Todd Pacific Shipyards Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 24, 1980

250 N.L.R.B. 951 (N.L.R.B. 1980)

TODD PACIFIC CORP.
Todd Pacific Shipyards Corporation and Driver
Sales and Warehousemen, Teamsters Local 117,
affiliated with International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and
Helpers of America, Independent, Petitioner.
Case 19-RC-9596
July 24, 1980
DECISION ON REVIEW AND ORDER
BY MEMBERS JENKINS, PENELLO, AND
TRUESDALE
On January 31, 1980, the Regional Director for
Region 19 issued his Decision and Direction of
Elections in the above-entitled proceeding, in
which he found appropriate a unit of all unrepre-
sented employees working in the Employer's pur-
chasing and material control departments.' There-
after, in accordance with Section 102.67 of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board Rules and Regula-
tions, Series 8, as amended, the Employer filed a
timely request for review, contending, inter alia,
that a unit comprised Employer's drawing of the
unrepresented employees in the two above-men-
tioned departments is clearly inappropriate, and
that the only appropriate unit would be one includ-
ing all unrepresented administrative employees.2
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na-
In his Decision and Direction of Elections. the Regional Director
also determined the appropriate unit in Case 19-RC-959q. In that case.
Petitioner sought to r'epresent a unit of all hourly nonrepresenled em-
ployees in the control department, and indicated its willingness to include
those employees in the engineering administrative department as well
The Regional Director found, inter alia, that these employees are office
clericals, and, therefore, that an appropriate unit must include not only
the clericals in the two departments mentioned above but also all office
clericals of the Employer at its Seattle shipyard. In view of the larger
unit, and the lack of clarity in the record as to the number of office cleri-
cal employees in the Employer's administrative groupings, the Regional
Director allowed 10 days for an administrative determination of the unit
size, and for the Petitioner to perfect its showing of interest On Febru-
ary 7, 1980. the Petitioner filed a request to withdraw its petition in Case
19-RC-9595 On that dale, the Regional Director severed Case 19-RC
9595 from Case 19-RC-9596, and dismissed the former case without prej-
udice. The Board, therefore, granted review herein only on the issues
raised in Case 19-RC-9596. As our examination of the scope of the unit
herein is so limited, notwithstanding the Employer's raising the issue of
the appropriateness of the unit found in Case 19-RC-9595, the instant
Decision does not decide the appropriateness of a unit of office clericals
in the Employer's shipyard, apart from other unrepresented administra-
live employees.
2 As indicated in fn I. supra, the Employer also questions the appro-
priateness of a separate office clerical unit It argues that these employees
either share a community of interest with the remainder of the Employ-
er's administrative employees or belong in a single residual unit with
these latter workers. The Employer does. however, argue in the alterna-
tive that if the Regional Director's determination regarding the office
clerical unit in Case 19-RC-9595 is upheld, its position is that the nonof-
fice clerical administrative employees constitute an appropriate residual
unit As we do not pass on the propriety of the Regional Director', deci-
sion with regard to Case 19-RC-9595. all future references to the Em-
ployer's administrative employees herein will deal only with its nonoffice
clerical administrative workers
tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its at,
thority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
By telegraphic order, on March 11, 1980, the
National Labor Relations Board granted the re-
quest for review and stayed the election pending a
decision on review.
The Board has considered the entire record in
this case and makes the following findings:
Todd Pacific Shipyards Corporation (also re-
ferred to as the Employer) is engaged in the busi-
ness of ship construction, repair, and conversion in
various ports throughout the United States. The
only facility involved herein is the Employer's op-
eration in Seattle, Washington.
At its Seattle location, the Employer has a total
work force of approximately 4,300. Of this number,
3,700-3,800 employees performing production,
maintenance, and craft work are covered by the
Pacific Coast Master Agreement, a multiemployer
collective-bargaining agreement to which the Em-
ployer is a party. The remainder of Todd Pacific
Shipyard's employees, approximately 500, are unre-
presented "administrative" employees, including
both hourly and salaried workers in office clerical,
technical, professional, managerial, and supervisory
categories. These administrative employees work in
all of the Employer's major departments; i.e., in-
dustrial relations, operations, finances, general man-
agement, and a composite department including es-
sentially the engineering, purchasing, quality assur-
ance, material control, and research and develop-
ment programs.
The Petitioner originally sought to represent all
nonrepresented employees in the purchasing de-
partment. However, it indicated at the hearing a
willingness to participate in an election if the unit
included those employees in the material control
department as well. The Regional Director found
that a unit which encompassed the employees in
the purchasing and material control departments
would be appropriate, and directed an in that unit.3
The Regional Director rejected the Employer's ar-
gument that the unit should be composed of all the
Employer's nonrepresented administrative employ-
ees. The Employer contends that these workers
share a community of interest and/or constitute an
appropriate residual unit.
' The exact unit found appropriate hs the Regional Director conirsil,
of "lall unrepresented employees employed in the Employer's purchas-
ing and material control departments at its Seattle. Washington, facilities.
but excluding office clerical and professional employees. guards and suI-
pervisors a, defined in the Act
Further in his dccisiol. the Regiotral Direltior also fiound that Ihe Peti-
tlicer made a 'sufficient l hosling of Interest In the .Ihoe-mentioned ex
panded unlli of aIpprxnlmNatcl 5 s emphoees IIIn ,iie, of IuLr ultimate De-
cirson herein. this issue need not be reac'hed
250 NLRB No. 138
951
DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In reaching this conclusion, the Regional Direc-
tor found that the employees had an "identifiable
community of interest" based on the fact that they
"share a common work space, common duties, fre-
quent interchange with each other but not with
other employees and individual supervision which
is in turn answerable to a common supervisor."
Specifically, the Regional Director found that the
two departments involved herein are supervised by
departmental managers who report to the same su-
pervisor, Vice President and Assistant General
Manager W. E. Squires. The purchasing and mate-
rial control departments are also located in the
same building with little or no physical separation
between their respective employees. Further, the
employees' work is closely connected; that is, the
purchasing department employees place the orders
which are then overseen by the material control
workers, who assure that the orders arrive and are
properly distributed. In addition, the Regional Di-
rector found that both groups check each other's
work, and both also act as clearinghouses of infor-
mation with regard to supplies to the various
crafts.
We do not agree with the Regional Director,
based on these facts, that the purchasing and mate-
rial control departments have such a level of inter-
nal homegeneity or cohesiveness that the separa-
tion of these employees into their own unit is war-
ranted. Such an action would result in the undue
fragmentation of the work force. In fact, the
record reveals that there are substantial differences
even among the employees in each of these two
departments with regard to their wages, job classi-
fications and functions, supervision, expertise, expe-
rience, and the degree of independent judgment
utilized in their jobs.
On the other hand, there are factors in the
record indicating that a group of all unrepresented
administrative employees share a community of in-
terest. For example, uncontradicted testimony re-
veals that all of the departments' employees are in
constant contact with each other, a fact which the
Regional Director did not dispute, even though he
found the contact between purchasing and material
control employees to be more "significant." Fur-
ther, the Regional Director found that: (1) all ad-
ministrative employees, whether hourly or salaried,
are paid wages comparable to workers in similar
jobs, with comparable fringe benefits; (2) there is a
common facilitywide personnel policy administered
by the personnel department which has overall au-
thority, although some of its functions are delegat-
ed to the department level; and (3) transfers be-
tween departments by administrative employees are
frequent. In addition, the record discloses that all
administrative employees do not have to punch a
timeclock, have basically the same work schedules,
have access to an Employer-operated cafeteria, and
have some common supervison at the higher levels.
These facts, therefore, demonstrate that while the
purchasing and material control employees do
share a community of interest with each other it is
not substantially different from the interest they
have in common with other administrative employ-
ees not included in the unit.
Accordingly, we find that a unit confined to the
Employer's purchasing and material control depart-
ments' employees is clearly inappropriate. We shall
therefore dismiss the petition.
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the petition herein be,
and it hereby is, dismissed.