General Electric Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 11, 1957

118 N.L.R.B. 637 (N.L.R.B. 1957)

GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY 637
4. By threatening Faye Taylor with discharge if she persisted in her activities on
behalf of the Union , the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
5. By discharging Faye Taylor and Donie Gibson the Respondent has engaged
in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3)
and (1) of the Act.
6. By interfering with, restraining , and coercing its employees in the exercise of
the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged in and
is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of
the Act.
7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
General Electric Company and International Union of Electrical,
Radio and Machine Workers , AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No.
3-RC-1799. July 11, 1957
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Bernard Ness, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Members Murdock, Rodgers, and
Bean].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
National Labor Relations Act.
2. The labor organizations named below claim to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of certain employees of the Employer, within the meaning of
Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
UE Local 310, the Intervenor, has been the bargaining representa-
tive of a unit of production and maintenance employees at the
Employer's Elmira , New York, foundry since 1940. It contends that
the national GE-UE contract, which covers all of the Employer's
operations where the UE is the certified bargaining representative
and is effective from April 2, 1956, to October 1, 1960, is a bar to this
proceeding. The petition herein was filed by IUE Local 310 to repre-
sent the Elmira employees in the existing production and maintenance
unit. This local was originally chartered for this purpose in 1949 or
1950. It claims that a schism has occurred at the local level of the
ITE and that it now represents a majority of the Elmira employees.
118 NLRB No. 64.
638 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Employer takes no position as to schism , but opposes the sever-
ance of a unit of millwrights and carpenters as requested by the
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners which was permitted
to intervene on the basis of its interest in such a unit . The Carpenters
contends that the contract is no bar because of the schism and for other
reasons. The TAM was permitted to intervene and requested that it
appear on the ballot in any unit found appropriate. It took no posi-
tion on the schism issue. The UE Local 310 was most recently certi-
fied in March 1956. The record shows that thereafter on May 27,
1956, following a petition signed by 27 members, a special meeting of
UE Local 310 was held to consider disaffiliation from the UE and
affiliation with the TAM. Approximately 60 members attended this
meeting, which adjourned without any vote being taken. The min-
utes state that two policemen were hired to keep order at the meeting.
On May 31 another special meeting was held to consider disaffilia-
tion from the UE and affiliation with the IUE. This meeting also
adjourned without a vote being taken, although the minutes state that
a motion was passed to "stay UE ." The minutes of this meeting refer
to "heated discussion on whether non-members should be allowed to
stay" and again to the fact that two policemen were present to keep
order.
On June 5 a meeting of the executive board of Local 310 was held,
at which that Board declared its support of the U E and its intent "to
enforce the UE contracts under the Local's jurisdiction, support the
UE constitution, campaign for 100% UE membership in the Local's
shops, fight off all raids and diligently defend the working condi-
tions and membership's welfare entrusted to them." A letter reciting
this action was sent on June 8 to all UE executive board members, as
some had apparently not attended the meeting, and to all stewards.
It was signed by Joseph Brusso as UE Local 310 president.
On June 12 a regular membership meeting of UE Local 310 was
held, attended by about 40. At the day-shift meeting the membership
approved the above resolution of the executive board to support the
UE. The minutes of this meeting state that a motion was carried to
the effect that "all special meetings shall be referred to the Executive
Board and taken to the membership for approval." They also state
that President Brusso reported that he had "petitions from the men
In the shop requesting a special meeting," that the membership did not
approve the holding of such a meeting, and that, on motion for a
,standing show of support to the UE, "everyone but one or two mem-
bers stood up in support ." The night-shift meeting also voted to
approve the executive board resolution to support the UE.
However, on June 27, a handbill was passed out at the plant
announcing a special meeting to be held the next day to be presided
over by an impartial Elmira citizen , with the following agenda
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY 639
1. A 20-minute talk by a UE Representative.
2. A 20-minute talk by IUE-AFL-CIO Representatives.
3. A 15-minute question period.
4. A vote to be taken to disaffiliate from UE and to affiliate with
IUE-AFL-CIO.
5. Adjournment.
The notice was not signed, but carried an explanation that it was
called according to the UE constitutional provision requiring that
special meetings be called by the executive board, or on petition of
25 or more members, and stated that the number of signatures of
U E Local 310 members on the petition "far exceeded" the 25 needed.
According to testimony of the UE recording secretary this was the
petition mentioned by Brusso at the regular meeting on June 12. As
introduced by the IUE as an exhibit, it contains 25 signatures, and
requests that a special meeting be held on June 10 with the above
agenda.
After seeing the notice, members of the UE Local 310 executive
board asked Brusso if he actually intended to hold the meeting.
Brusso declined to commit himself and denied that he had invited a
New York State judge at Elmira, Judge Donahoe, to attend the
meeting. Thereupon the UE recording secretary advised the Em-
ployer by letter that Brusso no longer represented UE Local 310 in
any capacity and that the vice president would act as president until
further notice. He also wrote to Judge Donahoe that Brusso's invi-
tation was without the knowledge or approval of the UE executive
board.
The next day UE Local 310 distributed a leaflet at the plant cap-
tioned : "No UE Meeting Tonight." It stated that Brusso had been
removed as president by the excutive board pending investigation of
charges, and that the vice president had been designated acting presi-
dent. This notice was signed by the acting president and the re-
cording secretary. Also posted on plant bulletin boards by UE Local
310 that same day was the July schedule of UE meetings.
The June 28 special meeting proceeded as announced and Brusso
was in charge of both the 8 o'clock meeting for day-shift employees
and the mid-night meeting for the night shift. At the earlier meeting
Judge Donahoe was present. He spoke only briefly and the meeting
proceeded without incident. No one spoke on behalf of the UE.
Several spoke for the IUE. The total vote on disaffiliation, taken by
secret ballot, was 106 for and 2 against, according to the minutes. A
temporary recording secretary took the minutes in the absence of the
regular recording secretary who opposed the holding of this meeting.
Dissatisfaction over the handling of grievances and "the Communist
taint" were cited in the minutes as the reasons in support of the
disaffiliation action.
640 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The next day UE Local 310 distributed leaflets which again de-
scribed the June 28 meetings as "not UE meetings" and stated : "The
ones that attended represented the 80 votes that IUE got at the Labor
Board election on March 8." 1 The leaflet also stated that the UE
national contract for 1956-60 was still in effect, that the Local was
continuing to process grievances, and that Brusso was under charges
"relating to disaffiliation and secession activities."
Following the disaffiliation meeting, Brusso sent a letter as presi-
dent of IUE Local 310 to the Employer notifying it of the action at
the meeting, requesting recognition for the IUE as bargaining agent
and asking that dues be forwarded thereafter to IUE Local 310. At
the time of the alleged disaffiliation the number in the Elmira unit
was approximately 663, with 536 employees having authorized the
checkoff of their dues to the UE. The record indicates that the Em-
ployer received 169 revocation cards the following November which
it considered valid. By December 31 the checkoff was 295 in a unit
of 523, and in late February, just before the hearing, it was 306 in a
unit of 535. The Employer continues to forward checkoff moneys to
the UE but it has processed two grievances through individual repre-
sentatives, a policy protested by the UE. It has continued to process
grievances presented by the UE and refused to set up a grievance
procedure for the IUE parallel to that of the UE because of the recent
certification of the UE. UE meetings have been held regularly.
The president, the treasurer, one trustee, and some stewards have de-
fected to the IUE, but a majority of the officers and stewards of UE
Local 310 have remained in their same capacities.
The UE contends that it did not authorize the June 28 meeting,
which was actually sponsored by the IUE, hence that the disaffiliation
vote taken at it was ineffective and the Board's schism rule as an-
nounced in A. C. Lawrence Leather Company, 108 NLRB 546, 549, is
inapplicable. In addition, the UE emphasizes the fact that it con-
tinues to administer the contract and has continued to hold the support
of a majority of the employees in the unit.
However, the UE does not contest the fact that the June 28 meeting
was given wide publicity and attended by substantially more employees
than customarily attend its meetings, that a disaffiliation vote was
carried almost unanimously, and that 1 of the 2 stated reasons for the
disaffiliation was the Communist issue. In these circumstances we find
that the decision to disaffiliate occurred for reasons related to the
UE's expulsion from the CIO in 1949, that it was taken at a specially
called UE meeting with ample notice and opportunity for the ex-
pression of conflicting viewpoints, and that it creates such confusion
1 At the election on which the 1956 UE certification was based there were 656 eligible vot-
ers. The tally showed 366 votes for the UE, 80 for the TUE, and 166 for the IBEW.
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY 641
that the existing contract no longer stabilizes industrial relations. Ac-
cordingly, we find that a schism exists which warrants directing an
immediate election and that the current contract is no bar to this
proceeding.'
4. The Employer, the UE, and the IUE agree that the existing
production and maintenance unit is the appropriate unit. The Car-
penters would sever a group of 32 millwrights and 5 carpenters, or
separate units of millwrights and of carpenters. The Employer has
no apprenticeship program for these employees. Four of the five
carpenters and 22 of the 32 millwrights started in production jobs at
the plant.
The millwrights are classified as either "A," or "B," or helper. At
the time of hearing, 29 had the "A" classification. One was hired in
that classification. The average time spent by the others in millwright
work before receiving the "A" classification at Elmira was approxi-
mately 2 years and 8 months. Sixteen of the millwrights work on
the first shift under the millwright foreman; eight work on each of
the other shifts under a foreman who also supervises other mainte-
nance employees but is called a millwright foreman. Half of the first
shift millwrights are assigned to specific production locations and
their function is to lubricate equipment and do preventive mainte-
nance. They report to the millwright shop first. The others on the
first shift are assigned to the shop and do additional maintenance work
as it becomes necessary. One man stays in the shop all day repairing
tractor motors. Until January 1956, 7 of the 32 millwrights were
classified as mold machine repairmen; 4 of these at that time received
the "A" classification, although at least 1 of these was not capable of
performing the duties of a class A millwright, and 3 the "B" classifica-
tion. Of the latter, two have since been given the "A" classification.
In addition to repairing machinery, the Elmira millwrights also run
air lines, gas lines, hydraulic lines, work on steam lines, and repair
boilers. For the setting of new machinery, outside contractors em-
ploying millwrights have been used.
The five carpenters all work on the first shift and are classified as
carpenter "A." One was hired as a carpenter "B" and spent a year
in that classification. The other 4, who came from production jobs,
spent, respectively, 6, 7, 8, and 29 months in the "B" classification be-
2 See Westinghouse Electric Corporation, 116 NLRB 1642, and cases there cited, includ-
ing A. C. Lawrence Leather Company, cited above ; see also Whirlpool Corporation, 111
NLRB 547.
we deny the UE's motion to reopen the record for the taking of additional testimony
tending to impeach certain witnesses for the IUE concerning arrangements for the June 28
meeting. The issues raised by the motion and all material submitted in support are not
germane to our decision.
4 5 0 5 5 3=58-vol. 118-42
642 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
fore receiving the "A" classification. There is no helper classification
in this group. Their work includes building maintenance, cutting
parts for use in making molds, installation of doors, cupboards, and
window glass, some painting, laying cinder block, doing concrete
work, installing brick in annealing ovens, and some crating of equip-
ment for shipment. One of them is a group leader. The parties stipu-
lated that he is not a supervisor. His immediate supervisor is the
general foreman of maintenance, who also directly supervises the ma-
chine shop employees and the auto garage employees, as well as the
maintenance groups having their own foreman, that is, millwrights,
yardmen, and electricians.
The Employer contends that the millwrights and carpenters are
not a department in themselves but only a portion of the maintenance
department under the general foreman of maintenance. In addition,
it contends that neither the millwrights nor the carpenters have the
characteristics of skill and training considered necessary by the Board
for individual severance as crafts.
Apart from their present administrative inclusion within the Em-
ployer's maintenance department, we find that the millwrights and
carpenters may not be severed as a departmental group because of the
dissimilar work they do at this plant and their separate immediate
supervision.3 We also find that craft severance, in both instances,
would not be appropriate on this record, which in our opinion does
not show that either the millwrights or the carpenters have or are re-
quired to exercise the skills of journeyman craftsmen at the Elmira
plant. In this connection we note that the progression to the "A"
classification at this plant is not comparable to an apprenticeship, and
that the Employer apparently has no specific training or experience
standards. We therefore deny the Carpenters' request for severance.'
The following employees of the Employer constitute a unit ap-
propriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (b) of the Act :
All production and maintenance employees of the Employer at its
Elmira, New York, foundries plant, including millwrights and car-
penters, but excluding patternmakers and their apprentices, elec-
tricians and their helpers, electric truck repairmen, professional em-
ployees, laboratory employees, office clerical employees, guards, and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
3 See National Gypsum Company, 108 NLRB 1606 , 1607 ; compare Thiokol Chemical
Corporation, 1.13 NLRB 547, 550. Compare also Montgomery Ward & Co., 110 NLRB 256,
260, where severance from a production and maintenance unit was not in issue.
4 See American Bcmberg, Division of Beaunit Mills, Inc., 111 NLRB 963, 965; compare
American Can Company, 110 NLRB 1040, 1.642, where the employer considered service in
class B as a training program and required specific experience or its equivalent for journey-
man status.