The Cleveland Cliffs Iron Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 18, 1957

117 N.L.R.B. 668 (N.L.R.B. 1957)

668 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Cleveland Cliffs Iron Company and Seafarers International
Union of North America, Great Lakes District , AFL-CIO, Peti-
tioner. Cases Nos. 8-RC-2860 and 8-RC-2885. March 18, 1957
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon petitions' duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labors Relations Act, a hearing was held before Nora M. Friel, hear-
ing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent employees
of the Employer. The Intervenor, Lake Sailors', and the Employer
contend that the Petitioner's showing of interest in Case No. 8-RC-
2860, based on a payroll period ending September 30, 1956, is not suf-
ficiently current to support the petition in Case No. 8-RC-2885, which
was filed on December 4, 1956. We find this contention to be without
merit. It is well established that the determination of the currency
of a petitioner's showing of interest is an administrative matter not
subject to collateral attack.2 Moreover, we are administratively satis-
fied that the Petitioner's showing of interest among the employees it
seeks, as of the dales of the filing of both of the petitions herein, is
adequate both as to currency and number of designations.
3. The Intervenor, Lake Sailors', and the Employer contend that
their current bargaining agreement constitutes a bar to an election to
determine representatives at this time because the petition in Case
No. 8-RC-2860 was premature, having been filed on October 25, 1956,
more than 4 months prior to February 27, 1957, the expiration date
of the current bargaining agreement, and because the petition in Case
No. 8-RC-2885 is defective inasmuch as no notice thereof was given
prior to the hearing. We do not agree. With respect to Case No.
8-RC-2860, it is well settled that regardless of the timeliness of the
filing of a petition, the Board, in an appropriate case, will order an
' The Employer and 1 of the Intervenors , Lake Sailors ' Union ( Independent ), moved to
dismiss , contending that (a) the consolidation of the 2 representation cases herein is im-
proper because the order of consolidation was issued by the Regional Director and not
by the General Counsel as required by the Board 's Rules and Regulations, and (b) Case
No. 8-RC-2885 is improperly before the Board because no notice of the filing of the
petition or of hearing in that case was served upon any of the parties until immediately
before the opening of the hearing when the hearing officer served the order of consolida-
tion As to (a), the General Counsel lawfully delegated authority to consolidate to the
Regional Director Franklin County Sugar Company, 92 NLRB 1341 As to (b), the
petitions in the consolidated cases are identical in every respect Therefore , as neither
party was compelled to proceed with the hearing unprepared on any issue not raised by,
the petition in Case No . 8-RC-2860 , for which ample notice of filing of petition and
hearing had been given , neither of the moving parties could have been prejudiced.
Accordingly , these motions to dismiss are denied
2 Morganton Full Fashioned Hosiery Company , 102 NLRB 134, 135.
117 NLRB No. 103.
THE CLEVELAND CLIFFS IRON COMPANY 669
election if at the time of the direction the contract involved is, as
here, about to expire.' Moreover, the petition in Case No. 8-RC-2885,
which is substantively identical to that filed in Case No. 8-RC-2860,
was timely filed and affords a proper basis for proceeding with this
investigation.4
Accordingly, we find that a question affecting commerce exists con-
cerning the representation of employees of the Employer within the
meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The parties agree that the appropriate unit should comprise all
of the unlicensed personnel employed on the Employer's vessels oper-
ating on the Great Lakes. However, the Employer contends that the
handymen are supervisors who should not be included in the stipulated
unit. The Petitioner and the Lake Sailors' take an opposite stand.
The handymen work under the supervision of the chief engineer
and, for all intents and purposes, perform work requiring equivalent
training and skills to those usually possessed by third assistant engi-
neers on other Great Lakes vessels. For the most part, they are re-
sponsible for the maintenance and repair of engines, steering gear,
and other auxiliary equipment. In keeping with their responsibilities,
these men are issued officers' passes, receive the same group annuities
as other officers and the same pay as third assistant engineers, attend
monthly meetings of officers, and are treated as officers in other re-
spects. Although there is no Coast Guard requirement that these
handymen be licensed, the Employer requires them to hold the license
of third assistant engineer and, although during the Employer's 1956
operating season some of these handymen were not licensed, it was
because licensed personnel were not available. The Employer states
that it replaces the unlicensed handymen with licensed men wherever
possible. Moreover, with regard to training, where a handyman has
not received an engineer's ticket, he is sent to a 60-day training school
conducted by the United States Government to familiarize him with
his duties.
Normally the handymen have three assistants whom they direct with
regard to the manner in which work is to be performed. The Em-
ployer's personnel manager testified, without contradiction, that the
handymen possess the authority to effectively recommend hiring, dis-
charge, and promotion, and that they discipline their assistants and
closely inspect their work. Although no instance where any handyman
has actually recommended hire or discharge was cited, there was testi-
mony to the effect that on at least one occasion a promotion has
followed a handyman's recommendation therefor. Additionally sig-
nificant is the fact that although the unit description in the current
bargaining agreement between the Employer and the Lake Sailors'
includes, in general terms, all unlicensed personnel without listing
9 See Home Curtain Corp, 111 NLRB 1253, 1254.
4 See footnote 1, supra
670 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR' RRLATIOVS BOARD
specific classifications, in the wage section of the agreement handymen
are not mentioned. It would seem, therefore, that the current bar-
gaining agreement does not include this classification of personnel.
On the record as a whole and by reason of the foregoing, we find
that the handymen are supervisors within the meaning of the Act, and
we shall exclude them from the unit herein found to be appropriate.
Accordingly, we find that the following employees employed on all
ships owned and/or operated by the Employer, whose main offices are
located at Cleveland, Ohio, constitute an appropriate unit for the
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b)
of the Act : All unlicensed personnel excluding the handymen, stew-
ards, licensed personnel, and all other supervisors as defined in the Act.
5. As heretofore stated, the Employer has curtailed the operations
of its lake vessels for the winter season to such an extent that a repre-
sentative vote is presently not possible. Moreover, the exact date for
resumption of the normal operation of the Employer's vessels cannot
be determined at this time., Under these circumstances, and in ac-
cordance with our usual practice with respect to seasonal industries,
we shall direct that the election be held upon the resumption of op-
erations of the Employer's vessels on a date when a representative
number of employees is determined by the Regional Director to be
employed by the Employer in the appropriate unit. Employees
eligible to vote shall be those employed on the day immediately pre-
ceding the date of issuance of the notice of election.' Also, in accord-
ance with the Board's general practice in directing elections among
employees on seagoing vessels, we shall leave the method of voting
to the discretion of the Regional Director. Consistent with such prac-
tice we hereby vest in the Regional Director discretion to determine
the exact time and place and procedure for conducting the election .6
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
MEMBER MURDOCK took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Election.
8 Sehnesder Transpot tation Com pany , 75 NLRB 870 , 872; Bob Saunders Company,
103 NLRB 307
8 Pacific Maritime Association, 110 NLRB 1047
Local No. 156, United Packinghouse Workers of America, AFL-
CIO; District #4 Council , United Packinghouse Workers of
America, AFL-CIO; and United Packinghouse Workers of
America , AFL-CIO and Du Quoin Packing Company . Case No.
14-CB-379. March 20,1957
DECISION AND ORDER
On July 30, 1956, Trial Examiner Eugene E. Dixon issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
117 NLRB No. 105.