The Maryland Dry Dock Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 17, 1940

23 N.L.R.B. 917 (N.L.R.B. 1940)

In the Matter of THE MARYLAND DRY DOCK COMPANY and BALTIMORE
ASSN. PATTERN MAKERS, PATTERN MAKERS' LEAGUE OF NORTH
AMERICA
Case No. R-1765.-Decided May 17, 1940
Shipbuilding and Repairing Industry-Investigatwn of Representatives: con-
troversy concerning representation of employees : employer refused to recognize
Pattern Makers Union as bargaining representative of patternmakers in its
employ because of outstanding agreement recognizing rival union as exclusive
bargaining agency in an industrial unit; contract , no bar to-Unt Appropriate
for Collective Bargaining : patternmakers in past indicated an intention to main-
tain their identity as a distinct bargaining group within plant ; held pattern-
makers could constitute an appropriate unit ; final determination of unit, how-
ever, to depend on choice of bargaining representatives by patternmakers in
election to be ordered ; ( Smith, dissenting ) would dismiss petition-Election
Ordered,
Mr. Herbert 0. Ebey, for the Board.
Mr. W. Purnell Hall, Jr., of Baltimore, Md., for the Company.
Mr. George Q. Lynch, of Washington, D. C., for the Pattern Makers
Union.
Mr. Phillip H. Van Gelder, of Camden, N. J., for Local No. 31.
Mr. S. G. Lippman, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On February 20, 1940, Baltimore Assn. of Pattern Makers, Pattern
Makers' League of North America, herein called the Pattern
Makers Union, filed with the Regional Director for the Fifth Region
(Baltimore, Maryland) a petition alleging that a question affecting
commerce had arisen concerning the representation of employees of
The Maryland Dry Dock Company, Baltimore, Maryland, herein called
the Company, and requesting an investigation and certification of
representatives pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Re-
lations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. On March 6, 1940, the
National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, acting
pursuant,to Section 9 (c) of the Act and Article III, Section 3, of
23 N L. R B, No 95.
283034-41-vol 23-59 917
918 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2, as
amended, ordered an investigation and authorized the Regional Di-
rector to conduct it and to provide for an appropriate hearing upon
'due notice.
On March 11, 1940, the Regional Director issued a notice of
hearing, copies of which together with copies of the petition were
duly served upon the Company , upon the Pattern Makers Union, and
upon Industrial Union of Marine and Shipbuilding Workers of
America, Local No. 31 , herein called Local No. 31, a labor organiza-
tion claiming to represent employees directly affected by the investi-
gation. Pursuant to the notice a hearing was held on March 18,
1940, at Baltimore , Maryland, before Henry W. Schmidt , the Trial
Examiner duly designated by the Board. The Board and the Pat-
tern Makers Union were represented by counsel , the Company and
Local No. 31 by their duly authorized representatives . All parties
participated in the hearing and were afforded full opportunity to
be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses , and to introduce
evidence bearing on the issues . During the course of the hearing
Local No. 31 moved to dismiss the petition , and the Trial Examiner
reserved ruling for the Board on this motion . He made other rulings
which the Board has reviewed . The rulings are hereby affirmed.
In respect to the motion on which ruling was reserved , said motion
for reasons hereinafter appearing is denied.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
The Maryland Dry Dock Company is a Maryland corporation
engaged in the building and sale of ships and in the repair of ships.
In connection with its building and repair operations , the Company
maintains a plant at Curtis Bay, Maryland, where it employs 1,000
production and maintenance employees , 12 technical employees, 35
clerical employees, 15 salesmen, and about 150 supervisory employees.
During 1939 the Company built or performed repair operations
on about 600 ships ranging in size from 200 tons to 10,000 tons.
Approximately 80 per cent of this work was performed on "out of
state or foreign ships," that is, ships sold in and destined for inter-
state and foreign commerce . In 1939 the Company's receipts from
sales of its ships amounted to more than $2,000,000.
In the course of operations at Curtis Bay, the Company uses vari-
ous raw materials consisting chiefly of steel plates, shapes and bars,
forgings, castings, billets, lumber, copper, fittings, rivets, and mis-
THE MARYLAND DRY DOCK COMPANY. 919
cellaneous finished products, about 50 per cent of which are regularly
purchased and shipped to the plant from outside the State of
Maryland.
The Company concedes for the purposes of these proceedings that
it and its employees are subject to the jurisdiction of the Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Baltimore Assn. of Pattern Makers, Pattern Makers' League of
North America, is a labor organization chartered by Pattern Makers'
League of North America, a labor organization affiliated with Ameri-
can Federation of Labor. It admits to membership patternmakers
employed by the Company.
Industrial Union of Marine and Shipbuilding Workers of America,
Local No. 31, is a local of Industrial Union of Marine and Ship-
building Workers of America, a labor organization affiliated with
Congress of Industrial Organizations. It admits to membership em-
ployees of the Company.
111. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
On February 17, 1940, the Pattern Makers Union requested the
Company to recognize and otherwise bargain collectively with it as
the exclusive representative of all persons employed as pattern-
makers in the Curtis Bay plant. The Company refused to do this
because of a collective labor agreement then outstanding between
itself and Local No. 31 wherein it recognized Local No. 31 as the
exclusive collective bargaining representative of substantially all em-
ployees at the plant including patternmakers. This agreement termi-
nated on February 20, 1940, and on February 21, 1940, after the filing
of the petition herein, the Company and Local No. 31 entered into a
new collective labor agreement containing a provision for recognition
of Local No. 31 identical with that in the previous agreement.
We find that a question has arisen concerning representation of
employees of the Company. Neither agreement constitutes, a ground
for our not proceeding to an investigation and determination of
this question.'
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION UPON
COMMERCE
We find that the question concerning representation which has
arisen, occurring in connection with the operations of the Company
described in Section I above, has a close, intimate, and substantial
I Matter o f Wickwire Spencer Steel Company and Federated Industrial Union, 18 N. L.
R. B. 372.
920 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States,
and between the States and foreign countries, and tends to lead to
labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free
flow of commerce.
V. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
So far as the record shows, collective bargaining relations be-
tween the Company and employees at its Curtis Bay plant began in
1937. In October of that year the Company recognized The Balti-
more Marine Council, herein called the Marine Council, as the sole
representative of "all the employees of the Company for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining" in respect to wages, hours of service,
and other working conditions. The Marine Council is a labor or-
ganization comprising several constituent craft unions which, to-
gether with itself, are affiliated with American Federation of Labor.
In January 1938 the Company and the Marine Council entered into
a collective labor agreement which provided for recognition by the
Company of the Marine Council as the "exclusive representative of
all the Employees of the Company except Office Employees and Em-
ployees in a Supervisory capacity, for the purpose of collective bar-
gaining," and covered the working conditions of such employees.
In October 1938 Local No. 31 began to enroll members among the
plant employees. On December 7, 1938, pursuant to agreement of
the Company and the interested labor organizations, a consent elec-
tion by secret ballot was conducted under the supervision of the
Regional Director to determine whether employees of the Company,
exclusive of clerical and office employees, guards, janitors, and super-
visors, desired to be represented by the Marine Council, by Local
No. 31, or by neither of these organizations, for purposes of collective
bargaining. In this election a substantial majority of those eligible
to vote selected and designated Local No. 31 as their collective
bargaining representative. Following the election the Company and
Local No. 31 entered into a collective bargaining agreement which
became effective on February 21, 1939, wherein the Company accorded
Local No. 31 recognition as the "exclusive representative for the
purposes of collective bargaining of all the Company's employees
except : those regularly on the salaried basis ; engineering, office, and
clerical employees; guards; janitors; and employees (whether
salaried or hourly paid) who spend the majority of their time super-
vising- other employees." The agreement contained provisions cover-
ing wages, hours, and other working conditions of the employees as
to whom recognition was granted. On February 21, 1940, after the
filing of the petition herein, Local No. 31 and the Company entered
into the collective agreement, heretofore mentioned, providing for
THE MARYLAND DRY DOCK COMPANY 921
exclusive recognition of Local No. 31 in terms identical with the
previous contract of the parties.
The Company employs four patternmakers. A majority have been
members of the Pattern Makers Union for some time past, and in
various ways throughout the period under review have indicated an
intention to maintain their identity as a distinct bargaining group
within the plant. In 1937 and 1938, when the Marine Council, as
above set forth, bargained for employees at the plant on an industrial
basis, the Pattern Makers Union refused to become part of the
Marine Council or otherwise to authorize the Marine Council to
bargain in behalf of the patternmakers employed by the Company.
In the consent election of December 7, 1938, the patternmakers indi-
cated on the ballots which they cast that they desired to be repre-
sented by the Pattern Makers Union for purposes of collective
bargaining; and after Local No. 31 was accorded exclusive recog-
nition at the plant on an industrial basis, refused to become members
of that local or,designate it as collective bargaining representative.
We are of the opinion that the patternmakers could appropriately
constitute a separate unit or be part of a larger industrial unit such
as that covered by the 1939 and 1940 contracts, and that the desires of
these employees for collective bargaining representation either
through the Pattern Makers Union or Local No. 31 should control
our determination whether these employees form a separate unit
appropriate for collective bargaining.2 Accordingly, we shall direct
the conduct of an election to determine the desires of the pattern-
makers for representation. If in that election a majority of the
patternmakers designate the Pattern Makers Union as their bargain-
ing representative, then we shall find that the patternmakers em-
ployed by the Company constitute a separate unit appropriate for
collective bargaining. If a majority vote for Local No. 31, we shall
find that they do not constitute such a unit. In view of the failure
of Local No. 31 to file a petition for, or otherwise request, an investi-
gation and certification of representatives, and in view of its out-
standing contract with the Company, we shall make no determina-
tion in these proceedings with respect to the appropriateness of an
industrial unit for purposes of collective bargaining. If in the
election a majority vote for Local No. 31, we shall dismiss the
petition.
VI. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
We are of the opinion that the purposes of the Act will best be
effectuated and the desires of the patternmakers for representation
2 Matter of The Globe Machine and Stamping Co. and Metal Polishers Union, Local No. 3;
International Association of Machinists , District No 54; Federal Labor Union 18788 and
United Autotmobile Workers of America, 3 N L. R. B. 294.
922 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
best ascertained in an election by secret ballot. Accordingly, we
shall direct that an election be held among all the patternmakers
employed by the Company during the pay-roll period next preceding
the date of Direction of Election, including patternmakers who did
not work during such period because they were ill or on vacation or
were then or have since been temporarily laid off, but excluding
those patternmakers who have since quit or been discharged for
cause, to determine whether they desire to be represented by the
Pattern Makers Union, by Local No. 31, or by neither, for the
purpose of collective bargaining.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and the entire record
in the case, the Board makes the following:
CONCLUSION of LAW
A question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the repre-
sentation of employees of The Maryland Dry Dock Company, within
the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the
National Labor Relations Act.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
.By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National
Labor Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of National Labor Rela-
tions Act, and pursuant to Article III, Section 8, of National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2, as amended, it is
hereby
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation ordered by the Board
to ascertain representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining
with The Maryland Dry Dock Company, Baltimore, Maryland, 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 of
Election under the direction and supervision of the Regional Direc-
tor for the Fifth Region, acting in this matter as agent for the
National Labor Relations Board, and subject to Article III, Section
9, , of said Rules and Regulations, among the patternmakers of the
Company, employed at the Curtis Bay plant during the pay-roll
period next preceding the date of this Direction of Election, includ-
ing patternmakers who did not work during said pay-roll period
because they were ill or on vacation, and those who were then or
who have since been temporarily laid off, but excluding those who
have since quit or been discharged for cause, to determine whether
they desire to be represented by the Baltimore Assn. of Pattern
Makers,, Pattern Makers' League of North America, affiliated with
American Federation of Labor, or by Industrial Union of Marine
THE MARYLAND DRY DOCK COMPANY 923
and Shipbuilding Workers of America, Local No. 31, affiliated with
Congress of Industrial Organizations, for the purposes of collective
bargaining, or by neither.
MR. EDWIN S. SMIITH, dissenting :
I see no warrant in granting the craft group in this case the privi-
lege of splitting itself from the industrial unit covered by the 1939
and 1940 agreements. There is a history of successful bargaining
on an industrial basis, reflected in the contracts which both the
American Federation of Labor affiliate and the Congress of Indus-
trial Organizations affiliate obtained from the Company. The pat-
ternmakers themselves have been included in and benefited from this
bargaining. Nor have they until the present time sought separate
bargaining. Because of the past bargaining history on an industrial
basis and for reasons given by me in my dissent in the Allis-
Claalmers 3 and similar cases, I would dismiss the petition of the
Pattern Makers Union.
s Matter of Allis-Chalmers Manufacturing Company and International Union, United
Automobile Workers of America, Local 248, 4 N. L. R. B. 159, 175.