General Electric Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 10, 1939

15 N.L.R.B. 1018 (N.L.R.B. 1939)

In the Matter of GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY and THE G. E.
INDUSTRIAL UNION OF THE BRIDGEPORT WORKS, INCORPORATED
Case No. R-140.-Decided October 10, 1939
Electrical Products Manufacturing Industry-Investigation of Representa-
tives: petition for, dismissed , where no substantial question concerning the
representation of employees had arisen : existing written contract with employer
entered into upon basis of consent election result, recognized intervenor as
exclusive bargaining representative of employees in unit agreed to be appro-
priate ; evidence indicated petitioner had fewer adherents at time of hearing
than at time of participation in consent election.
Mr. Alan F. Perl, Mr. Daniel F. Baker, and Mr. Millard L.
Midonick, for the Board.
Mr. W. R. Burrows and Mr. George H. P f ei f, of Schenectady,
N. Y., for the Company.
Mr. Sidney A. Johnson, of Bridgeport, Conn., for the Industrial.
Mr. Julius Emspak and Mr. James J. Matles, of New York City,
for the United.
Mr. Eugene R. Thorrens, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On January 17, 1939, The G. E. Industrial Union of The Bridge-
port Works, Incorporated, herein called the Industrial, filed with
the Regional Director for the Second Region (New York City),
a petition alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen
concerning the representation of employees of the General Electric
Company, Bridgeport, Connecticut, herein called the Company,' and
requesting an investigation and certification of representatives pur-
suant to Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat.
449, herein called the Act. On April 26, 1939, the National Labor
Relations Board, herein called the Board, acting pursuant to Section
'At the hearing the Trial Examiner granted the Board 's motion to amend the caption
of the petition to omit the word "The" from the corporate name of the Company.
15 N. L. H. B., No. 112.
1018
GENERAL ELECTRIC C0_2NlPA_NY 1019
(e) of the Act and Article III, Section 3, of National Labor Rela-
tions Board Rules and Regulations-Series 1, as amended , ordered
an investigation and authorized the Regional Director to conduct it
and to provide for an appropriate hearing upon due notice.
On.-July 13; 1939, the Regional Director issued a notice of hearing,
copies of which were duly served upon the Company , upon the
Industrial , and upon the United Electrical Radio and Machine Work
ers of America, Local 203, herein called Local 203, a labor organiza-
tion named in the petition as claiming to represent employees of the
Company in the unit alleged in the petition to be appropriate. Pur-
suant to the notice, a hearing was held on August 14, 15, and 16,
1939, at New York City, before Horace A. Ruckel , the Trial Exam-
iner duly designated by the Board.2 At the opening of the hearing
a motion by Local 203 to intervene was granted by the Trial Exam-
iner, without objection . The Board and the Industrial were repre-
sented by counsel , and the Company and Local 203 appeared by their
representatives . All participated in the hearing . Full opportunity
to be heard, to examine , and cross -examine witnesses and to intro-
duce. evidence bearing on the issues was afforded all parties. After
the Industrial had rested its case, and again at the close of all the
evidence , Local 203 moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that
the Industrial had failed to establish the existence of a question con-
cerning representation. The Trial Examiner made no ruling upon
the motion on either occasion . For the reasons hereinafter appear-
ing, we shall grant the motion. During the course of the hearing
the Trial Examiner made several rulings on other motions and on
objections to the admission of. evidence . The Board has reviewed
the rulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that no prejudicial
errors were committed . The rulings are hereby affirmed.
Local 203 requested , but thereafter waived , oral argument before
the Board at Washington , D. C. None of the other parties availed
itself of the opportunity to request oral argument . Pursuant to leave
granted to all parties , the Industrial and Local 203 submitted briefs
which the Board has considered.
2 On April 26, 1939 , the Board ordered the present petition consolidated , for the purposes
of hearing , with Cases Nos. R-285, R-286, R-1464, and II-R-1295, which relate to other
General Electric plants. The Regional Director, accordingly , noticed the five cases for
hearing together on. August 14, 1939. At the commencement of the hearing , the parties
interested in Cases Nos . R-285, R-286, and 11-1464, moved that those cases be severed
from the other cases and remanded to the Eleventh Region in which they originated ; on
September 19, 1939, the Board granted the motion for severance and ordered the cases
remanded as requested . During the hearing on August 14, 1939, all parties interested
in Case No . II-R-1295, consented to the holding of an election to determine representatives
for the purposes of collective bargaining in that case ; and on September 19, 1939, the
Board ordered that case severed from the case arising upon the petition herein considered.
1020 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the followw•ing:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
General Electric Company, a New York corporation, is engaged
in the manufacture of a large variety of electrical devices and equip-
ment. The Company directly, and exclusive of its subsidiaries, owns
and operates 25 manufacturing plants in 10 States, operates 20 serv-
ice shops in 15 States, and operates 28 warehouses in 23 States. The
Company's operations are correlated at its general office in Sclie-
nectady, New York.
The present proceeding is concerned only with the employees of
the Company at its Bridgeport Works, located at Bridgeport, Con-
necticut, where the Company manufactures wiring devices, code and
fixture wire, rubber-covered wire and cable, sun luuups, electric fans,
flexible and conduit outlet boxes, honle^ appliances, Iurnie-laundry
equipment, and radio receivers. During 1938 the Company used,
at its Bridgeport Works, raw materials and partially fabricated
materials amounting in value to $9,393,752, more than 50 per cent
of which it obtained from outside the State of Connecticut. During
the same period the Company's sales of finished products manufac-
tured at the Bridgeport Works totaled approximately $19,000,000
in value, and more than 50 per cent thereof was sold and shipped
to points outside the State of Connecticut. The Company conceded
that it is engaged in interstate commerce at , its Bridgeport Works,
and subject to the Board's jurisdiction.
IT. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
The G. E . Industrial Union of The Bridgeport Works, Incorpo-
rated, is an unaffiliated labor organization , incorporated under the
laws of the State of Connecticut . It admits to membership all pro-
duction and maintenance employees of the Company at its Bridge-
port Works, excluding supervisory , clerical , and technical employees.
United Electrical Radio and Machine Workers of America, Local
203, is a labor organization , chartered by the United Electrical= Radio
and Machine Workers of America, hereinafter called the United,
which is affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations.
Local 203 admits to membership all production and maintenance
employees of the Company at its Bridgeport Works, excluding super-
visory, clerical , and technical employees.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
Local 203 was chartered on April 1, 1936. The record does not
disclose its organizational history. In March 1937 , the United,
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY 1021
which had chartered Local 203, entered into bargaining negotiations
with the Company. These resulted in a contract entered into on
April 1, 1938, between the Company and United, which provided :
The Company agrees to recognize the Union as the sole col-
lective bargaining agency for those plants where the Union
through a National Labor Relations Board election or certifi-
cation or other appropriate means satisfactory to both parties
has been designated or recognized as the sole collective bargain-
ing agency. The procedure of such ,collective bargaining shall
be by plants or works except where the issue involves several
plants (Article 1).
The contract also incorporated the existing policy of the Company
concerning wages, hours, and working conditions, set up grievance
procedure, and provided a plan for future consideration of modifi-
cations of the contract.
Several months after the beginning of negotiations between the
Company and United, the Industrial was organized among the Com-
pany's employees, and in June 1937, a consent election was conducted
by the Regional Director in which the employees were afforded an
opportunity to designate by secret ballot the Industrial or Local 203
as their bargaining agent. Approximately 93 per cent of the eligible
employees participated in the election; Local 203 received 2,790
votes, and the Industrial 1,999. The Company has at all times since
the election recognized Local 203 as the exclusive bargaining repre-
sentative of its employees at the Bridgeport Works.. United, how-
ever, continued to handle negotiations for a contract which, as
appears above, also related to other plants of the Company.3
By the operation of its terms, the contract entered into between
the Company and . United became effective with respect to
the Bridgeport Works upon its execution on April 1, 1938, since
theretofore, by an "appropriate means satisfactory to both parties,"
Local 203 had been "designated" and "recognized as the sole col-
lective bargaining agent." 4 The contract provides that it shall be in
force for 1 year, and thereafter from year to year unless either. party
gives the other party 90 days' advance written notice of cancelation.
Neither party has given notice of termination. On the contrary, at
the time of the hearing, negotiations, initiated by United, for modi-
fications of the contract, were proceeding.
A month after the execution of the contract, the Industrial filed
a petition for certification and investigation of representatives pur-
8 Apparently , no attempt was made to obtain a separate contract with respect to the
Bridgeport Works.
S It is apparent , and we find , that the parties to the contract intended that locals
chartered by United should be comprehended by the references in the contract to United.
1022 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
suant to Section 9 (c) of the Act. The Board, however, dismissed
the petition on May 23, 1938, without ordering the holding of a
hearing. On January 17, 1939, the Industrial filed the petition
upon which the hearing was held on August 14, 15, and 16.
At the hearing, the Company produced a pay-roll list, as of August
2, 1939, containing the names of 4,064 employees in the unit which
the parties agreed to be appropriate. The financial secretary of the
Industrial identified 1,018 membership application or authorization
cards signed by Bridgeport Works employees. The Industrial and
United stipulated with reference to such cards as follows : 517 cards
were dated in 1937, 92 were dated in 1938, and almost all of these
609 cards bore dates prior to May 2, 1938.5 With respect to the other
409 cards (as to which no dates were stated), 109 had been duplicated
by cards secured by United from Bridgeport Works employees after
June 27, 1939, and 300 cards bore names which were not found on
the pay-roll list because signers had been laid off or were not em-
ployed in the appropriate unit.
Andrew Vassie, president of the Industrial, testified at the hearing
that he had talked to "several" Bridgeport employees who stated
that they had signed cards for both organizations or belonged to
neither, and that they had said that they wished the Industrial to
represent them for the purposes of collective bargaining. He also
testified that he had heard "more or less from hearsay" that "quite
a few" of such employees 6 had made similar statements. According
to Vassie the Industrial, about a year before the hearing, "solicited
by postal cards" sent to employees, apparently in order to determine
how many would vote for the Industrial. He testified that "some"
had answered, but gave no definite number.
As stated above, Local 203 moved to dismiss the petition on the
ground that the Industrial had failed to establish the existence of
a question concerning representation. Local 203 offered no proof
of its own membership but stated that in the event the motion was
denied by the Board, it was prepared to introduce evidence of its
designation by a majority of the employees as agent for collective
bargaining.
We agree with the contention of Local 203 that the evidence of
employee affiliation with or preference for the Industrial does not
establish the existence of a question concerning representation of the
Company's Bridgeport employees which would warrant our holding
an election as requested by the Industrial. In 1937 Local 203 was
duly designated the exclusive bargaining agent for the Bridgeport
5 The dates appearing on the Industrial 's cards refer not to the time of signing by the
employees , but to the date of approval of membership applications or Issuance of member-
ship cards by the executive board of the Industrial.
8 Vassle refused to state how many employees he meant by "quite a few."
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY 1 023
employees by a clear majority in the consent election in which almost
all persons eligible to vote participated, and Local 203 has been
recognized by the Company as such representative since the election.
Moreover, the Company reaffirmed such recognition of Local 203 in
a, written contract, which at the time of the hearing, was still in
force, and, indeed, the subject of negotiations for betterments pro-
posed by United. The contract contains no closed-shop provisions,
nor are there any other factors in the situation, which, if present
might explain the inability of another labor organization to obtain
members or authorizations. Nevertheless, the record indicates the
Industrial sustained a considerable loss in strength among the em-
ployees since the consent election held in 1937. In the election the
Industrial received approximately 40 per cent of the votes cast,
whereas the Industrial's cards, as of August 1939, totaled no more
than 15 per cent of the employees in the unit agreed upon by the
United and the Industrial as appropriate. Furthermore, so far as
there is any evidence as to the dates of the Industrial's cards, most
of them are dated 1937, and almost all antedate May 2, 1938. Finally,
in view of its vague and indefinite character, we are unable to attach
any weight to the oral testimony introduced by the Industrial as
to the preference of employees.
Accordingly, we find that no question affecting commerce has
arisen concerning the representation of the Company's employees
at its. Bridgeport Works.
Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire
record in the case the Board makes the following:
CONCLUSION OF LAW
No question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the repre-
sentation of employees of the General Electric Company, Bridge-
port , Connecticut, within the meaning of Section 9 ( c) of the National
Labor Relations Act.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusion
of law, the National Labor Relations Board, acting pursuant to
Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act and Article III,
Section 8, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regula-
tions-Series 2, hereby dismisses the petition for investigation and
certification filed by The G. E. Industrial Union of The Bridgeport
Works, Incorporated.