Capehart-Farnsworth Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 28, 1955

111 N.L.R.B. 800 (N.L.R.B. 1955)

800 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
CAPEHART-FARNSWORTH COMPANY AND FARNSWORTH ELECTRONICS
COMPANY, DIVISIONS OF INTERNATIONAL TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH
CORPORATION l and INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE
WORKERS OF AMERICA, A. F. L., PETITIONER. Case No. 13-RC-
3838. February 28,1955
Decision and Direction of Elections
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Albert Gore, hearing officer.
The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from preju-
dicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 2
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
Act.
2. The Petitioner and the Intervenor Unions, International Union
of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, CIO, referred to herein as
IUE-CIO, and United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of
America (UE) and UE Local 916, referred to herein as UE, are labor
organizations which claim to represent certain employees of the
Employer s
3. Questions affecting commerce exist concerning the representation
of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1)
and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner and the Intervenor Unions each asserts that all
production and maintenance employees at the Employer's plants at
Fort Wayne, Indiana, constitute a single appropriate unit. The Em-
ployer asserts that the production and maintenance employees of each
division constitute separate appropriate units.
Capehart-Farnsworth Company, referred to herein as Capehart,
and Farnsworth Electronics Company, referred to herein as Farns-
worth, are unincorporated divisions of International Telephone &
Telegraph Corporation, herein called I. T. & T. They were formed
in July 1954 from one of I. T. & T.'s corporate subsidiaries, also known
I The name of the Employer was designated in the notice of hearing as Capehart -Farns-
worth Company . After the close of the first bearing , the Employer filed a motion to reopen
the record for the introduction of new evidence pertaining to the appropriateness of the
unit which had been stipulated at the hearing . The motion was granted , and at a further
hearing evidence was introduced relating to the merger of Capehart-Farnsworth Company
into its parent organization, International Telephone & Telegraph Corporation , and the
establishment of two new divisions of the parent corporation, Capehart -Farns« orth Com-
pany and Farnsworth Electronics Company. Farnsworth Electronics Company intervened
at the hearing.
2 As the record and briefs adequately present the issues and the contentions of the
parties, we deny the Employer 's request for oral argument.
s For the reasons stated in The Magnavox Company, 111 NLRB 379 , we find that Dis-
trict 9 and District Council 9 of the IUE and UE, and Region No . 8 and Regional Council
No. 8 of UAW-AFL are not labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of
the Act.
111 NLRB No. 133.
CAPEHART-FARNSWORTH COMPANY 801
as Capehart-Farnsworth Company. The formation of these 2 divi-
sions was part of an overall reorganization of I. T. & T. in which 4
other corporate subsidiaries were merged into the parent corporation,
and were then reconstituted as operating divisions.
Capehart and its predecessors have been engaged for many years in
producing radios, phonographs, television sets and other electronic
equipment at Fort Wayne, Indiana. In addition to the manufacture
of consumer products, Capehart was also engaged in research and de-
velopment for electronic gear primarily for military use. Before 1953,
production of these items was principally on a pilot-run basis, but in
that year as orders from the Government were obtained, electronic
equipment for military use was manufactured on a continuous produc-
tion basis. A technical products section was then established to as-
sume responsibility for nonconsumer products. When the divisional
reorganization of I. T. & T. was completed in August 1954, Capehart
took over the consumer section of the old company, and Farnsworth
acquired both the research and development and the technical prod-
ucts sections.
At that time, all production employees at Fort Wayne were given
the choice of continuing to work either for Capehart or for Farns-
worth, with their former companywide seniority to be limited there-
after to one or the other division. Since the reorganization the man-
agement of the two divisions has been completely separate. Each has
its own supervisory organization, reporting independently to top cor-
porate officials of I. T. & T. in New York, as well as its own sales,
purchasing, engineering, personnel, and labor relations staff. Segre-
gation of their physical facilities has also, with minor exceptions, been
put into effect. Capehart is now centered in what is known as the
Pontiac Street plant, while Farnsworth operates from the Wayne
Knitters plant which was leased in July 1953, when production of
military electronic gear began to expand. The 2 plants are about 6
miles apart. Because of its Government work, the Farnsworth em-
ployees, who are engaged in producing classified items, are subject to
security clearance. Security requirements, moreover, have led Farns-
worth to make a complete physical separation from Capehart employ-
ees of those of its employees who are still employed at the Pontiac
Street plant.
UE and its Local 916 have been the collective-bargaining representa-
tive for Capehart's employees at Fort Wayne since 1940. The last
agreement between Capehart and UE was for a 2-year term which
expired on June 1, 1954. While that agreement was in effect, the
technical products section of the old Capehart Company was estab-
lished and its employees were automatically included within the cover-
age of the agreement. After the expiration of the agreement, the
seniority and job-bumping rights which were provided for thereunder
802 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
were terminated , and in the divisional reorganization which occurred
a few months later a separate seniority system for each division was
instituted.
In view of the organizational cleavage which has been effected, and
the present nonintegrated character of the two divisions , we believe
that a single multiplant unit of Capehart and Farnsworth employees
is no longer appropriate . Although the former Capehart Company
had a history of bargaining for all its employees , this was, except for
the last year of the last contract, based on the manufacture of related
products within a single plant. Although we accord great weight to
a collective -bargaining history, we do not regard it as determinative
in deciding the appropriateness of a multiplant unit where , as here,
significant changes have recently occurred.4
We find that the following employees of the Employer constitute
separate appropriate units for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act:
(a) All production and maintenance employees of Capehart-
Farnsworth Company, at its Fort Wayne, Indiana, plant , excluding
office and clerical employees , guards, professional employees, and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
(b) All production and maintenance employees of Farnsworth
Electronics Company, at its Fort Wayne, Indiana, plant , excluding
office and clerical employees , guards, professional employees, and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.]
MEMBER MURDOCK took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Elections.
4 Frost Lumber Industries, 101 NLRB 659 ; General Electric Company, 100 NLRB 1489,
1490-3; and Fruehauf Trailer Company, 87 NLRB 589.
TEXAS PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE Co. and OFFICE EMPLOYEES INTERNA-
TIONAL UNION, LOCAL #27, AFL , PETITIONER . Case No. 39-RC-782.
February 28,1955
Supplemental Decision and Certification of Results of Election
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election issued by the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board on July 22, 1954,1 a representation elec-
tion was conducted on August 9, 1954, among the employees of the
Employer in the unit found appropriate. Upon completion of the elec-
tion the Regional Director issued and served on the parties a tally of
ballots. The tally indicated that of approximately 107 eligible voters,
1109 NLRB 319
111 NLRB No. 131.