General Electric Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 2, 1957

118 N.L.R.B. 456 (N.L.R.B. 1957)

456 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR 'RELATIONS BOARD
turning to work in the near future . Accordingly, we find they are
therefore not eligible to vote in the election.
The following employees constitute a unit appropriate for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of
the Act :
All plant protection employees of the Employer at its Early Times
plant located at Shively, Kentucky, and its Old Forester plant at
1908 Howard Street, Louisville, Kentucky, including the regular part-
time employees, but excluding all other employees including the laid-
off employees, casual employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
Atomic Power Equipment Department of General Electric Com-
pany and International Association of Machinists, District
Lodge No. 93, Petitioner. Case No. 20-RC-3232. July 2,1957
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 David Karasick,
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 Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Members Rodgers, Bean, and Jenkins].
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 certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. The Petitioner, herein called the IAM, seeks a unit of all hourly
rated production and maintenance employees of the Employer's
Atomic Power Equipment Department, herein called APED, current-
ly at the Employer's Medium Induction Motor Plant, generally known
as the Motor Plant, or MIM, at San Jose, California. The Intervenor,
International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers,
AFL-CIO, herein called the IUE, urges as a bar a national contract
and a supplemental agreement covering the production and mainte-
The petition and other formal papers in this proceeding are hereby amended to reflect
the Employer's correct name.
The Intervenor ' s motion to dismiss the petition , alleging an insufficient showing of in-
terest, Is hereby denied , it being well established that the showing of Interest is an admin-
istrative matter, not subject to collateral attack In a representation proceeding. The
Babcock & W4icom Company, 116 NLRB 1542. For reasons set forth elsewhere in this
Decision, the Intervenor 's other motions to dismiss the petition , alleging contract bar,
inappropriate unit, and prematurity of the instant petition , are also denied.
118 NLRB No. 54.
ATOMIC POWER EQUIPMENT DEPARTMENT 457
nance employees at MIM. The Employer and the Petitioner contend
that APED is a new operation, and that therefore neither the national
agreement nor the supplemental agreement constitutes a bar.
APED, one of the Employer's 40 operating divisions and a part
of its Electronic, Atomic, and Defense Products Group, was established
to develop and perfect atomic power equipment for peacetime uses,
and is currently engaged in building commercial and experimental
reactors. MIM, a part of the Employer's Motor and Generator Di-
vision, is engaged in the manufacture of induction motors for agri-
cultural and industrial purposes. MIM has been in operation at the
San Jose location since 1948. During that period the IAM has been
the certified bargaining representative of the tool- and die-makers,
maintenance machinists, tool grinders, and machine shop leadermen
at the San Jose plant. Since October 1955 the IUE has been the
certified representative of all production and maintenance employees
at the San Jose plant, excluding the employees covered by the IAM
certification. The current contracts of both labor organizations are
for an effective period from August 15, 1955, to October 1, 1960.
In March 1955 the Employer established APED, with headquarters
and manufacturing operations at Schenectady, New York. In Febru-
ary 1956 it decided to move the operation from Schenectady to San
Jose and, accordingly, on June 26, 1956, entered into a written tem-
porary agreement with representatives of the IAM and the IUE,
providing for the continuation of existing dues checkoff procedures
and union membership and representation for employees about to be
transferred from MIM to APED, pending clarification of the IAM
and IUE certifications in their regard. Although the temporary
agreement was originally to terminate on August 25, 1956, it was
successively .extended to December 31, 1956. No clarification of the
certification was sought. In August and September 1956 the Employer
reestablished APED at its new San Jose headquarters, moving some
300 key office personnel from Schenectady to this site. Since that time
APED has hired a total of 86 production and maintenance employees,
including some 25 employees who were transferred from MIM?
The Motor Plant consists of a main location with 3 adjacent build-
ings, known respectively as the office building; building 400, a manu-
facturing building; and the MIM building; also a manufacturing
building. Of a total of approximately 900 APED employees, some
800 salaried employees work in the office building. The other APED
employees are distributed in building 400, the MIM building, and at
other nearby locations.' Of the 86 APED employees in the unit herein
sought, approximately 58 are in the MIM building. There are some
2 There have been no transfers from APED to MI\i.
9 These locations include buildings on South First Street, 4 blocks away , and on North
Fourth Street , some 4 miles away.
458 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
360 MIM employees. The present arrangement of APED and MIM
employees is temporary, as APED is currently engaged in the con-
struction of a new plant on the San Jose property, into which it
anticipates moving these employees.
The APED and MIM operations are almost completely autono-
mous. Each is under the direction and management of a separate vice
president, responsible only to the Employer's president, and each has
separate staffs in all important respects, including employee and
public relations, finance, manufacturing, marketing, engineering, and
research. While the production operations of MIM are well estab-
lished, standardized, repetitive, and based on production-line methods,
those at APED are highly experimental, requiring operators trained
in solving experimental manufacturing problems and in handling ma-
terials with unusual chemical properties. The APED operations are
not readily adaptable to production-line methods of manufacture; in
fact, APED currently has no production line or plans for one at
San Jose. Unlike MIM employees, APED employees are selected
for their ability to use more than one machine and special machine
tools. Although the APED employees are sometimes furnished de-
tailed drawings, they are often given only sketches from which to
work; the MIM employees, on the other hand, work from detailed
drawings and are given planning cards which set forth the sequence
of the machine operations and the type of tools to be used.
The APED employees in the unit herein sought include generally
skilled craft employees, maintenance employees, janitorial employees,
quality control employees, and a lift truck operator. The approxi-
mately 58 APED employees in, or attached to, the MIM plant work
in a self-contained area partially walled off from the other employees.
Although this work area is not guarded, MIM employees generally
are instructed that they do not belong in APED areas, and APED
supervisors are instructed to keep them out. APED employees in
general wear badges and are cleared by the Atomic Energy Com-
mission and the military authorities. Transferees from MIM to
APED maintain their MIM seniority; on the other hand, they have
no reemployment rights at MIM in the event of layoffs by APED.
In support of its contract-bar position, the Intervenor contends
that the APED employees fall within the scope of its certification,
because of the fact that the majority of their number in the unit work
in the MIM building, specifically covered by the certification. The
Intervenor also contends that these employees are within the scope
,of its national contract and its supplemental agreement. In support
,of this contention, it cites article I, section 2, which provides that in
the event the Board designates the IUE or any of its Locals as the
exclusive bargaining representative for any additional bargaining
units of company employees, such certified representatives shall be-
ATOMIC POWER EQUIPMENT DEPARTMENT 459
come a party to the national contract, which shall also be applicable
to the employees in such unit. It further alleges that the temporary
agreement and the actions taken pursuant thereto indicate an intent
of all the parties thereto to extend the IUE certification to cover the
APED employees at the Motor Plant.
We find these contentions without merit. As the Employer did not
decide to move the APED operations from Schenectady to San Jose
until February 1956, after the issuance of the certifications and the
execution of the current bargaining agreements, it is clear, notwith-
standing the aforementioned language of the national agreement,'
that at the time the certifications and the bargaining contracts took
effect none of the parties contemplated that these instruments would
cover the APED employees. Nor can it be said that the APED em-
ployees, although not specifically within the contemplation of the
parties, could nevertheless be deemed included in the unit in view
of their highly differentiated, specialized, and separate functions.-
We therefore find that the APED aref engaged in a new operation
and are outside the scope of the current contract.4 With respect to
the supplemental agreement, even assuming, as the Intervenor points
out, that at the time of its execution the parties clearly contemplated
the establishment of APED at the Motor Plant, this agreement was
still ineffective as a method of extending the scope of the contract to
those employees, as at the time of its execution the Employer had
recruited no employees at that site. A contract cannot serve as a
bar if it was entered into before a representative group has been
employed in the unit it purports to cover.' We conclude that the
Intervenor's contract is no bar to a current determination of
representatives.
Accordingly, we find that a question affecting commerce exists con-
,cerning the representation of certain employees of the Employer,
within the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the
Act.
4. The Petitioner and the Employer generally agree that the unit
,of production and maintenance employees hereinbelow set forth is
appropriate. The Intervenor contends that the unit is inappropriate,
alleging a high degree of integration between the MIM and APED
employees. For reasons set forth in paragraph 3, supra, we find this
contention without merit.
The Intervenor would include, and the Employer and the Petitioner
would exclude, the stock clerk and 4 or 5 employees referred to
throughout the hearing as "plant clerical" employees. The stock clerk
is engaged in shipping and receiving and is responsible for seeing
that the stock for any given job is available. He also checks stock in
4 General Motors Corporation, Chevrolet Motor Division, Tonawanda Foundry Plant,
111 NLRB 841.
5 Footnote 4, supra.
460 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
use and receives stock on order. He works in a shop area within 50
feet of production employees. Notwithstanding that he is salaried and
under the separate supervision of the production control supervisor
who supervises only salaried personnel, we find that he is essentially a
shipping and receiving clerk, such as the Board customarily includes
in production and maintenance units, and we shall therefore include
him in the unit.6
The so-called plant clerical employees, classified by the Employer
as nonclericals, are salaried and under the separate supervision of the
'production control supervisor. They spend 7 out of 8 hours a day
in the office and the remaining hour in the production areas posting the
time worked on particular jobs. In the office they compare this infor-
mation with time planned for these jobs, make simple arithmetical cal-
culations in that regard, and furnish them to the production super-
visor. They also perform typing whenever necessary. Their work
does not bring them into contact with the production and maintenance
employees. We find that these employees are office clerical employees
and we shall therefore exclude them from the unit.'
Accordingly, we find that all hourly rated production and main-
tenance employees employed in the Employer's Atomic Products En-
gineering Division at San Jose, California, including the stock clerk,
shipping and receiving group leaders, and helpers, but excluding cler-
ical employees, professional and technical employees, guards, and su-
pervisors as defined in 'the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b)
of the Act.'
5. The Intervenor contends that the petition is premature and that
no election should be conducted at this time, on the ground that APED
does not have a representative work force at the San Jose plant. At
the time of the hearing there were 86 employees in the unit herein
sought. An additional 20 were expected to be employed within the
succeeding 90 days, and there is the possibility that the total number
will be raised to 150 by the end of 1957.9 The APED operation will
require little additional manufacturing equipment and will utilize
substantially the same type of skills and tasks as are now being per-
formed. Under these circumstances, we find that the APED work
force currently in existence is representative of the new operation, and
we therefore find the Intervenor's contention without merit.lo
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
O General Shoe Corporation, 109 NLRB 618.
7 Steamship Trade Association of Baltimore, Incorporated , 108 NLRB 6.
fi We shall make no unit determination at this time respecting leadermen or apprentices,
as one are currently in the Employer's employ.
V Although the Intervenor cites estimates in the record of possibly larger numbers of
employees after this date, such estimates appear too speculative to form the basis for a
contrary conclusion respecting the representative character of the Employer 's work force.
i° Hancock Electronics Corporation , 116 NLRB 442.