Cramp Shipbuilding Company And Industrial Union Of Marine & Shipbuilding Workers Of America, Local No. 42, 115 (1943)

In the Matter of CRAMP SHIPBUILDING COMPANY and INDUSTRIAL UNION OF MARINE & SHIPBUILDING WORKERS OF AMERICA, LocAL No. 42 In the Matter of CRAMP SHIPBUILDING COMPANY and INDUSTRIAL UNION OF MARINE & SHIPBUILDING WORKERS OF AMERICA, AND LOCAL No. 42 THEREOF In the Matter of CRAMP SHIPBUILDING COMPANY and INDUSTRIAL UNION OF MARINE & SHIPBUILDING WORKERS OF AMERICA, AND LOCAL No. 42 THEREOF In the Matter of CRAMP SHIPBUILDING COMPANY and INDUSTRIAL UNION OF MARINE & SHIPBUILDING WORKERS OF AMERICA, AND LOCAL No. 42 THEREOF Cases Nos. R-4,514 through R-4517, respectively.-Decided December 18, 1942 Jurisdiction: shipbuilding industry.

Investigation and Certification of Representative: existence of question: stipulation as to; election necessary.

Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining: following individual units found appropriate: (1) all timekeepers and piece-work counters, excluding the chief,timekeeper, and the supervisory piece-work counters; (2) all employees of the medical staff, including first-aid attendants, orderlies, and clerical employees, but excluding doctors, registered nurses, and the first-aid attendant supervisor;

(3) all quartermen, excluding chief quartermen; (4) all leadingmen-Company's objections to units (1), (3), and (4) on the ground that they were not 'employees' because they exercised managerial and supervisory functions and were represented by the same organization as the previously designated representative for production and maintenance employees, held without meritargument of res adjudicata because of prior determination excluding these groups from production and maintenance unit held without merit, since question of what units would be appropriate for such groups was not before the Board at that time--separate units for quartermen and leadingmen held proper when both occupied different levels of supervisory functions and one occupied substantial degree of supervision over the other.

Drinker, Biddle & Reath, by Messrs. Henry S. Drinker, Leslie M.

Swope, and Hayward H. Coburn, of Philadelphia, Pa., for the Company.

Mr. M. H. Goldstein, of Philadelphia, Pa., for the Union.

Mr. Robert E. Tillman, of counsel to the Board.

DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS STATEMENT OF THE CASE Upon four petitions duly filed by Industrial Union of Marine & Shipbuilding Workers of America, Local No. 42, herein called the Union, each alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning the representation of employees of Cramp Shipbuilding Company,

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, herein called the Company, the National Labor Relations Board consolidated the cases and provided for an appropriate hearing upon due notice before Robert II. Kleeb, Trial Examiner. Said hearing was held at Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on November 3, 4, and 11, 1942. 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.

During the hearing three motions were made by the Company on which the Trial Examiner reserved ruling. The Company first moved to dismiss all four petitions filed by the Union on the ground that the respective issues presented by the petitions had been previously decided in substance by a prior decision of the Board involving the Union and the Company;' the Company moved further to dismiss the petition for a separate unit of quartermen and leadingmen on the grounds that the quarterman and leadingmen are not employees within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, and that the Union failed to make a showing of substantial interest as respects them; the third motion asked that the record of the above-mentioned prior decision be incorporated into the present record to aid the Board in determining whether or not the prior decision had already decided the issues of the instant proceedings. Since we did not, in our previous decision, have before us for consideration the question of whether or not the groups of employees whom the Union now seeks to represent constituted separate units appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining, that decision cannot be regarded as having determined the issues presented by the petitions in these proceedings. The motion of the Company to dismiss the four petitions on the ground of res judicata is therefore denied.

In view of our findings set forth in Sections III and IV, infra, the second of the above-mentioned motions is hereby denied. Since the 1Matter of Cramp Shipbuilding Company and American Federation of Labor, 37 N. L.

R. B. 146.

117 decision in the earlier case amply sets forth the issues presented therein, we have found it unnecessary to refer to the evidence adduced at the hearing of that case. Accordingly, the third of the above-mentioned motions is hereby denied. The Trial Examiner's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. On November 17 and 20, 1942, respectively, the Company and the Union filed briefs which the Board has considered.

Upon the entire record in the case,2 the Board makes the following:

FINDINGS OF FACTS I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY Cramp Shipbuilding Company, a Pennsylvania corporation, maintains its principal office and place of business in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, where it is engaged in the construction of naval vessels for the United States Navy and in the repair of cargo ships for the United States Maritime Commission. During the past year a substantial percentage of the raw materials and supplies used by the Company was shipped to the Company from points outside the State of Pennsylvania. During the same period the construction and repair work performed by the Company was valued in excess of $200,000. The Company admits that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.

  1. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED Industrial Union of Marine & Shipbuilding Workers of America,

    Local No. 42, is a labor organization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, admitting to membership employees of the Company.

  2. THE QUESTIONS CONCERNING REPRESENTATION The parties stipulated that at various dates between July 10 and October 15, 1942, the Company declined to recognize the Union as the exclusive bargaining representative of the employees in any of the four units petitioned for until the Union was certified by the Board.

    A statement of the Regional Director, introduced in evidence at the hearing, and a statement of the Trial Examiner made at the hear2 On November 28, 1942, the parties filed with the Board an agreement providing for the correction of certain typographical errors in the record. The agreement is hereby made a part of the record, and the corrections provided for therein are hereby ordeed to be made.

    ing, indicate that the Union represents a substantial number of employees in each of the units hereinafter found appropriate.3 We find that questions affecting commerce have 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.

  3. THE APPROPRIATE UNITS On November 29, 1941, the Board issued its decision in Matter of Cramp Shipbuilding Company and American Federation of Labor,' finding a production and maintenance unit to be appropriate, and directing an election among the employees in that unit. Subsequently, the Union was certified as the exclusive bargaining representative of the employees in the production and maintenance unit. In this earlier case, the parties stipulated to exclude quartermen and medical staff employees from the unit; the Board decided in addition that leadingmen, timekeepers, and piecework counters, among others, should be excluded from the unit of production and maintenance employees.

    In the present proceedings, the Union is petitioning for four additional separate units of employees of the Company who were excluded from the production and maintenance unit: namely, a unit of timekeepers, one of piece-work counters, one of medical staff employees, and one of quartermen and leadingmen. The position of the parties as respects each of the proposed units is given independent treatment below.

    A. The timekeepers and the piece-work counters The Union...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT