General Electric Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 23, 1941

29 N.L.R.B. 162 (N.L.R.B. 1941)

In the Matter of GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY and PATTERN MAKERS'
LEAGUE OF NORTH AMERICA, A. F. L.
Case No. R-9117.Decided January 23, 1941
Jurisdiction : electrical equipment manufacturing industry.
Investigation and Certification of Representatives : existence of question : refusal
to accord union recognition ; election necessary.
Unit Appropriate for Collective Bargaining : election directed among pattern
makers to determine whether or not they desire to constitute a separate unit.
Mr. Martin I. Rose, for the Board.
Mr. W. R. Burrows, of Schenectady, N. Y., for the Company.
Mr. George Q. Lynch, of Washington, D. C., and Mr. Ernest
Umpleby,i of Schenectady, N. Y., for the League.
Mr. James J. Matles and Mr. Julius Emspale, of New York City, and
Mr. Leo E. Jandreau,2 of Schenectady, N. Y., for the United.
Mr. Gilbert V. Rosenberg, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On July 13, 1940, Pattern Makers' League of North America, herein
called the League, 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
General Electric Company, Schenectady, New York, herein called the
Company, at its Schenectady plant, and requesting an investigation
and certification of representatives pursuant to Section 9 (c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, 49 Stat. 449, herein called the Act. On
October 9, 1940, the National Labor Relations Board, herein called the
Board, acting pursuant to Section 9 (c) of. the Act and Article III,
Section 3, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-
'Series 2, as amended, ordered an investigation and authorized the
i Umpleby appeared for Pattern Makers' Association of Schenectady . For purposes of
this decision , we shall hereinafter refer to this organization and Pattern Makers' League
of North America together as the League.
2 Jandreau appeared for Local 301 of the United. For purposes of this decision, we
shall hereinafter refer to Local 301, and United Electrical , Radio & Machine Workers of
America together as the United.
29 N. L. R. B., No. 29.
162
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY 163
Regional Director to conduct it and to provide for an appropriate
hearing upon due notice. On October 11, 1940, the Regional Director
issued a notice of hearing, copies of which were duly served upon the
Company, the League, and United Electrical, Radio & Machine Work-
ers of America, herein called the United, a labor organization claiming
to represent employees of the Company. Pursuant to notice a hearing-
was held on October 24, 1940, at Schenectady, New York, before Peter
F. Ward, the Trial Examiner duly designated by the -Board. The
Board was represented by counsel and the Company, the League, and
the United by representatives; all participated in the hearing. Full
opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, and
to introduce evidence bearing upon the issues was afforded all parties.
During the course of the hearing the Trial Examiner made several
rulings on motions and objections to the admission of evidence. The
Board has reviewed the iulings of the Trial Examiner and finds that
no prejudicial errors were committed.' The rulings are hereby
affirmed. At the conclusion of the hearing the United moved to dis-
miss petition of the League. The Trial Examiner reserved decision
on this motion for the Board. On November 12, 1940, the United
filed a brief in support of this motion which the Board-has considered.
For reasons hereinafter appearing, the Board hereby denies said
motion.
At the request of the United and pursuant to notice, a hearing was
held before the Board in Washington, D. C., on December 3, 1940, for
the purpose of oral argument. The United and the League appeared
by representatives and participated in the argument.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
General Electric Company, a New York corporation, with its prin-
cipal office at Schenectady, New York, is engaged in the manufacture
of electrical equipment. The Company operates plants in several
States. The present proceeding involves only the Company's Sche-
nectady, New York, plant which employs approximately 14,000 pro-
duction and maintenance employees. The raw materials, consisting
principally of steel and' copper, used annually at the Schenectady
plant are valued at approximately $20,000,000. More than 50 per cent
of such materials are obtained outside the State of New York. Fin-
ished products manufactured annually at this plant are valued, -at
approximately $50,000,000. More than 50 per cent of such products
are shipped,,outside the State of New York.3
3 These findings are based upon a stipulation entered into by counsel for the parties
and Board.
413602-42-vol 29-12
164 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
II. THE -LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED- -
Pattern Makers' League of North America is a labor organization
affiliated with the American Federation of Labor. It admits to
membership, through its affiliate Pattern Makers' Association of
Schenectady, all pattern makers and pattern makers' apprentices em-
ployed at the Company's Schenectady plant.
United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of North America is a
'labor organization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organi-
zations. It admits Ito membership, through its Local No. 301, employ-
ees at the Company's Schenectady plant.
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
On December 16,, 1936, a consent election was conducted by the
Regional Director among the production and maintenance employees
at the Company's Schenectady plant. In the election a majority of
the employees selected the United as their representative for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining. On April 1, 1938, the United and the
Company entered into a contract recognizing the United as the exclu-
sive bargaining representative of employees of the company at plants
where, through a Board election or certification or other appropriate
means, the United has been selected as the exclusive representative.
This contract became immediately effective as to the Schenectady
plant. As modified in 1939 and 1940 it is still in effect. The contract
incorporated the existing policy of the Company concerning wages,
hours, and working conditions, set up grievance procedure, and pro-
vided a plan for future consideration of modifications of the contract.
The contract also provided that it shall be in force for 1 year, and
thereafter from year to year unless one party gives the other party
90 days advance written notice of cancellation . At the time of the
hearing, as a result of Board elections, at least 19 plants, including the
Schenectady plant of the Company, were covered by this agreement.4
In June 1940 Company officials refused to meet with or recognize
a committee of employees from the pattern shop of the Schenectady
plant. The committee allegedly represented the League and, through
its the pattern makers at the plant, numbering 77 persons. The
Company's stated reason for its refusal is that by virtue of the consent
election and the contract with the United the Company was con-
strained to recognize the United as the sole bargaining agent for all
4 At most all these plants the unit for collective bargaining is the plant-wide unit
including pattern makers in those plants where they are employed At the Fort Wayne
plant there is a separate unit for machinists and at the Erie plant there is pending a
Board proceeding involving the question of a separate unit for pattern makers. Since the
consent election in December 1936, the Company, and the United have, considered and.
treated the pattern makers at the Schenectady plant as a part of the plant -wide unit. ,
GENERAL'- ELECTRIC COMPANY, 165
production and maintenance employees, including the pattern makers,
at the plant. Thereafter, in July 1940, the League filed the peti-
tion in this proceeding.
There was introduced in evidence a report prepared by the Be-'
gional Director showing that the' League represented a substantial
number of the employees in the unit alleged in its petition to be
appropriate.'
We find that a question has arisen concerning the representation
of employees of the Company.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION ; UPON
COMMERCE
We find that the question concerning representation which has
arisen, occurring in connection with the operations of the Company
described in Section I above, has a , close, intimate, and substantial
relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and
tends to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce
and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The League alleges in its petition that all wood and metal pattern
makers employed by the Company at its Schenectady plant constitute
a unit appropriate' for the purposes of collective bargaining. The
United opposes the separation of these employees from a plant-wide
unit, claimed by it to be appropriate, comprising all production and
maintenance employees, including pattern makers, at the Schenectady
plant. The Company employs approximately 14,000 persons at this
plant, of whom 77 are in the unit claimed by the League.
The pattern makers employed by the Company at the Schenectady
plant work in one department separate and distinct from other de-
partments of the plant. They are a well established and highly
skilled craft, requiring a lengthy apprenticeship. The -League has
had members in the Schenectady plant for the past 35 years and
evidence was introduced tending to show that all pattern makers
at this plant have been and are members of the League and that none
6 The Regional Director reported that the League had produced a petition signed by 75
of the 77 pattern makers whose names appear on the Company's pay roll of August 8,
1940, in which the signers authorized the League to represent them The Regional Director
also reported therein that the United had submitted no evidence in support of its claim
to represent any employees in the alleged appropriate unit At the hearing, the United,
moved that this portion of the report be stricken from the record on the ground that the
Regional Director failed to request the United to submit evidence of this nature. The
Trial Examiner reserved decision on this motion for the Board. '-The Board hereby denies
said motion noting, however, the evidence introduced at the hearing to show that the United
represents a substantiar"number of production and maintenance employees ,of'the Company
at the Schenectady plant ( '
166 DECISIONS - OF NATIONAL LABOR I RELATIONS BOARD
are members of the United. A committee from the pattern maker's'
shop both before and after the consent election in December 1936,
and until June 1940, when the Company challenged its authority, has
engaged in numerous conferences with the Company concerning
grievances, working conditions, and wage increases involving the pat-
tern makers,, although the shop committee has neither requested or-
concluded a written bargaining agreement with the Company.
The League was not a party to the consent election agreement which
preceded the election of December 16, 1936, and its name did not
appear upon the ballot used in the election." Pattern makers were
eligible to vote, however, and it appears that 28 persons wrote in the
name of the League upon their ballots.°
In opposition to the League's petition the United contends that the
plant-wide unit in which the election was held and which is covered
by the contract with the Company is appropriate, that it has bar-
gained for the pattern makers along with other employees under the
contract,' and that the conferences between the Company and the
committee from the pattern shop did not constitute real collective
bargaining, but merely reflected the practice of departmental shop
committees permitted by the contract, to confer with representatives
of management. The United, admitting that it has no members
among the pattern makers, stated that as a matter of policy and in
the interest of general cooperation it has not solicited the member-
ship of employees who are members of the League or of other craft
organizations at the plant.
Under all the circumstances, including the fact that the members of
the League, whose history of organization at the plant antedates
that of the United, did not have an opportunity in the consent elec-
tion to vote for the League, the positive showing in the consent
election, as evidenced by the 28 ballots with the name of the League
written in, that a substantial number of persons desired to be repre-
sented by the League, we are of the opinion that the unit used in
the consent election, to which the Company and the United have
applied their contract, should not be accorded binding effect, and that
the question of the proper unit for the pattern makers should be deter-
mined by the desires of the pattern makers themselves. We shall
8 The ballots carried the names of the United and the Workers Council, another labor
organization organizing on a plant-wide basis . Of the 9 , 272 ballots cast, 5,111 were for
the United, and 4,033 for the workers Council.
' The League contends that in view of the long history of bargaining between the Company
and the pattern makers through their 'committee and the fact that the pattern shop was
organized under the jurisdiction of the League it did not believe that the results of the
election would affect the existing relationship between the pattern makers and the Com-
pany The League further contends that until June 1940 the right of the pattern makers
to bargain as a separate unit had never been challenged in any manner.
8 The United claims credit for obtaining an increase under the contract for the pattern
makers in October 1940.
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY 167
therefore direct that an election be held among the wood and metal
pattern makers at the Schenectady plant of the Company to determine
whether they desire to be represented by the League, or by the United,
for the purposes of collective bargaining, or by neither. If a majority
of -wood and metal pattern makers vote for the League, they will
have indicated their desire to constitute a separate unit and we shall
find that-the pattern makers constitute a separate appropriate unit and
shall certify the League as the exclusive representative thereof. If
a majority votes for the United we shall consider that the pattern
makers desire to form part of the larger unit established in the con-
sent election and covered in the contract.
VI. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
We find that the question concerning the representation of em-
ployees of the Company can best be resolved by an election by secret
ballot.
The United failed to indicate at the hearing whether or not it
desired to be placed on the ballot if an election should be held among
the pattern makers. We shall direct that an election by secret ballot
be, held among all pattern makers at the Schenectady plant of the
'Company who were employed during the pay-roll period last preced-
ing the date of this Direction, with the inclusions and exclusions set
forth in the Direction, to determine whether they desire to be repre-
sented by the League, or by the United, for purposes of collective
bargaining, or by neither. We shall, however, grant permission to
the United to have its name withdrawn from the ballot, if it so desires,
and if it so notifies in writing the Regional Director for the Second
Region within ten (10) days from the date of this Direction of
Election.
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
A question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the repre-
sentation of, employees of General Electric Company, Schenectady,
New York, at its Schenectady plant, within the meaning of Section
9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National
Labor Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Rela-
tions Act, 49 Stat. 449, and pursuant to Article III, Section 8, of
168 'DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2,
as amended, it is hereby -
DIRECTED, that, as part of the investigation authorized by the
Board to ascertain representatives for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining with General Electric Company, Schenectady, New York, an
election by secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but
not later than thirty (30) days from the date of this Direction,
under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the
Second Region, acting in this matter as agent for the National Labor
Relations Board, and subject to Article III, Section 9, of said Rules
and Regulations, among the wood and metal pattern makers employed
by said Company at its Schenectady plant during the pay-roll period
last preceding the date of this Direction, including employees who
did not work during such pay-roll period because they were ill or-on
vacation, and employees who were then' or have since been tempo-
rarily laid off, but excluding employees who have since quit or been
discharged for cause, to determine whether they desire to be repre-
sented by Pattern Makers' League of North America, affiliated with
the A. F. of L., or by United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers
of America (C. I. 0.), for the purposes of collective bargaining, or
by neither.
MR. EDWIN SMITH, dissenting :
I dissent from the decision to hold an election among the pattern
makers.9 Since the consent election of December 1936 the United
has represented the employees of the pattern shop as part, of the
plant-wide industrial unit, and since April 1938 these employees have
been included under a valid, exclusive bargaining contract between
the United and the Company covering that unit.
Neither the fact that a number of employees of the pattern shop
attempted to designate the League in the 1936 election, nor the fact
that the United, in- the'interest of harmonious relations, has re-
frained from attempts to persuade League members to desert the
League and join the United and has allowed employees of the pat-
tern shop a degree of autonomy, derogates from the appropriateness of
the presently functioning industrial unit.'° -
9 See my dissenting opinion in Matter of Allis -Chalmers Manufacturing Company 'and
International Union, United Automobile Workers of America, Local 248, 4 N. L. R. B. 159.
10 Although I agree with the position , implicit in the opinion of the majority of the
Board, that the Board is not precluded from finding a different appropriate unit from that
-ehich has previously been established by an exclusive bargaining contract , I am constrained
to observe that Mr Leioerson 's concurrence in that position is inconsistent with his stand
In analogous cases in which he has expressed the view that the Board lacks authority to
make such a determination . ( See inter alia, Matter of American Can Co. and Engineers
Local No 30 Firemen it Oilers Local No. 56, et al ., 13 N. L . R. B. 1252; Matter of West
Coast Wood Preserving Company and Boommen and Rafters Union, Local 130,'1. W. A:,
15 N. L . R. B. 1; Matter of Milton Bradley Company and International Printing Pressmen
and Assistants Union of North America (A. F. L.), 15 N. L. R. B. 938.)
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY 169
The acquiescence of the pattern makers over recent years in repre-
sentation by the United renders inapplicable the considerations of
earlier organization and bargaining on a craft basis such as have led
me to concur in directions of separate elections for the members of
crafts." I would dismiss the petition.
[SAME TITLE]
AMENDMENT TO DIRECTION OF ELECTION
February 10, 1941
On January 23, 1941, the `National, Labor Relations Board, herein
called the Board, issued a Decision and Direction of Election in
the above-entitled proceeding.' By letter dated February 3, 1941,
United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America, pursuant
to permission granted in the above-mentioned Decision and Direction
of Election, -requested of the Regional Director for the Second Re-
gion that its name be removed from the ballot to be used in the
election. Accordingly, the Board hereby amends the Direction of
Election issued on January 23, 1941, by striking therefrom the words
"to determine whether they desire to be represented by Pattern
Makers' League of North America, affiliated with the A. F. of L., or
by United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America
(C. I. 0.), for the purposes of collective bargaining, or by neither,"
and substituting therefor the words "to determine whether or not
they desire to be represented by Pattern Makers' League of North
America, affiliated with A. F. of L., for the purposes 'of collective
bargaining." - '
n See my concurring opinion in Matter of American Hardware Corporation and United
Electrical and Radio Workers of America , 4 N. L. R. B. 412.
29 N. L . R: B., No. 29a.