Alpha Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 25, 1960

128 N.L.R.B. 309 (N.L.R.B. 1960)

ALPHA CORP., TRANSPORTABLE SYSTEMS DIVISION 309
In the circumstances, we find it would not be consistent with the
provisions and policies of the Act to direct an immediate election
which might result in the certification of a union not truly the choice
of the employees of the new business operation to commence in
September 1960.
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
Alpha Corporation , Transportable Systems Division and Local
Lodge 952, International Association of Machinists , AFL-CIO,
Petitioner . Case No. 16-RC-2660. July 25, 1960
DECISION, ORDER, AND CLARIFICATION
OF CERTIFICATION
Upon a petition duly filed Section 9(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before John C. Crawford, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer 1 is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.'
2. The labor organizations involved herein claim to represent cer-
tain employees of the Employer?
'Alpha Corporation was organized on March 31, 1959, as a successor to the Systems
Division of Collins Radio Company, and became an operating entity on February 1, 1960,
when Collins Radio Company transferred employees and assets to Alpha Corporation.
Alpha Corporation is at present a wholly owned subsidiary of Collins Radio Company.
Alpha and Collins have the same directors, substantially the same officers, and the same
persons in charge of their labor relations policies. Upon occasion, Collins decides
whether a particular order calling for the production of goods should be allocated to
Alpha or to another of its subsidiaries. In view of these facts, we find that for juris-
dictional and unit purposes, Collins and Alpha constitute a single employer within the
meaning of the Act. (Gibbs oil Company, 1.20 NLRB 1783.) Collins was permitted to
intervene at the hearing on the basis of its relationship to the employees involved
herein. Alpha and Collins are sometimes referred to herein as the Employer and some-
times as Alpha and Collins, respectively.
2 The plants of Alpha and Collins involved in this proceeding are located in the State
of Texas. The parties stipulated that, during the year preceding the hearing, Collins
shipped in excess of $50,000 worth of goods and materials from these plants to points
outside Texas and received in excess of $50,000 worth of goods and materials to these
plants from points outside Texas. As Alpha and Collins are manufacturing enterprises
and are, for jurisdictional purposes, a single employer, we find that both Alpha and
Collins meet our jurisdictional standards. Siemens Mailing Service, 122 NLRB 81.
3International Union of Electrical, Radio, and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, and its
Local 787, hereinafter referred to as IUE, was permitted to intervene at the hearing on
the basis of its certifications as representative of employees sought herein and on the
basis of its contractual interest in these employees. Petitioner, hereinafter referred to
as the IAM, objected to the intervention on the ground that the IUE had no showing of
interest in the unit sought in the petition. As the SUE has contractual relations with,
and is currently recognized by, the Employer, we find that the IUE has a colorable claim
to representation sufficient for purposes of intervention . Hardboard Fabricators Corp.,
117 NLRB 823.
128 NLRB No. 35.
577684-61-vol. 128-21
310 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning representation
of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1)
and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. However, the IAM indicated
that it was willing to have the Board treat its petition as a motion
to clarify its existing certification as representative of certain em-
ployees of the Employer. As the Board will consider and decide re-
quests for clarification of certified units, the following decision is
issued even though no question concerning representation exists'
Alpha is a Texas corporation engaged in the design, construction,
installation, and operation of electronic systems. Alpha operates a
facility at Addison Airport located in Dallas County, Texas, approxi-
mately 3 miles north of the city of Dallas, where its production work-
ers are employed, and a building at Richardson, Texas, which is also
located in Dallas County, 3 miles north of Dallas, where it employs
clerical, technical, and professional employees. Addison Airport is
located approximately 5 miles west of Richardson. Collins owns and
operates seven production plants in the so-called Trinity Industrial
District in the city of Dallas, and it also operates a research, develop-
ment, and office building at Richardson, across the street from the
Alpha Building.' The Trinity Industrial District is located approxi-
mately 13 miles from Richardson and approximately 10 miles from
the Addison Airport. On January 13, 1954,6 the IUE was certified,
after a Board-directed election, as representative of all production
and maintenance employees at Collins', Dallas, Texas, electronic
equipment plants. At that time, Collins owned and operated only
two production plants in the Dallas area. Subsequently, on February
3, 1955, as the result of a consent election,7 the IUE was certified to
represent a unit of production, test, equipment, construction, and
maintenance employees at Collins', Dallas, Texas, electronic equip-
ment plants. Under the terms of the consent agreement, this unit
of employees became part of the IUE unit certified in the earlier case.
As Collins opened new plants in Dallas, it extended recognition to
the IU + as representative of the employees in these plants. The IUE
is currently recognized as the representative of the production and
maintenance employees of Collins' seven plants in Dallas and also of
the building maintenance employees of the Employer at Richardson
and Addison a The most recent contract between Collins and the
IUE, dated May 1, 1959, is to remain in effect for 1 year and, unless 60
days' notice of termination is given by either of the parties, from
s Missassipps Lime Company, 124 NLRB 884
5 Although Collins owns and operates plants in other parts of the United States (e g.,
Cedar Rapids, Iowa), these are its only plants in the Dallas area.
6 Case No 16-RC-1390 (unpublished)
7 Case No. 16-RC-1584 ( unpublished).
B The record indicates, however, that Alpha has subcontracted its building maintenance
work and does not presently employ maintenance workers either at Addison or at
Richardson.
ALPHA CORP ., TRANSPORTABLE SYSTEMS DIVISION 311
year to year thereafter.' In this agreement, Collins recognizes the
IUE as a representative of a unit of "all production and maintenance
employees in the Employer's Dallas, Texas, electronic equipment
plants."
At the time of these certifications, Collins maintained an aircraft
installation facility at Redbird Airport, near Dallas. However, the
certifications did not expressly cover the employees at Redbird nor,
with the exception of building maintenance employees, did the con-
tracts between the IUE and Collins cover any of these employees.
Sometime before 1959, Collins transferred its aircraft installation
facility to Addison Airport. On February 11, 1959,10 as the result
of a consent election, the IAM was certified to represent a unit com-
posed of all employees of Collins at its Addison Aircraft Modifica-
tions Center "engaged in aircraft modification and installation," and
excluding, among others, radio technicians and building maintenance
employees. Thereafter, on June 1, 1959, the Employer entered into a
contract recognizing the IAM as the representative of the employees
in the above-described unit. This contract was to continue for 1
year and, unless either of the parties gave 60 days' notice of termina-
tion, from year to year thereafter. So far as appears, no such notice
of termination has been given.
When the IAM was certified in February 1959 as representative
-)f the employees at Addison, 95.9 percent of these employees were
engaged in aircraft work. In June 1959, when the IAM signed its
contract with Collins, the nonaircraft work at Addison had grown
to 40.3 percent of the total. By January 1960, 87.6 percent of the
employees at Addison were engaged in nonaircraft work. Aircraft
employees fabricate electronic systems and install them in airplanes.
Nonaircraft employees fabricate and install these electronic systems
in transportable units such as trailers, consoles, and huts." During
the period following June 1959, the Employer dealt with the IAM as
representative of all the production employees at Addison, including
nonaircraft workers. In December 1959, the IUE, on learning of the
increase in nonaircraft work being performed at Addison, wrote to
Collins objecting, in substance, to the fact that this nonaircraft work
was being performed without reference to the IUE agreement with
Collins. After several meetings, the IUE and Collins entered into a
supplementary agreement on January 15, 1960, which provided,
among other things, that the IUE was entitled to represent the em-
ployees of Alpha engaged in the fabrication and installation of sys-
tems in units other than aircraft, but postponing specific performance
9 So far as appears , no such notice of termination has been given.
io Case No. 16-RC-2452 ( unpublished).
' In October 1959, the name of the facility at Addison Airport, which had previously
been known as the Addison Aircraft Modification Center, was changed to Transportable
Systems Division to reflect the change in the type of work which was taking place there.
312 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
of this portion of the agreement until this work could be transferred
to the Employer's proposed new facility at Richardson, Texas.12
On January 18, 1960, the IAM filed a motion with the Regional
Director for the Sixteenth Region to amend and clarify its certifica-
tion in Case No. 16-RC-2452 in view of the change of name of the sub-
sidiary of Collins from the Aircraft Modification Center to the Trans-
portable Systems Division and the change in the character of the
work being performed at Addison. In its motion, the IAM asked the
Regional Director to amend and clarify its certification to include,
with certain exclusions, all production and maintenance employees of
the Transportable Systems Division of Collins Radio Company. On
January 20, 1960, the Regional Director denied the motion of the
IAM on the ground that it raised a question concerning representation,
but stated that he would entertain a petition at an appropriate time.
The instant amended petition and motion for clarification were filed
on February 5, 1960.
We must determine whether the Board, in certifying the IAM in
1959 to represent "aircraft" employees at Addison, intended to in-
clude nonaircraft employees in the certified unit. If the certificate
was not intended to include nonaircraft employees, the IAM here is
petitioning for a more comprehensive unit than that for which it was
certified and a question concerning representation may exist. If, on
the contrary, the IAM certificate was intended to cover within the
unit nonaircraft employees, the petition does not raise a question con-
cerning representation and the IAM certificate should be clarified
to include nonaircraft as well as aircraft employees at Addison.
In our view, the IAM certification was intended to include in its
coverage nonaircraft employees. When the IAM was certified in
1959, approximately 5 percent of the employees at Addison were en-
gaged in nonaircraft work. The certificate of the IAM, while refer-
ring expressly only to aircraft employees, did not expressly exclude
nonaircraft employees. We also consider it significant in this connec-
tion that the Employer, between June and December 1959, dealt with
the IAM as the representative of the nonaircraft employees on the
apparent assumption that they were also covered by the certificate and
contract. In view of these facts, we deem the use of the phrase "air-
craft workers" in the IAM certificate to be merely descriptive of the
work being done by the large majority of production employees at
Addison at the time of the certification rather than as a term of limita-
tion. Accordingly, we find that the IAM certification in Case No.
12 At the hearing, a representative of the Employer testified that the Employer expects
to complete a new facility at Richardson about June 1, 1960 , and that it plans to transfer
the nonaircraft fabrication and installation work now taking place at Addison to this
new facility . In accordance with established Board policy , we shall make our findings
herein on the basis of present operations of the Employer Sidney Blumenthal d ('o.
(Caroinount and Wilson Dtivisions ), 113 NLRB 791 , 794, footnote 8
AEROJET GENERAL CORPORATION 313
16-RC-2452 embraces within the certified unit all employees at Addi-
son engaged in the fabrication and installation of electronic systems.
As the IAM petition in the instant case does not raise a question con-
cerning representation, we shall dismiss the petition.13
Accordingly, the certification of the IAM in Case No. 16-RC-2452
is hereby clarified to include in the lullt all employees at the Addison
Airport engaged in the fabrication and installation of electronic sys-
tems in both aircraft and in transportable systems other than
aircraft.14
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
MEMBERS BEAN and JENKINS took no part in the consideration of
the above Decision , Order, and Clarification of Certification.
13 In its petition, the IAM also sought to represent maintenance employees of Alpha
and production employees of Alpha in all of Dallas County. The record indicates, how-
ever, that Alpha currently employs no maintenance employees and no production em-
ployees other than at Addison. In accordance with Board policy, we shall make no
determination with respect to categories of employees who are not currently employed by
the Employee (Westinghouse Electric Corporation, 110 NLRB 475, 477.) The IAM
also sought to represent radio technicians employed at Addison. The radio technicians
were expressly excluded from the 1959 certification of the IAM. Assuming that the radio
technicians may appropriately be included in the IAM unit, it would be necessary to
ascertain by means of a self-determination election whether the radio technicians wished
to be included in the IAM unit (The Zia Company, 108 NLRB 1134) However, to
warrant a self-determination election among previously unrepresented employees, the
union seeking such an election must make a separate showing of interest among these
employees (Pennington Bros., Inc., 124 NLRB 935). The Board has been administratively
advised that the IAM has made no separate showing of interest among radio technicians.
On the basis of the foregoing, we shall dismiss the IAM petition in its entirety.
34 We make no determination as to whether the IAM certification covers nonaircraft
employees, or any other employees of the Employer, who may be transferred from
Addison Airport to any other facility of the Employer.
Aerojet General Corporation and International Union , United
Welders, Petitioner .' Case No. 21-RC-6192. July 25, 1960
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Wilford W. Johansen, hear-
ing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Leedom and Members
Rodgers and Fanning].
'The name of the Petitioner appears as amended after the close of the hearing by
agreement of the parties.
128 NLRB No. 37.