The Turbine Engineering Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 3, 1947

73 N.L.R.B. 163 (N.L.R.B. 1947)

In the Matter of Joiix K. COLLINGS, VICTORIA F. COLLIN GS, EDITH M.
RUGGLES AND HENRY S. RUGGLES , CO-PARTNERS, D/B/A THIS TURBINIS
ENGINEERING COIrPANY,i EMPLOYER and MARINE LOCAL B-277,
INTERNATIONAL BROT1-ER1-1oOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, AFL,
PETrPIONER
Case No. 2-I?-6690.-Decided April 3,194V
111r. L. L. Ralleisen, of New York City, for the Employer.
Mr. Peter Sh,arkei,, of \ew York City, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Emil Oxfeld, of Newark, N. J., for the IUMSWA.
Mr. Emil C. Farkas, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at New
York City, on November 12, 1946, before Bertram Diamond, hear-
ing officer. At the hearing the Employer and the IUMSWA moved
to dismiss the petition on various grounds. The hearing officer
referred this motion to the Board. For reasons hereinafter stated
the motion is hereby denied. The hearing officer's rulings made
at the hearing are free from prejudicial error.
Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations
Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE, EMPLOYER
John K. Collings, Victoria F. Collings, Edith M. Ruggles andI Z,
Henry S. Ruggles are co-partners doing business as The Turbine
Engineering Company. The Employer has its principal office and
place of business in Hoboken, New Jersey, where it is engaged in
the business of repairing old ships and installing equipment on new
vessels. Duruig the past year the Employer's purchases of materials
and equipment exceeded $100,000 In value, approximately 25 percent
of which represented shipments from points outside the State of
New Jersey. Diirilig the same period the Employer received in
' The name of the Employer appeais as amended at the hearing
73 N L R B, No 28
163
164 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
excess of $500,000 from private concerns for repair work and other
services on ships plying in interstate and foreign commerce; it also
performed approximately $500,000 worth of repairs and installa-
tions on ships owned by the United States Maritime Commission.
The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The Petitioner, affiliated with the American Federation of Labor,
herein called the IBEW, is a labor organization, claiming to represent
employees of the Employer.
Industrial Union of Marine and Shipbuilding Workers of America,
Local No. 15, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations,
herein called the IUMSWA, is a labor organization, claiming to
represent employees of the Employer.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
On June 6, 1946, the Petitioner filed its petition herein and notified
the Employer, by letter, that it represented a majority of the em-
ployees in the Employer's electrical department and requested recog-
nition as their collective bargaining representative. The Employer
failed to reply to the Petitioner's letter of June 6, 1946. At the hear-
ing, however, the Employer moved to dismiss the petition on the
grounds (1) that its existing contract with the IUMSWA is a bar to
a current determination of representatives, and (2) that the limitation
in the riders to the Appropriations Acts of 1945 and 1946 precludes
the Board from exercising jurisdiction in this proceeding.
On April 26, 1945, the Employer and the IUMSWA executed a
collective bargaining agreement covering the Employer's production
and maintenance employees. The contract provided for an initial
period ending June 2, 1946, and for its automatic renewal for annual
periods thereafter, in the absence of written notice of a desire to
,change the contract, given by either party to the other at least 30 days
prior to June 23 of any year. It provided further for the reopening
of the contract with respect to wages, during its term, upon 30 days'
written notice given by the party seeking the modification.
In January 1946, after the required notice to reopen had been given
under the contract, the Employer and the IUMSWA entered into
negotiations concerning wage modifications. During the course of
these negotiations, the parties conferred on matters outside the scope
of the wage reopening clause with a view to executing a new contract,
the parties apparently agreeing to an extension of the 1945 contract
pending the completion of these negotiations. Thereafter, on August
8, 1946, the Employer and the IUMSWA executed a collective bargain-
THE TURBINE ENGINEERING COMPANY 165
ing agreement for a period ending June 23, 1947. The new contract
made changes in the method of determining overtime, contained new
clauses concerning vacation pay, seniority, and arbitration, but made
no provision for wage modifications.
As noted above, the Employer contends that this latter contract is
a bar to a current determination of representatives. Our precedents
are, however, clear that a petition filed before the execution of a col-
lective bargaining agreement prevents that instrument from serving
as a bar.2 Accordingly, inasmuch as the Petitioner made its claim for
representation and filed its petition before the execution of the August
8, 1946, contract, we find that the agreement cannot prevent an election
at this time. As to the further ground that the limitation in the riders
to the Appropriations Acts of 1945 and 1946 precludes the Board from
exercising jurisdiction in this proceeding, we find this contention to be
without merit since the limitation applies to complaint cases and not
to representation cases.
We, therefore, find that a question affecting commerce has arisen
concerning the representation of employees of the Employer, within
the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
Iv. Ti [E APPROPRIATE UNIT ; TI[E DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
The Petitioner seeks a unit composed of all employees in the Em-
ployer's electrical department. The Employer and the IUMSWA
contend, however, that the unit sought is inappropriate in that the
employees whom the Petitioner desires to represent are already in-
cluded in the unit of production and maintenance employees currently
covered by contract and represented by the IUMSWA.
The Employer is engaged in the business of repairing and installing
equipment on new and old ships. It does not have a shipyard, as that
terns is generally understood in the shipbuilding industry, but operates
a plant where it receives and services motors, machines, mechanical
apparatus such as gears and shafting, and other maintenance and
operating equipment. In addition it manufactures and fabricates
special housings, decks and refrigeration equipment for installation on
ships. In the course of its operations the Employer employs between
100 and 125 persons, some of whom are employed at its plant while
others work on the ships tied up at piers or in other companies' dry-
docks or shipyards. Among the Employer's workers are garage
mechanics, boilernnakers, burners, carpenters and joiners, shippers and
caulkers, machinists, pipe fitters, plumbers, riggers, ship fitters,
welders, electricians, and certain other specialists needed for special
contract work from time to time.
2 Matter of Ste. Genevieve Lime i Quarry Company, 70 N. L. R. B 1259 ; hfatter of Fifth
Ave. Shoe Corporation, 69 N. L. R. B. 400.
166 DECISIONS Or NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
With respect to the bargaining history affecting the Employer's
operations, the record discloses the following . On March 23, 1943, as
the result of a consent election, the United Association of Journeymen
Plumbers, Steamfitters and Helpers, Local 274B, AFL, herein called
the Association, became the bargaining representative of the Employ-
er's production and maintenance employees. Thereupon the Employer
and the Association executed a collective bargaining agreement cov-
ering the period from February 3, 1944, to December 31, 1944. On
January 6, 1945, a consent election held in virtually the same unit was
won by the IUMSWA, and on April 26, 1945, the Employer and the
IUMSWA entered into a collective bargaining contract for a period
expiring June 23, 1946. The contract contained a maintenance-of-
membership clause permitting withdrawals within 15 clays after the
execution date, and authorized the Employer to check off union clues
upon written consent of the employees iiivolved. In January 1946,
the, Employer and the IUMSWA entered into negotiations concern-
ing wages, as a result of which a general wage increase of is cents
an hour was granted, effective April 1, 1946.
In connection with the Employer's electricians, with whom we are
solely concerned herein, the record reveals that before February 15,
1945, the Employer had no electrical department, as such, and that
most of its electrical work was performed by independent contractors.
On February 15, 1945, subsequent to the second consent election, the
Employer established an electrical department to which it transferred
1 or 2 electricians, whom it had always employed. By March 15,1945,
this department expanded to approximately 15 electricians and helpers
and by April 26, 1945, when the contract with the IUMSWA was
executed, approxnuately 30 electricians were employed in that depart-
ment. With the termination of the war, however, the Employer's
electrical department was reduced until it reached its present size of
4 electricians.,
The Board, in deciding whether or not to conduct a self-deterinina-
tion election for a craft group, when there exists a history of collective
bargaining on a broader basis, is confronted with the necessity of
balancing two opposing interests. On the one hand, stability and
certainty in labor relations are furthered by adherence to existing
bargaining patterns, on the other hand, the cohesiveness and special
interest of a true craft group often indicate the appropriateness of
groups limited to members of a particular craft. We have pointed
out in this connection that, "of necessity no hard and fast rule can be
laid down in advance as an absolute guide to determining when one
O The a ecotd shows that beginning in 1 one 1945 dues were checked off for seven members
of the electrical depaitment, and for five other electricians beginning March 1946 For
the pay-roll period ending November 10, 1946, there were two electricians and two elec-
trician helpers, of whom one was having dues checked off under the IUDISWA contract.
THE TURBINE ENGINEERING COMPANY 167
and when the other of these policy considerations should prevail.
Each case must be decided on the basis of its own facts." 4
While the record herein discloses that the electricians have shared
in the 18 cents an hour wage increase and in other benefits of collective
bargaining as part of the existing production and maintenance unit,
and have functioned successfully as part of that unit, it is clear that the
electricians herein represent a true craft in which apprenticeship
training is an essential prerequisite to acquiring a journeyman status;
that they work, for the most part, on the installation of electrical equip-
ment and have a separate space set aside for their tools and supplies;
and that, in at least two instances , in large shipyards in the general
area of the Employer's plant, electricians bargain collectively as a craft
group. It is evident that, in the absence of any collective bargaining
history, the unit requested by the electricians would be found appropri-
ate as a matter of courses Although we have here the circumstances
that collective bargaining on a more comprehensive basis has existed
for some time , that bargaining is not predicated on any prior Board
determinations . We are of the opinion , in the light of the foregoing,
that the bargaining history is not sufficient, in itself , to deny the
employees in this craft group the opportunity of deciding-whether they
desire either to continue to be represented as part of the existing
production and maintenance unit or to bargain as a separate unit; and
this is particularly true in view of the added fact that these employees
have not previously had an opportunity to vote on this issue.
Upon the basis of the foregoing facts , we believe that the electricians
and their helpers should be given an opportunity , at this time, of indi-
cating whether they desire to be represented in a craft unit or as part
of the existing production and maintenance unit. We shall , therefore,
make no final unit determniation at this time, but shall be guided by
the desires of the employees as expressed in the election directed here-
inafter. If at such election the employees of the voting group set forth
below select the Petitioner they will be taken to have indicated their
desire to constitute a separate unit for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining , but if, at such election , they select the IUDISWA they will
be taken to have indicated their desire to be bargained for as part of
the existing unit of production and maintenance employees.
Accordingly, we shall direct an election by secret ballot among all
electricians and electrician helpers in the Employer 's electrical depart-
ment , excluding all supervisory employees with authority to hire, pro-
mote, discharge , discipline , or otherwise effect changes in the status
h Matter of Inteinational Minerals and Chemical Corporation (Potash Die swn), 71
N L R B 878
Matter of National Silver Company. 71 N L It B 594 , Matter of Ames scan Cyanamid
Chemical Corpoatror, 62 N L R B 925, illatter of Remington Rand, Inc, Propeller
Division , 62 N L. R B 1419
168 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of employees, or effectively recommend such action, subject to the limi-
tations and additions set forth in the Direction.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION 6
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining with John K. Collings, Victoria F. Col-
lings, Edith M. Ruggles and Henry S. Ruggles, co-partners, d/b/a
The Turbine Engineering Company, Hoboken, New Jersey, an elec-
tion 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 Second
Region, acting in this matter as agent for the National Labor Rela-
tions Board, and subject to Sections 203.55 and 203.56, of National
Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 4, among the
employees in the voting group 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 dur-
ing said pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation or tem-
porarily laid, off, and including employees in the armed forces of the
United States who present themselves in person at the polls, but ex-
cluding 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 represented by Marine
Local B-277, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL,'
or by Industrial Union of Marine and Shipbuilding Workers of Amer-
ica, Local No. 15, CIO, for the purposes of collective bargaining, or by
neither.
CHAIRMAN HERZOG took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Election.
6 Any participant in the election herein may, upon its prompt request to, and approval
thereof by, the Regional Director, have its name removed from the ballot
4 The request of the Petitioner to be designated on the ballot as International Brother-
hood of Electrical Workers , Local 3 , AFL, is hereby referred to the Regional Director.