General Electric Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 30, 1947

73 N.L.R.B. 714 (N.L.R.B. 1947)

In the Matter of GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, EMPLOYER and Asso-
CIATION OF ENGINEERS AND ENGINEERING ASSISTANTS, PETITIONER
Case No.4-R-4109.Decided April 30,1947
Messrs. G. H. P f ei f and William Sloe f f eld, of Schenectady, N. Y., for
the Employer.
Mr. L. Halpern Miller, of Philadelphia, Pa., for the Petitioner.
Mr. Martin M. Cooper, of New York City, for the Intervenor.
Mr. Melvin J. Weller, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, hearing in this case was held at Phila-
delphia, Pennsylvania, on December 19, 1946, before Arthur Leff,
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 the case, the National Labor Relations
Board makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
General Electric Company is a New York corporation with its
principal office at Schenectady, New York. It operates plants located
throughout the United States. We are concerned in this proceeding
solely with its Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Works, where the Em-
ployer is engaged in the manufacture of switchgear and electrical con-
trol equipment. Annually, the Employer uses at its Philadelphia
Works raw materials of a value in excess of $10,000,000, of which
approximately 60 percent is shipped to the Philadelphia Works from
points outside the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Annually, the
Employer manufactures at its Philadelphia Works finished products
of a value in excess of $40,000,000, of which approximately 80 percent
is shipped to points outside the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
73 N. L. It. B., No. 136.
714
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY
H. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
715
The Petitioner is an unaffiliated labor organization, claiming to rep-
T_ esent employees of the Employer.
Local 13, Federation of, Architects, Engineers, Chemists'and Tech-
nicians, U. O. ,P. W. A.-,,C. I. 0., herein -called the Intlexvenor, is a
labor organization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organiza-
tions, claiming to represent employees of the Employer. ' -
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Employer refuses to recognize the Petitioner as the exclusive
bargaining representative of employees of the Employer until the
Petitioner has been certified by the Board in an appropriate unit.
As the result of directed elections,' the Board, in August-194:4,
certified the Intervenor as the bargaining-representative for the Em-
ployer's engineers and draftsmen. Shortly, after this certification,
the Intervenor commenced contract negotiations with the Employer.
A number of disputed issues were referred to the War Labor Board in
February 1945, and in April 1945, the Intervenor and the Employer
Agreed on all but four issues. Between May and October 1945, a
number of panel hearings were held, and in October 1945, the Regional
War Labor Board issued two directive orders covering the four dis-
puted issues. The Employer, in November 1945, appealed from these
orders to the National War Labor Board. In the meantime, while
this appeal was pending, the Employer and the Intervenor conducted-
contract negotiations, and on November 29, 1945, entered into a "pre-
liminary contract," having a 1-year term, and containing a 60-day au-
tomatic renewal clause. On December 31, 1945, the National War
Labor Board issued its final directive order, affirming the Regional
Board, The Employer'and the Intervenor thereafter continued nego-
tiations on the issues left unresolved in the November 29,1945, contract.
A full agreement between the parties was reached, and reduced to
writing, in September 1946, but the written instrument has never been
executed.
The Petitioner filed its petition on April 25, 1946 2
The Intervenor seeks to invoke the Allis-Chalmers 3 principle,
claiming that it has a right, as a certified union, to expect the Em-
ployer to negotiate in good faith, sign a contract, and have that con-
tract continue in operation for a period of_ at least 1 year without
interference.
The Intervenor, as indicated above, was certified by the Board
more than 21/2 years ago. Since that- time it has been able to obtain
' Matter of.General Electric Company, 5 7 N. L. R. B. 81.
It is clear that the 1945 "preliminary contract " is not a bar to a present determination
of representatives Inasmuch as the petition was filed before its "Mill B" date.
i Matter of Allis -Chalmers Manufacturing Company, 50 N. L. R. B. 306. -
f
716 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL -LABOR -RELATIONS BOARD
many benefits for the employees whom,it„represents, and it secured a
written collective bargaining agreement, which it has enjoyed for more
than a year.' Furthermore,, more tlianra year -has now passed since
the National War Labor Board issued its, finals:directive .order with
respect to the disputed issues between the Employer and the Intervenor.,
Under all these circumstances, we-'conclude that the Allis-Ch aZmers
doctrine is not applicable -here .4 - -
We find that a ,question affecting commerce has arisen concerning.
the representation of employees of the Employer, within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE'UNIT; THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
On July 6, 194, the Board directed elections among the engineers
and the draftsmen of the Employer,'respectively, to determine whether
or not each' group desired to be represented by the Intervenor,,- the
only union on ,the ballot.5 As-a result of these elections, which the
Intervenor won,'the Board 'certified^thei•Intervenor as the bargaining,
representative.for •bbth' the engineers and the draftsmen, •in a single
unit: In this proceeding the Petitioner is seeking a separate unit of
engineers.
-The engineers and clraftsinen, as'we indicated in our previous deci-
sion, work side by side in,the plant, and the work of one group comple
ments that of the other. Both the 'engineers and the draftsmen are
salaried, they enjo,y the same privileges with respect to sick and benefit
plans, and have a common vacation plan, in which the hourly paid em-
ployees at the plant- do not participate. Considering these facts and,
the history of collective bargaining premised upon a single unit of
engineers' and draftsmen, it appears that such a unit could be
appropriate. - T
- But -the engineers at this plant are 'technical school graduates; or
draftsmen who have by hoiile study or extension. courses, acquired the
equivalent of a technical school education, while the draftsmen, iii
general, have only the ordinar'y' ' technical' skills associated with their
work. Moreover, the duties, responsibilities and problems of. engi-
neers are .substantially different from those of draftsmen, 'in that
the engineers develop ideas which they express in rough sketches,
while the draftsmen are required only to translate such sketches into
formal drawings and.prints. -And the salary of the average engineer
.is substantially higher than that of the average,draftsman. The engi-
neers, therefore, form a well-defined, homogeneous group of employees
which might also•`appropriately function as a separate -unit for the
See Matter of Seneca- Fa118 Machine Company, 71 N. L. R. B. 1106; Ma tter of OM
Public Service Company, 69 N L R B 1089.
See footnote 1, supra. ' • -, '
GENERAL; ELECTRIC COMPANY 717
purposes of collective bargaining. In addition,, the-Board has always
recognized the separability of professional employees such as the Em;
ployer's engineers,, giving them an opportunity to, indicate whether
they desire,tobe represented in a unit of their own."
The Intervenor contends, however, that the engineers have already
been, given the'opportunity to choose between separate representation
,Ind representation in a professional and technical unit. We do not
agree. No union requesting that the engineers be established as a
separate unit appeared on the ballot in the prior election among these
employees. Thus, engineers were placed in the position of voting
"yes" or "no" for the Intervenor, which sought a combined grouping
of engineers and draftsmen. The "yes" vote which was registered
did not therefore indicate a choice of unit. It merely revealed a de-
sire to be represented by the Intervenor. And if a "no?' vote had re-
sulted, this would have meant only that the engineers did not wish the
Intervenor to act in their behalf. In our opinion, it cannot be said
that the engineers have ever had a real opportunity to express their'
desires as to,separate representation. We think that they should now
be granted that opportunity.
We shall direct that an election be held among all engineers of the
Employer's Philadelphia Works, excluding all supervisory employees
,with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or otherwise
effect changes in the status of eiployees, or effectively recommend
such action.
We shall make no final determination of the appropriate unit at this
time, but shall defer such determination pending the results of this
election. Upon the results of the election will depend, in part, our
determination of the appropriate unit. If the engineers choose the
Petitioner, they will be taken to have indicated a desire to constitute a
separate unit; if they choose the Intervenor, however, they will be
taken to have indicated a desire to continue to be bargained for as part
-of the unit now represented by the Intervenor.
.DIRECTION OF ELECTION'
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining with General Electric Company, Phila-
delphia, Pennsylvania, 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 Fourth Region, acting in this matter as agent for the
e See Matter of Westvaco Chlorine Products Corporation , 63 N. L R B 763 ; see also
Matter o f Alunnnu,n Company of dme,ica , 62 N-L R. B. 318
° Any participant in the election herein may, upon its prompt request to and approval
theieof by the Regional Director , have its name removed from the ballot
718 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL ' LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
National Labor Relations Board, and subject to Sections 203.55 and
203.56, of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-
Series 4, among the employees in the voting group described in Section
IV, above, who were'employed during tile pay-roll period immediately
preceding the date-of this Direction, including employees who did not
work during said pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation-
or temporarily laid off, and including employees in the armed forces of
the United States who present' themselves in person at the polls;_but
excluding those-employees who have since quit or been discharged for
cause and have not been rehired or -reinstated prior to the date of the
election, to determine whether they desire to be represented by Asso-
ciation"of Engineers and Engineering Assistants, or by Local 13, Fed-
eration of Architects, Engineers, Chemists, and, Technicians, U. 0. P.
W. A.-C. 1. 0., for the purposes of collective bargaining, or by neither.
MR: JOHN M.•HousTON took no part in the consideration-of the above
Decision and Direction of Election.