Greenville Shipbuilding, Inc., 891 (1967)

Docket Number:26-CA-02269


Greenville Shipbuilding , Inc. and United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO Greenville Shipbuilding, Inc. and International Brotherhood of Boilermakers , Iron Shipbuilders,

Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers,

AFL-CIO. Cases 26-CA-2269, 26-CA-2450, and 26-CA-2593




On March 24, 1967, Trial Examiner David E.

Davis issued his Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had engaged in certain unfair labor practices within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, Respondent filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision with a supporting brief. The General Counsel filed cross-exceptions to the Decision with a supporting brief.

Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a threemember panel.

The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions, the crossexceptions and briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions,' and recommendations of the Trial Examiner as modified herein.


Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recommended Order of the Trial Examiner and hereby orders that the Respondent, Greenville Shipbuilding, Inc., Greenville, Mississippi, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's In finding Vickers' speech of June 22 coercive, we rely particularly on Vickers ' repeated references to the fact that the owners of the shipyard had other businesses and, unlike the employees , did not have to depend on the shipyard for a living In our opinion these references , in the context of Respondent's unconcealed opposition to the Union as reflected by the speech as a whole, would inevitably be understood by the employees as a repetition of the threats earlier made by Vickers and Supervisors Muirhead and Tohdl to close down in the event the employees selected the Union to represent them 891

Recommended Order, as herein modified.

  1. The notice is hereby modified in order to conform it to the provisions of the Order by deleting the third indented paragraph and substituting the following therefor:

    WE WILL NOT interrogate our employees about their activities on behalf of any labor organization.


    DAVID E. DAVIS, Trial Examiner: These proceedings, brought under Section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, herein called the Act, were heard, upon due notice, on October 26 and 27, 1966, and January 19, 1967, at Greenville, Mississippi.' The original charge in Case 26-CA-2269 was filed by United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, herein called Steelworkers, on December 3, 1965, and amended on January 10, 1966. The original charge in Case 26-CA-2450 was filed by International Brotherhood of Boilermakers,

    Iron Shipbuilders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers,

    AFL-CIO, herein called Boilermakers, on June 9, 1966, and amended on July 29, 1966. The General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the Board, issued a consolidated complaint on August 1, 1966, which was amended on October 21, 1966. Boilermakers filed the original charge in Case 26-CA-2593 on November 2, 1966, after the hearing in consolidated Cases 26-CA-2269 and 26-CA-2450 was closed and before briefs were due. The charge in Case 26-CA-2593 was amended on November 9, 1966, and again on November 16, 1966. The General Counsel issued the complaint in this case on November 17, 1966, and on the same date filed a motion with me to consolidate Case 26-CA-2593 with consolidated Cases 26-CA-2269 and 2450 and to reopen the hearing. Pursuant to the Board Rules and Regulations,

    Section 102.35(h), and to avoid multiplicity of suits, over the objection of counsel for Respondent, I granted the motion to consolidate and to reopen the hearing.

    In Case 26-CA-2269, where Steelworkers were the Charging Party, a settlement agreement had been entered into by the Regional Director for Region 26, the Respondent, and Steelworkers. The General Counsel seeks to set aside this settlement agreement in certain particulars because of alleged breaches of the above settlement agreement by the acts and conduct alleged in Cases 26-CA-2450 and 26-CA--2593 .2 ' Prior to the reopened heanng , Pargen Robertson resigned from the government and Kenneth D Henderson thereafter appeared as the counsel for the General Counsel 2 The Respondent moved to dismiss those allegations of the consolidated complaint , issued on August 1 , 1966, involving Steelworkers on the ground that the case had been settled and the alleged breaches of the settlement agreement concerned allegations of violations of Sec 8(a)(1) of the Act whereas the settlement agreement encompassed conduct dealing with violations of Sec. 8(a)(3) of the Act Associate Chief Trial Examiner, Charles Schneider, denied Respondent's motion on August 31 , 1966 Upon Respondent's motion to the Board for special permission to appeal the Associate Chief Trial Examiner Schneider's denial, the Board , on September 22, 1966, denied Respondent special permission without prejudice to renewal of its motion in any exceptions filed with the Board Respondent renewed the motion before me at the outset of the heanng and in its brief For reasons which will appear, infra, the motion is denied.

    165 NLRB No. 134

    Upon the entire record, including the briefs filed by the parties, and from my observation of the witnesses, I make the following:


  2. THE BUSINESS OF RESPONDENT The General Counsel alleged, Respondent admitted, and I find that Greenville Shipbuilding, Inc., herein called Respondent, is and has been, at all times material herein, a Mississippi corporation with its principal office and place of business located at Greenville, Mississippi, where it is engaged in the construction of tugboats and other vessels. During the 12-month period preceding the issuance of the consolidated complaint of August 1, 1966,

    Respondent, in the operation of its business, sold and shipped from the Greenville, Mississippi, location products, constructed by it, which were valued in excess of $50,000, directly to points outside the State of Mississippi, and during the same period, it purchased and received at its Greenville, Mississippi, location, goods, wares, and merchandise valued in excess of $50,000 directly from points outside the State of Mississippi.

    Accordingly, I find that Respondent is engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act and that it would effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.

    1. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED The General Counsel alleged , Respondent admitted, and I find that Steelworkers and Boilermakers are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.

    2. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. The Issues The complaint, as amended, in consolidated Cases 26-CA-2269 and 26-CA-2450 alleged interrogation and threats by Respondent's supervisors and agents, Jack Tohill, Elmer Vickers, and Arthur Hill, in violation of Section 8(a)(1) on various dates in October and November 1965.3 The consolidated complaint further alleges threats to employees by Respondent's supervisor and agent,

    Buddy Muirhead, in May 1966 and by Supervisor and Agent Elmer Vickers on June 22, 1966. The allegations concerning Vickers evolves around a speech made by him to the assembled employees on June 22, 1966.

    Respondent, in its answer, denies that any of the conduct described above violated the Act in any way.

    The complaint in Case 26-CA-2593, consolidated for hearing with the above-described cases, alleged that Respondent's agent, Elmer Vickers, threatened employees with discharge because of union membership or support on October 28, 1966; on the same date harassed its employee, James West; and assigned West more arduous duties because he gave testimony under the Act.

    3 These allegations concern the charge filed by the Steelworkers in Case 26-CA-2269. The original complaint and the settlement agreement referred to above also included allegations concerning the discriminatory discharges of two employees The amended consolidated complaint omits the alleged discriminatory discharges and therefore seeks to set aside the settlement agreement only in part , that part which concerns the alleged violations of Sec 8(a)(1) as described above ' Mwrhead's last name is incorrectly spelled in several places The above-described conduct is alleged to constitute violations of Section 8(a)(1) and (4) of the Act. A further 8(a)(1) violation allegation is made because of alleged threats by Respondent 's supervisor and agent, Floyd Baugher , on November 9, 1966. The Respondent, while admitting Vickers and Baugher were supervisors within the meaning of the Act, denied that they engaged in any conduct violative of Section 8(a)(1) and (4) of the Act.

    Under well-established Board precedent it is necessary to consider first those allegations concerning Respondent's conduct after the consummation of the settlement agreement of April 18, 1966. If it is found that such conduct was violative of Section 8(a)(1) and violative of the terms of the settlement agreement , it is only then that the settlement agreement may be set aside and consideration given to conduct occurring prior to April 18, 1966, which is alleged in the...

To continue reading