53 N.L.R.B. 1207 (N.L.R.B. 1943)

The Missouri Valley Bridge and Iron Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsDec 7, 1943

53 N.L.R.B. 1207 (N.L.R.B. 1943)

a In the Matter of THE MISSOURI VALLEY BRIDGE AND IRON CO. ( SHIP- BUILDING DIVISION), A JOINT VENTURE, COMPOSED or THE MISSOURI VALLEY BRIDGE AND IRON CO., WINSTON BROS. COMPANY, C. F. HAGLIN AND SONS, INC., BECHTEL-MCCONE-PARSONS CORP., AND SOLLITT CON- STRUCTION COMPANY, INC. and FEDERAL UNION No. 23509 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR Case No. 14-B-800.-Decided December 7 , 194.3 Waller, McGinnis & Clippinger , by Mr. E. C. Clippinger , and Mr. W. J. Rohan , of Evansville , Ind., for the Company. Mr. T. N. Taylor , of Evansville , Ind., for the Union. Miss Melvern R. Krelow, of counsel to the Board. DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS STATEMENT, OF THE CASE Upon petition duly filed by Federal Union No. 23509 American Federation of Labor, herein called the Union, alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation of em- ployees of The Missouri Valley Bridge and Iron Co. (Shipbuilding Division), a Joint Venture, composed of The Missouri Valley Bridge and Iron Co., Winston Bros. Company, C. F. Haglin and Sons, Inc., Bechtel-McCone-Parsons Corp., and Sollitt Construction Company, Inc., Evansville, Indiana, herein called the Company, the National Labor Relations Board provided for an appropriate hearing upon due notice before Harry G. Carlson, Trial Examiner. Said hearing was held at Evansville, Indiana, on November 11, 1943. The Company and the Union appeared, participated, and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues. The Trial Examiner's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. At the commencement of the hearing, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the petition on the grounds that the Company is not engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, that a unit of plant-protection employees is not an appropriate unit within the meaning of the Act, and that guards and firemen should not 53 N. L R. B., No. 218. 1207 6 1208 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD be included in the same unit since their duties are wholly different. The Company also filed a motion for separate consideration as to guards and firemen on the grounds that the two groups receive substan- tially different, training, and that the duties of both are entirely dis- tinct and separate. The Trial Examiner reserved rulings on the motions for the Board. For reasons hereinafter set forth the motions are hereby denied. All parties were afforded opportunity to file briefs with the Board. - Subsequent to the hearing, the Company filed a motion to reopen the hearing and permit the introduction' of additional evidence. The motion stated, in part, that a majority of the 'firemen were to be demilitarized, as set forth in a copy of a letter from the chief of the plant-protection force to the Naval Supervisor of Shipbuilding, at- tached to and made part of said motion. The contents of said letter are hereby made part of the record ; the motion for rehearing is hereby denied. Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY The Missouri Valley Bridge and Iron Co. (Shipbuilding Division), a Joint Venture, composed of The Missouri Valley Bridge and Iron Co., Winston Bros. Company, C. F. Haglin and Sons, Inc., Bechtel- McCone-Parsons Corp., and Sollitt Construction Company, Inc., has its principal office and place of business in Evansville, Indiana, where it is engaged in the construction of ships and tank landing craft for the United States Navy. It is also engaged in some repair work on ships for the United States Navy. Approximately 95 percent of the materials used- in construction is shipped to the Company from points outside the State of Indiana. When the ships are 'constructed, the Company delivers them to the United States Navy.' We find, contrary to the contention of the Company, that the Company is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.2 II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Federal Union No. 23509 is a labor organization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, admitting to membership employees of the Company. 'The Company in its motion to reopen the hearing offered to adduce additional evidence with respect to the course taken by the ships in trial runs conducted by the Company prior to their 'delivery to the United States Navy. However, as indicated above by our denial of the Company 's motion to reopen, such evidence, if adduced , would be immaterial to the jurisdictional issue involved herein. 2 See Matter of Los Angeles Sh4,pbwild4ng & Dry Dock Co , 40 N L R. B. 1150; Matter of Pennsylvania Shipyards , Inc, 40 N. L. R B 1300; Matter of Bethlehem Steel Company, Shipbuilding Dtivision, 46 N. L . R B. 1166. THE MISSOURI VALLEY BRIDGE AND IRON CO. III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION 1209 On August 18, 1943, the Union orally, and on September 30, 1943, in writing, notified the Company that it represented a majority of the Company's plant-protection employees, and requested a bargaining conference. The Company refused to recognize the Union until cer- tified by the Board. A statement of the Regional Director, introduced in evidence at the hearing, indicates that the Union represents a substantial number of employees in the unit it claims to be appropriate.3 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 UNITS The Union contends that all plant-protection employees of the Com- pany excluding supervisory employees constitute an appropriate unit. Both guards and firemen were militarized at the time of the hearing. The Company contends that plant-protection employees should not constitute an appropriate unit because they are subject to military supervision as members of the United States Coast Guard; and fur- ther that guards and firemen, because of the difference in their duties, should not be included within the unit. We have heretofore found similar contentions to be without merit 4 However, it appears that a large number of firemen are to be demilitarized in the near future pursuant to an order of the Commandant for the Ninth Naval District; the remaining firemen will be transferred to the guard force as guards. In accordance with our policy enunciated in the Dravo Corporation case 5 we find that non-militarized firemen are not properly included within a unit of militarized guards. We shall, therefore, establish a bargaining unit for all militarized guards separate and apart from the non-militarized firemen. All firemen who may remain militarized shall be deemed to fall within the meaning of the term, militarized guards, as used in our unit description. There remains for considera- tion a question as to the supervisory status of the following employees.s 9 The Regional Director reported that the Union submitted designations bearing ap- parently genuine original signatures of over 50 percent of the guards and firemen on the Company's pay roll. 4 See Matter of Aluminum Company of America, 50 N L R B 233; Matter of Firestone Tire & Rubber Company of California , 50 N. L . R. B. 524; Matter of Tampa Shipbuilding Company, Inc, 50 N L R. B 177; Matter of Dravo Corporation, 52 N. L. R. B. 322; Matter of Chrysler Corporation, Highland Park Plant, 44 N. L. R. B. 881. See footnote 4, supra It is clear that the chief of the entire plant protection force, R A. Burns, the assistant chiefs of guards and firemen , lieutenants of the guards , and captains of the firemen, are supervisory employees , and shall , therefore , be excluded. 1210 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Lieutenants: The Company employs five lieutenants in the fire-pro- tection force, two to each shift, who are responsible to and receive or- ders from the captains, of whom there is one on each of the three shifts. The lieutenants direct crews of firemen, and it appears that the lieuten- ants have the authority to make recommendations affecting the status of the members of their crews. We conclude that the lieutenants are supervisory employees. The title of lieutenant will undoubtedly, upon demilitarization of the firemen, be replaced by a similar non-militar- ized classification. We shall, therefore, exclude such classification from the unit of non-militarized firemen. Sergeants: The Company employs 'on each of the three shifts five sergeants in the guard force to cover a particular area. They are re- sponsible to and receive their orders from the lieutenants, of whom there are two on each shift. The sergeants are responsible for certain areas to which are assigned the number of patrolmen necessary to pro- tect that area. They are held responsible for the effectuation of orders in that area and for the proper handling of the posts by the men assigned thereto. It appears that the sergeants receive the same rate of pay as do the lieutenants in the fire-protection force, and like such lieutenants, they have the authority to make recommendations affecting the status of the members of their crews. We conclude that sergeants are supervisory employees, and we shall, accordingly, exclude them from the unit of militarized guards. We find that (1) all militarized guards of the Company excluding the chief, the assistant chief, lieutenants, and sergeants 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; and (2) all non-militarized firemen of the Company excluding the assistant chief, the non-militarized clas- sifications equivalent to those of captain and lieutenant, and all other supervisory employees with'authority to hire, promote, discharge, dis- cipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or effec- tively recommend such action, constitute appropriate units for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES We shall direct that the question concerning representation which has arisen be resolved by elections by secret ballot among the em- ployees in the appropriate units who were employed during the pay- roll period immediately preceding the date of our Direction of Elections, subject to the limitations and additions set forth therein. THE MISSOURI VALLEY BRIDGE AND IRON CO. 1211 DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National Labor Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, and pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of National Labor Rela- tions Rules and Regulations-Series 3, it is hereby DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representa- tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with The Missouri Valley Bridge and Iron Co. (Shipbuilding Division), a Joint Ven- ture, composed of The Missouri Valley Bridge and Iron Co., Winston Bros. Company, C. F. Haglin and Sons, Inc., Bechtel-McC'one-Parsons Corp., and Sollitt Construction Company, Inc., Evansville, Indiana, elections 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 Four- teenth 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 Regulations among the employees in the units found appro- priate 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 said pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation or temporarily laid off, and including em- ployees in the armed forces of the United States who present them- selves 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 elections, to determine whether or not they desire to be represented by Federal Union No. 23509 Ameri- can Federation of Labor, for the purposes of collective bargaining. MR. GERARD D. REILLY took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Direction of Elections.