General Electric Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 20, 1955

112 N.L.R.B. 839 (N.L.R.B. 1955)

GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY 839
'General E lectric Company and Lodge No. 1000 , International As-
sociation of Machinists , AFL, Petitioner. Case No. 13-RC-41693.
May 00, 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 Robert G. Mayberry, 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 is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent employees
of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of certain employees of the Employer within the meaning of Sec-
tion 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner and an Intervenor, International Union of Elec-
trical, Radio and Machine Workers, CIO, hereinafter referred to as
IUE, seek to represent a unit of production and maintenance em-
ployees. At the hearing, International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, AFL, hereinafter referred to as IBEWT, intervened to request
a separate unit of maintenance electricians, and Local 8, International
Union of Operating Engineers, AFL, hereinafter referred to as Op-
erating Engineers, intervened to request a unit of boiler operators.
The Petitioner takes no position on the inclusion of electricians and
boiler operators in the production and maintenance unit it seeks.
However, it does not wish to appear on the ballot if the Board should
order a separate election among the boiler operators in the power-
house. The Employer and the IUE contend that the only appropriate
unit is an overall production and maintenance unit.
The Employer's Bloomington, Illinois, plant, here involved, houses
its general purpose control department. This department manufac-
tures, in a variety of models, magnetic starters, solenoids, relays, com-
pensators, and pushbutton panels. The plant was constructed in 1954,
and during the latter half of the same year, the Employer began the
installation of machinery and equipment. By the end of the year, the
Employer began limited assembly production in the new plant.
Boiler Operators
The Operating Engineers requests a separate unit of all boiler op-
erators. The Employer and the IUE oppose this unit request, con-
tending, in effect, that employees are not permanently assigned to
112 NLRB No 113
840 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
function as boiler operators and that there will be no regular group of
stationary engineers or boiler operators working in the boilerroom.
The Employer's class "B" maintenance men, working under the
direction of the maintenance foremen , are responsible for general plant
maintenance, and are expected to mix and pour concrete, build parti-
tions, and repair various machinery. In addition, they have been as-
signed to maintain and operate the Employer's three automatic boilers
located in the boilerroom adjacent to the production area.
At the time of the hearing, the Employer had employed approxi-
mately 9 of the anticipated complement of 12 class "B" maintenance
men. Of the 9 currently employed, it appeared that only 2 had con-
siderable boilerroom experience before they were hired; ' 2 others
were trained to operate the boilers within 30 days and were assigned
to attend the boilers on their respective shifts; and another was being
trained. In the future, the other class "B" maintenance men will be
trained in the operation of the boilers, and at that time, every class
"B" maintenance man will be on a rotating schedule spending a few
months in the boilerroom and a few months performing general factory
maintenance work.2 Moreover, after the present problems connected
with the operation of the new heating system are worked out, it ap-
pears that no employee will be required to spend all of his time in the
boilerroom. Instead, he will check hourly the various gauges and con-
trols on the boilers which, the record further shows, are fully automatic
and are designed to operate entirely without attention. Moreover, no
license is required of employees working in the boilerroom.
As it appears that the boiler operators here sought by the Operating
Engineers do not comprise a typical powerhouse unit which we
have found may constitute a separate appropriate unit,' we find that
the boiler operators may not constitute a separate appropriate unit for
collective-bargaining purposes.4
Maintenance Electricians
The IBE1\r requests a separate nut of all nrnntenance electricians,
helpers, and apprentices. The Employer and the IUE oppose this unit
request, contending, in part, that the employees sought herein do not
comprise a true craft unit, and that their interests are not so different
from other production and maintenance employees as to warrant a
separate bargaining wait.
'The Emploler indicated that it hired two qualified boilei operators as members of the
mamtenaacc new to asst't in wwoikmg the 'bn_^' out of the beating- evstem ashen the
plant commenced operations
As all of the class "T," maintenance men have not vet received thou training in boiler-
room operations , 4 of them are assigned to rotating shifts in the boilerroom which cover a
period of 24 how s per day, 7 days per week
s Cf Ame icon Potash cC Chemical Cow poration , 107 NLRB 1418.
See Mountain Ptates Telephone and Telegraph Company , 110 NLRB 1076 ; General
Textile Mills, Ine, 109 NLRB 263
GENERAL ELECTRIC CO âIPANY 841
The Employer's class "A" and class "B" electricians and the elec-
trician helpers, working under the supervision of the electrician fore-
man,5 perform the customary work. of their respective classifications.
Thus, according to the Employer's job description, the class "A" elec-
tricians "lay out, construct, diagnose, and correct troubles on all types
of complicated electrical installations and testing equipment, includ-
ing powerhouse equipment, such as high potential and live boards.
splicing (large) cables, etc." Class `B" electricians perform similar
work on the "general run of difficult types of electrical installations"
including switchboard equipment and motor repair.' The helpers
assist the class "A" and class "B" electricians. Although the Em-
ployer maintains no apprenticeship training program, it does appear
that an electrician helper can advance to class "B" electrician after 2
years' experience. Moreover, the Employer does consider class "B"
electricians eligible for promotion to class "A" electricians, if they
possess sufficient experience and skill. In addition, the record estab-
lishes that the electricians perform only electrical work, are respon-
sible only to the electrical foreman, are not assisted by other main-
tenance employees, and have their own work area in the maintenance
department.
In view of the foregoing, and upon the entire record, we find that
the class "A" and class "B" electricians and the electrician helpers
here comprise a traditional craft group, performing distinctive and
typical craft tasks. Under these circumstances, we find that the elec-
tricians and their helpers may constitute a separate appropriate unit if
they so desire.' However, as they may also be appropriately included
in the overall production and maintenance unit sought by the Peti-
tioner and the IUE, we shall not make any final determination of the
appropriate unit at this time, but shall first ascertain the desires of the
employees in the elections hereinafter directed.
We shall accordingly direct that separate elections be held among
the employees of the Employer at its Bloomington, Illinois, plant
within the voting groups described below:
(a) All class "A" and class "B" electricians and their helpers, but
excluding all other employees and supervisors as defined in the Act.
(b) All remaining production and maintenance employees, but ex-
cluding office and plant clerical employees, professional employees,
guards, and supervisors within the meaning of the Act.'
G The electrician foreman also directs the work of the matrons and Janitors
6 It appears that, at the time of the heating class "B" electricians were performing some
of the less complicated electricians' work: because the plant and equipment had been newly
constructed or completely oveihauled by outside contiactors. However, in the future, the
Employer's electricians will be iequn ed to perform its electrical repairs and maintenance
A mci irar>, Potas/i if Chemical Cci poration, supra
s Except for their disagreement over the inclusion of the electricians, the parties agree
that this may be an appiopriate unit for collective-baigaming purposes
842 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
If a majority of the employees in voting group (a) select the IBEW,
those employees will be taken to have indicated their desire to consti-
tute a separate bargaining unit and the Regional Director conducting
the election is instructed to issue a certification of representatives to
the IBEW for such unit, which the Board, in such circumstances, finds
to be appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining. In such event,
the Regional Director conducting the election is also instructed to issue
a certification of representatives to the labor organization selected by
a majority of the employees in voting group (b), which the Board, in
such circumstances, finds to be a trait appropriate for the purposes of
collective bargaining. However, if a majority of the employees in
voting group (a) do not vote for the IBEW, they will appropriately
be included in the production and maintenance unit and their votes
shall be pooled with those voting in group (b),0 and the Regional Di-
rector conducting the election is instructed to issue a certification of
representatives to the labor organization selected by a majority of the
employees in the pooled group, which the Board, in such circumstances,
finds to be a single unit appropriate for purposes of collective bar-
galllln g.
5. In its brief, the Employer contends that no election should be
directed before June 30, 1955, because its plant is new and expanding
and it will not have a representative complement of employees until
that time. The Employer's plant was constructed early in 1954.
During the latter half of the same year, the Employer began the instal-
lation of the machinery and commenced limited production. At the
time of the hearing, January 13-14, 1955, the working force consistedin in
of approximately 231 employees. The Employer estimated that by
June 30, 1955, the move into the new plant will be largely completed
and approximately 643 employees of a total complement of 797 ex-
pected by November 1, 1955, will be working in all of the anticipated
job classifications. However, the record also shows that by April 30,
1955, there will be a working force of 430 employees, employed in 59
of the 61 contemplated job classifications. Moreover, at that time,
approximately 50 percent of the new equipment and machinery will
be installed and functioning. It further appears that by April 30,
the Employer will have employed 10 class "A" and class "B" elec-
tricians and helpers out of a total complement of 15 expected by
November 1, 1955.10
If the rates are pooled, they are to be tallied in the following manner: The votes for
the MEW shall be counted as valid votes, but neither for nor against any union seeking
to represent the more comprehensive unit; all other votes ate to be accorded their face
value. whether for repiesentation in a union seeking the comprehensive group or for no
union
10 At the time of the hearing the Employer had no class "A" electricians on its payroll
but, by April 30, will have 3 of the anticipated complement of 5.
LEITER MANUFACTURING COMPANY 843
In view of the foregoing, and as it appears that at the time the
elections directed herein take place there will be employed a substan-
tial and representative segment of the working force ultimately to be
employed in each of the above voting groups, we seen no reason for
departing from the Board's usual policy of directing immediate
elections."
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.]
11 Ware Cotton Battling Co , Inc, 104 NLRB 363; Pershang Avenue Corporation, Ivers &
Pond Piano Company, Paul a Mehitin & Sons and Poole Piano Company, 98 NLRB 148
Sam Leiter and George Goldberg , Partners d/b/a Leiter Manu-
facturing Company and International Ladies Garment Work-
ers' Union, AFL. Case No. 16-CA-740. May 23, 1955
DECISION AND ORDER
On December 23,1954, Trial Examiner Sydney S. Asher, Jr., issued
his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, sustaining
certain portions of the complaint alleging violations of Section 8 (a)
(1) and (3) by the Respondent and dismissing other portions of the
complaint alleging violations of Section 8 (a) (1), (3), and (5). He
recommended, as to the violations found, that the Respondent cease
and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth
in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter,
the Respondent and the Charging Union filed exceptions to the Inter-
mediate Report. The Respondent also requested oral argument.
This request is hereby denied, as the record, including the exceptions,
adequately presents the issues and positions of the parties.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at
the hearing and finds no prejudicial error was committed. The rul-
ings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate
Report, the exceptions, and the entire record in this case and hereby
adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial
Examiner, except as hereafter noted.
We agree with the Trial Examiner that the Respondent did not
violate the Act by refusing to recognize the Union on February 6, 9,
or 17, 1954. However, the Trial Examiner found that the Respondent
thereafter unlawfully refused to bargain with the Union late in Febru-
ary or early in March, when its counsel, Berwald, advised the Union's
counsel, Morris, that the Respondent "was precluded from negotiating
at all with [the Union] because of the State court case." The Trial
Examiner so decided even though finding that in the same conver-
sation Berwald stated the Respondent was also relying upon its initial
112 NLRB No. 114.