ment." It also states that "all supervisors , up to but not including General Foremen, shall
be eligible for membership ." The record also discloses that an amendment to the constitu-
tion, empowering the Supervisors Association "to act as collective bargaining agent per-
taining to wages, hours , working conditions and seniority " was formally approved at a
membership meeting on October 2, 1944 , and was scheduled for final approval at two
subsequent scheduled meetings . We find that the Supervisors Association is a labor organ-
ization within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. See Matter of Boss Man-
ufacturing Company, et ano., 56 N. L. R. B 348.
2 On June 30 , 1943, after a consent election , the C. I. O. was designated as exclusive rep-
resentative of the employees involved herein. The Employees Association disputed the
validity of that election and its action at law to set it aside is still pending in a Pennsyl-
vania State Court. -
716 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
as the exclusive representative for the employees in the unit set forth
in the petition herein. On September 23, 1944, the Employees As-
sociation made the same demand upon the Company by letter and
requested that the Company refrain from renegotiating its contract
with the C. I. O.s Advised of the petition herein, filed on October
451944, the Company replied on October 5, that it would not renegotiate
its contract with the C. I. O.
A statement of a Board agent, introduced into evidence at the hear-
ing, indicates that the Employees Association represents a substantial
number of employees in the unit hereinafter found appropriate.4
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Company, within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Company, the Employees Association, and the C. I. O. are in
apparent agreement concerning the composition of an appropriate
unit. The Supervisors Association states that its interest in this pro-
ceeding is to urge the exclusion of leaders from the unit proposed by
the other parties, and it contends that leaders constitute a separate
unit apart from the Company's remaining employees because leaders
are in fact related to management rather than to production workers.
Leaders direct the work of gangs comprised of 6 to 12 men and dis-
tribute their time as recorded and charged to various operations. They
are paid 20 cents per hour more than the highest craft rate and ordi-
8 On November 15, 1943, the Company and the C . I. O. made a collective bargaining
agreement concerning the employees involved herein. The contract was for a term of 1 year
and provided for automatic renewal for yearly periods unless either party gave notice to
terminate 30 days prior to any anniversary date. This agreement is not raised as a bar
to the instant proceeding
4 The Field Examiner reported that the Employees Association submitted 9,845 signatures
on authorization cards and petitions, and that on October 7 , 1944, there were 25 ,083 em-
ployees in the alleged appropriate unit. The cards and petitions were dated as follows,:
1942, April to December , 138; 1943, January 1 to June 30 , 2,775; 1943 , July 1 t'o December
31, 543; 1943 , no month specified , 3 505 ; 1944, February to October , 592; and 1944, no
month specified , 2,292. At the hearing, the Employees Association submitted 85 additional
designation cards which bore apparently genuine signatures . Of all the signatures sub-
mitted, 1,455 are on petitions dated 1944 . The remainder are signatures 'on cards author-
izing the Employees Association "as my sole representative in collective bargaining . . .
for a period of 1 year from above date , and agree to pay 50 cents to cover dues ."' The Field
Examiner also reported that the Employees Association submitted its secretary 's affidavit
attesting that all its membership cards dated 1943 and 1944 bear signatures of members
in good standing on October 30, 1944. The C. I. O. contends that the Employees Association
has made an insufficient showing of current representation and that the petition should
theretofore be dismissed . In view of all the foregoing facts and since the 1943 contracts re-
quired maintenance of membership in the C. I. 0., we find no merit in the C . I. O.'s
contention.
The C. I. O. relies upon its 1943 contract to show its interest in this proceeding.
At the hearing the Supervisors Association submittted to the Trial Examiner 440 member-
sLip cards bearing apparently genuine signatures of leaders and assistant foremen in the
Company's employ. It also offered for inspection its membership books purportedly showing
that about 800 additional employees of the Company were its members.
SUN SHIPBUILDING & DRY DOCK COMPANY 717
narily do no actual production work. Frequently they are reduced
to craft work, as the Company's operations change, during which pe-
riods their hourly rate differential is not paid. After some disagree-
ment concerning the powers of leaders to recommend changes in the
status of employees, the parties, including the Supervisors Associa-
tion, agreed that "leaders have no authority to hire, fire, transfer,
promote, or discipline men who work in the gangs under them; such
action is taken by the assistant foreman or foreman over the leader,
after receiving the report of the leader and after, in practically all
cases, making their own investigation' of the facts so reported." Under
these circumstances, we are of the opinion that leaders are not super-
visory employees and have essentially the same interests as production
employees. We shall include them in the appropriate unit.5
We find that all production and maintenance employees of the Com-
pany, including leaders, piece-work counters, timekeepers, guards and
clerical employees in the yards and shops, but excluding foremen,
assistant foremen, quartermen, captains of guards and their superiors,
employees in the main offices, employees in the contract office (i. e.,
employees upon the pay roll of Department 91, whose work is in con-
nection with the bonus contracts of other employees), draftsmen, em-
ployees of the medical and first-aid stations, employees paid on a
salary basis and all other supervisory employees, with authority to
hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise effect changes in
the status of employees, or effectively recommend such action, con-
stitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act .6
V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
We shall direct that the question concerning representation which
has arisen be resolved by an election by secret ballot among the em-
ployees in the appropriate unit who were employed during the pay-
roll period immediately preceding the date of the Direction of Elec-
tion herein, subject to the limitations and additions set forth in the
Direction.?
Since 1937 , leaders have been included in all the Company ' s collective bargaining agree-
ments corering the employees involved in this proceeding.
9 This is substantially the same unit covered by collective bargaining agreements between
the Company and the Employees Association from 1937 to 1943, defined in the consent
election of 1943 ( see footnote 2, supra ), and covered by the 1943 contract between the
Company and the C. I. O. Except for the Supervisors Association, the parties were in
agreement upon this unit throughout the bearing . At the end of the hearing, counsel for
the C. I 0 suggested a slight modification in the language describing the unit. The pro-
posal seemingly varied the date for determining the eligibility for voting with respect to
certain employees . The parties disagreed upon the meaning of the new wording, and the
suggestion was not urged further. From the entire record, it is clear that the unit as set
forth herein reflects the actual agreement of the Company , the Employees Association and
the C. I. O.
4 We shall place the C. I. O. on the ballot as "Industrial Union of Marine and Shipbuilding
Workers of America, Local No. 2, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations."
718 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
By,virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National
Labor Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Re-
lations Act, and pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3, as amended, it is
hereby
DmEarrD that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representa-
tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Sun Shipbuilding
& Dry Dock Company, Chester, Pennsylvania, an election by secret
ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than thirty
(30) days from the -date of this Direction, under the direction and
supervision of the Regional Director for the Fourth Region, acting
in this matter as agent for the National Labor Relations Board, and
subject to Article III, Sections 10 and 11, of said Rules and Regula-
tions, among the employees in the unit found appropriate in Section
IV, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately
preceding the date of • this Direction, including employees who did
not work during the said pay-roll period because they were ill or on
vacation or temporarily laid off, and including employees in the armed
forces of the United States who present themselves in person at the
polls, but excluding those employees who have since quit or been
discharged for cause and have not been rehired or reinstated prior to
the date of the election, to determine whether they desire to be repre-
sented by Sun Ship Employees Association, Inc., or by Industrial
Union Marine and Shipbuilding Workers of America, Local No. 2,
affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, for the
purposes of collective bargaining, or by neither.
0