Bethlehem-hingham Shipyard, Inc. And Bethlehem-hingham Shipyard Independent Union, 205 (1944)
In the Matter of BETHLEHEM-HINGHAM SHIPYARD, INC. and BETHLEHEM-HINGHAM SHIPYARD INDEPENDENT UNION In the Matter of BETHLEHEM-HINGHAM SHIPYARD, INC. and BETHLEHEM-HINGHAM SHIPYARD INDEPENDENT UNION In the Matter of BETHLEHEM-HINGHAM SHIPYARD, INC. and BETHLEHEM-HINGHAM SHIPYARD INDEPENDENT UNION Cases Nos. 1-R-1887, 1-R-1888 and 1-R-1931 respectively.-Decided July 12, 1944 Messrs. Robert A. Zottoli and Robert J. Thomson, both of Quincy,
Mass., and Mr. John T. Hannon, of Randolph, Mass., for the Union.1 Mr. Gerald J. Reilly, of Bethlehem, Pa., Messrs. Francis Long and H. J. Gorman, both of Hingham, Mass., Mr. Clement A. Briggs, of Plymouth, Mass., Mr. E. G. Anderson, of Quincy, Mass., and Messrs.
Cravath, Swaine & Moore, by Messrs. C. A. McLain and V. M. Williamson, both of New York City, for the Company.2 Mr. David V. Easton, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon separate petitions and an amended petition 3 duly filed by Bethlehem-Hingham Shipyard Independent Union, herein called the Union, alleging that questions affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation of employees of Bethlehem-Hingham Shipbuilding, Inc., Hingham, Massachusetts, herein called the Company, the National Labor Relations Board provided for appropriate hearings upon due notice before John W. Coddaire, Jr., Trial Examiner.
1 Mr. Zottoli appeared for the Union in all three cases; Messrs. Thomson and Hannon so appeared in Cases Nos. 1-R-1887 and 1-R-1888.
a Messrs. Reilly, Long, and Briggs appeared specially for the Company in all three cases;
Mr. Anderson appeared specially for the Company in Cases Nos. 1-R-1887 and 1-R-1888;
Mr. Gorman appeared specially for the Company only in Case No. 1-R-1888, and Messrs.
McLain and Williamson appeared specially for the Company only in Case No. 1-R-1931.
I An amended petition was filed in Case No. 1-R-1931.
Said hearings were held at Boston, Massachusetts, on June 8 and 19, 1944. The Company and the Union appeared,4 participated, and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues. The Company moved at each hearing to dismiss the petition therein. The Trial Examiner referred the motions to the Board for decision. For reasons hereinafter set forth, each of these motions is hereby denied. The Trial Examiner's rulings made at the hearings are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. All parties were afforded an opportunity to file briefs with the Board.
The Board, on its own motion, hereby consolidates the foregoing cases for the purpose of decision, and, upon the consolidated record, makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY Bethlehem-Hingham Shipyard, Inc., a Delaware corporation, operates a yard located at Hingham, Massachusetts, which is solely engaged in the construction of vessels for the United States Navy Department. Said yard and all the shipbuilding facilities therein are owned by the United States Navy Department. During the period commencing February 1, 1942, and lasting until May 1, 1944, the aggregate value of all materials used by the Company in the construction of vessels was in excess of $95,000,000, of which more than 90 percent was delivered to the yard from points outside the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. During the same period, the amount billed by the Company to the United States Navy Department for work in the construction of vessels at the yard was approximately $217,700,000.
The Company admits that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Bethlehem-Hingham Shipyard Independent Union is an unaffiliated labor organization, admitting to membership...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP