The Wilson Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 9, 1943

53 N.L.R.B. 523 (N.L.R.B. 1943)

In the Matter of LEWIS EUGENE WILSON, DOING BUSINESS AS THE
WILSON COMPANY and INDUSTRIAL UNION OF MARINE AND SHIP-
BUILDING WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 9, C. I. O.
In the • Matter of LEWIS EUGENE WILSON, DOING BUSINESS AS THE
WILSON COMPANY and Los ANGELES METAL TRADES COUNCIL, A. F. L.
Cases Nos. 21-R-P3126 and 21-R-2141, respectively. Decided
November 9, 1943
Mr. Arthur J. J. Hagel, of Wilmington, Calif., for the Company.
Katz, Gallagher d Margolis, by Mr. Ben Margolis, of Los Angeles,
Calif., for the C. 1. 0.
Mr. Dave Sokol, of Los Angeles, Calif., for the A. F. L.
Mr. A. Sumner Lawrence, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon petitions duly filed by Industrial Union of Marine and Ship-
building Workers of American, Local 9, C. I. 0., herein called the
C. I. O., and Los Angeles Metal Trades Council, A. F. L., herein
called the A. F. L., alleging that questions affecting commerce had
arisen concerning the representation of employees of Lewis Eugene
Wilson, doing business as The Wilson Company, Wilmington, Cali-
fornia, herein called the Company," the National Labor Relations
Board provided for an appropriate consolidated hearing upon due
notice before William B. Esterman, Trial Examiner. Said hearing
was held on October 21, 1943, at Los Angeles, California. The Com-
pany, the C. I. 0., and the A. F. L., 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. All parties were afforded an oppor-
tunity of filing briefs with the Board.
' Incorrectly described in the petitions and other formal papers as The Wilson Boat
Co., and corrected by stipulation at the hearing.
53 N. L. R. B., No. 93.
1
523
524 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
Lewis Eugene Wilson, an individual doing business as The Wilson
Company, has his principal place of business at Wilmington, Cali-
fornia, where he is engaged in the construction of tow boats, aircraft
rescue boats and plane personnel boats, which are manufactured and
delivered to the United States Government within the State of Cali-
fornia. In addition to its principal yard or plant at Wilmington,
California, the Company also operates two other yards within an
average distance of approximately 5 miles therefrom. The annual
purchases of lumber, metal and other raw materials currently required
by the Company in connection with its boat building operations, will
have an estimated value of approximately $150,000, of which about. 80
percent will originate from points outside the State of California.
The estimated annual sales of the Company will have a value of about
$300,000. As of October 1, 1943, the Company employed, a -total, of
approximately 315 employees
H. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Industrial Union of Marine, and Shipbuilding Workers of America,
Local 9, is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress of Indus-
trial Organizations, admitting to membership employees of the
Company.
Los'Angeles Metal Trades Council is a labor organization affiliated
with the American Federation of Labor, admitting to membership
employees of the Company.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
Upon the presentation of conflicting claims of representation by the
several unions involved prior to the filing of the present petition, the
Company stated that it would not recognize either union as bargain-'
ing representative of its employees until certified by the'Board.
A statement of a Field Examiner, introduced in evidence * at the
hearing in each of the present cases, indicates that the C. I. O. and the
1 While it appears that the business of the Company is a new operation and has, been
expanding up to the present time, the record indicates that the period of expansion is
very nearly at an end and that the present total is within 50 of being the Company',
full complement of employees.
THE WILSON COMPANY 525
A. F. L. severally represent a substantial number of employees of the
Company in the unit claimed by each to be appropriate.3
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of the employees of the Company within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor
Relations Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The C. I. 0. urges as the appropriate unit, either a single plant pro-
duction and maintenance unit, confined to the Wilmington yard, or
three separate units, each limited to a single yard of the Company,
and excluding therefrom office employees, watchmen, and supervisory
employees having the authority to hire and discharge, or to recom-
mend such action.4 The A. F. L. while not disputing the specific
categories sought to be included or excluded, contends that the ap-
propriate unit should be coextensive with all operations of the Com-
pany and should include all production and maintenance employees
at the three yards above mentioned. The Company's position is iden-
tical with that of the A. F. L. with the exception of expediters, whom
the Company would exclude, though both unions would include such
employees within the appropriate unit.
With respect to the extent of the appropriate unit, it appears that
while the three yards herein involved are separately supervised and
are to some extent autonomous divisions in the Company organiza-
tion;-, all three yards complement one another so far as production
processes are concerned. At yard No. 2, boat parts are manufactured
and shipped to yard No. 1, where they are assembled into boats, which
boats are thereafter sent to yard No. 3 for completion with outfittings.
Aside from the manufacture of life rafts, which operation is carried
on completely at yard,No. 3, none of the various yards is engaged
in a manufacturing process which is complete in itself. While each
3 The Field Examiner reported that the C. I. O. had submitted 129 designations, dated
between July and September 1943, with one dated January 1942 ; that of the 129 cards
submitted , 58 bore the apparently genuine original signatures of persons whose names are
on the Company 's pay roll of September 21, 1943, containing the names of 190 employees
in the unit claimed appropriate by the C. I. O.
The Field Examiner further reported that the A. F. L. had submitted 131 designations
dated between August and September 1943, with one undated ; that of the 131 cards
submitted , 79 bore the apparently genuine original signatures of persons whose names
appear on the Company ' s pay roll of September 21, 1943, containing 248 names of
employees within the unit claimed appropriate by the A. F. L.
4 The C. I. O. claimed in its petition an appropriate unit limited to yard number 1,
the permanent main yard of the Company . Subsequently at the bearing, the C. I. O.
stated that each of the three yards should constitute a separate unit. It does not appear,
however, that the C. I. O. has specifically abandoned its original contention for a single
yard unit
5 There is testimony in the record indicating that men are hired and discharged at yard
No. 3 without prior consultation with the over -all management , though the testimony also
shows, that final approval and administrative clearance takes place at yard No . 1, where
the Company maintains a centralized management for all three yai ds.
559015-44-vol. 53-35
526 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
yard has a separate superintendent with whom grievances are dis-
cussed in their initial stages, the Company has an over-all official
in charge of labor relations, and maintains the same labor policies
in all three of its yards, each of which contains employee classifica-
tions in common with the other yards. All employees in the three
yards, other than office employees, are paid on an hourly basis and
enjoy the same wages, hours, and working conditions.
So far as interchange of employees is concerned, it appears,that
while there have not been many permanent transfers of employees
between yards, such transfers do occur in the interest of promoting
greater harmony between individual employees, their supervisors,
and fellow workers. In addition thereto, it appears that there are
temporary transfers, including about 20 employees who formerly
worked at plant No. 1, and are now employed at plant No. 3 in con-
nection with outfitting' work, but who, nevertheless, are retained on
the Company pay roll as employees of plant No. 1. Moreover, al-
though the record does not indicate that the C. I. O. has representa-
tion among the Company's employees beyond the single yard origin-
ally claimed as the appropriate unit, the A. F. L. submitted claims
of authorization covering the employees of all 3 yards of the Com-
pany. Under the circumstances, we find that a single unit covering
all 3 yards of the Company is appropriate for the purposes of col-
lective bargaining.6
There remains for consideration the question of including or ex-
cluding expediters from the appropriate unit. The record shows that
expediters are divided into two classes known as internal and external
expediters, respectively. The duty of internal expediters, who are
employed under the works manager in charge of production, is to
assure the delivery of required materials to the job from the storeroom
or from various locations in the yard. Internal expediters, who bear
a substantial resemblance to stock chasers, are distinguishable from
external expediters, who are attached to the purchasing department
and have the duty of telephoning to various vendors to speed the
delivery of materials to the plant. There is nothing in the record to
indicate that internal expediters have any supervisory powers. We
find that internal expediters have substantial interests in common
with the production employees. On the other hand, we find that
external expediters, because of their lack of association with produc-
tion employees and their connection with a department not directly
engaged in production, have no substantial interests in common with
the employees within the production unit. We shall, accordingly,
See Matter of Carl G. Hedblom and Byron G . Hedblom, copartners d/b/a General Ship
and Engine Works, 49 N. L. R. B. 1290; Matter of Pickett-Broaon Manufacturing Com-
pany, 51 N. L R. B .14; Matter of Metal Office Furn iture Company, 51 N L. R. B. 993.
THE WILSON COMPANY 527
include internal expediters and exclude external expediters from the
appropriate unit.7 '
We find that all production and maintenance employees employed
by the Company at its three yards, including internal expediters, but
excluding office employees, watchmen, external expediters, and all
supervisory employees having the right to hire, promote, discharge,
discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or
effectively recommend such action, constitute a''unit appropriate 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 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'oui Direction of Elec-
tion herein, subject to the limitations 'and,additions'se't forth in the
Direction.
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 Relations Act,
and pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of National Labor, Relations
Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2, as amended, it is hereby
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representa-
tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Lewis Eugene
Wilson, doing business as The Wilson Company, Wilmington, Cali-
fornia, an election by secret ballot shall be conducted as early as pos-
sible, but not later than thirty (30) days from the date of this Direc-
tion, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for
the Twenty-first Region, acting in this matter as agent for the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board, and subject to Article III, Sections 10
and 11, of said Rules and Regulations, 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 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 represented by Industrial Union
of Marine and Shipbuilding Workers of America, Local, 9,, C. I. 0.,
or by Los Angeles Metal Trades Council, A. F. L., for the purposes
of collective bargaining, or by neither.
* See Matter of Chemical Construction company, 50 N. L . R. B. 223.