General Electric Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 20, 1958

122 N.L.R.B. 165 (N.L.R.B. 1958)

GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY 165
body mountings. He has a college degree in mathematics and
physics. A college degree or its equivalent in schooling and experi-
ence is required for both positions. The work these engineers perform
is intellectual and varied in character entailing the exercise of inde-
pendent judgment and discretion. Under these circumstances we
find that Johns and Scheel are professional employees within the
meaning of Section 2(12) of the Act, and shall exclude them from
the unit of technical employees.'
We find that the following employees constitute a unit appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Sec-
tion 9 (b) of the Act :
All technical employees at the Employer's vehicle manufacturing
plant in Richmond, Indiana, including draftsmen, blueprint machine
operator, experimental mechanics, and the working foreman in the
experimental enginering department, but excluding the electrical
engineer, the data or chassis engineer, all other employees, guards,
and all supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.]
7 See Southern California Edison Company, 107 NLRB 951.
General Electric Company and International Association of
Machinists, AFL-CIO 1 and International Union of Electrical,
Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO,2 Petitioners. Cases
Nos. 11-RC-1131 and 11-RC-1135. November 20, 1958
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9(c) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before
Jerold B. Sindler, 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 Fanning].
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.
Hereinafter called the TAM.
z Hereinafter called the IUE.
122 NLRB No. 21.
166 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
3. Questions affecting commerce exist concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section
9(c) (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.3
4. The IUE seeks to represent a unit of production and main-
tenance employees at the Employer's Hendersonville, North Carolina,
plant. The TAM seeks two separate units, one to comprise the main-
tenance employees, the other the toolroom employees. The Employer
agrees with the IUE's contention that a production and maintenance
unit is the sole appropriate unit. Both the Employer and the IUE
moved to dismiss the IAM's petition upon the ground that the units
sought therein are inappropriate.' There is no history of collective
bargaining.
Production and maintenance unit : The production and maintenance
unit sought by the IUE is a customary unit and may be appropriate.-'
However, for the reasons stated below the units for which the JAM
has petitioned may also be appropriate.
Toolroom unit: The Employer's 20 toolroom employees, including
9 master tool-and-die makers, 4 tool-and-die makers, and 7 appren-
tices, are under the supervision of the toolroom foreman. They work
in an area which is separated from the rest of the plant by a wire
fence, approximately 8 feet high. The toolroom employees produce
and maintain the tools, jigs, and fixtures which are used in produc-
tion. The apprentices are undergoing the Employer's 4-year appren-
ticeship program in preparation for becoming tool-and-die makers.
The 13 tool-and-die makers were hired as experienced craftsmen.
We find that the toolroom employees constitute a craft group and may
if they so desire constitute a separate appropriate unit.'
Maintenance unit: In addition to its proposed toolroom unit, the
IAM seeks a separate unit of maintenance employees. The unit sought
consists of approximately 25 employees, of whom 10 are multiskilled
and classified by the Employer as maintenance-all-around. The re-
maining classifications are janitor, gardener-trucker, maintenance
general, and boilerroom attendant. Each of the employees classified
as maintenance-all-around has a basic trade or craft. However, all of
them have had some experience in one or more additional crafts or
trades. All maintenance employees, except three of six janitors and
four boiler watch operators, are regularly supervised by the mainte-
nance foreman. They are responsible for plant maintenance generally
8 The Employer 's motion to dismiss the IUE's petition on the ground that the IUE
lacks an adequate showing of interest is denied. The sufficiency of a petitioner 's showing
of interest is an administrative matter not subject to litigation. We are administratively
satisfied that the IUE's showing of interest is adequate . 0. D. Jennings & Company,
08 NLRB 516.
4 For the reasons stated hereinafter the motions are hereby denied.
5 Thiokol Chemical Corporation , 113 NLRB 547 ; Westinghouse Electric Corporation,
108 NLRB 556.
6 Westinghouse Electric Corporation , supra; Lee Brothers Foundry, Inc ., 106 NLRB 212.
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY 167
and work throughout the plant, exercising skills different from those
of the production employees. A maintenance area and the mainte-
nance foreman's office are located in the middle of the plant, in an
enclosure similar to that surrounding the toolroom.
In the absence of collective bargaining on a broader basis and in
view of the foregoing circumstances, we find that the maintenance
employees, if they so desire, may constitute a separate appropriate
unit.'
The Employer would exclude four boiler watch operators on the
ground that they are guards. It appears that the IAM would ex-
clude them from the maintenance unit on the ground that they are
not regularly supervised by the maintenance foreman. The IUE
would include them. These employees, classified as maintenance-all-
round, primarily operate boilers. All of them are licensed boiler
operators. They spend roughly one-third of their working time in-
specting the plant for leaks, fire, and other hazards. They also
perform these inspection duties when the plant is closed. They do
not wear uniforms or sidearms. They are not responsible for plant
security and do not have the authority to enforce plant rules. The
plant is otherwise protected by an armed, uniformed guard provided
by an independent contractor. From the foregoing we find that the
four boiler watch operators are not guards and shall include them in
the maintenance voting group."
The IAM would exclude three janitors from the maintenance unit.
The IUE contends that they are maintenance employees and should
be included in the maintenance unit. The Employer takes no posi-
tion. The Employer employs six janitors, all of whom it classifies as
maintenance employees. Three janitors whom the IAM would in-
clude in the maintenance unit are supervised by the maintenance fore-
man. The three disputed janitors work in the production area under
the supervision of the general foreman of production.
All six janitors perform similar work. Apart from separate super-
vision we find no substantial basis for excluding the three production
area janitors and shall include them in the maintenance voting
group.°
In view of the foregoing, we shall make no final unit determina-
tions at this time, but shall direct that the questions concerning repre-
sentation be resolved by separate elections among the employees in
the following groups at the Employer's Hendersonville, North Caro-
lina, plant, excluding from each group all laboratory employees,
professional employees, dispatchers, technical employees, office cleri-
7 Westinghouse Electric Corporation , supra.
8 Magma Copper Company , 115 NLRB 1.
9 Oroply Corporation, 121 NLRB 1067.
168 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
cal employees, plant clerical employees, salaried employees , guards,
and supervisors as defined in the Act : io
(1) . All toolroom employees.
(2) All maintenance employees, including janitors and boiler
watch operators.
(3) All production employees.
If a majority in voting groups (1) or (2) vote for the IAM, they
will be taken to have indicated their desire to constitute a separate
appropriate unit or units, and the Regional Director conducting the
elections herein is instructed to issue a certification of representatives
to the IAM for such unit or units, which the Board under the circuin-
stances finds to be appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining.
If the employees in voting groups (1) and (2) vote in- each instance
for the IAM and if a majority of the employees in voting group (3)
elect to be represented by the IUE, then the Regional Director is
instructed to issue a certification of representatives to the IU- E for a
separate unit of production workers, which the Board under the cir-
cumstances finds to be appropriate for purposes of collective bar-
gaining.
If a majority of the employees in either of voting groups (1) and
(2) do not vote for separate representation by the IAM, such group
or groups shall be included in the same unit with the employees, in
voting group (3) and their votes will be pooled with-those in voting
group (3),11 The Regional Director conducting the elections is in-
structed to issue a certification of representatives to the^IUE if that
labor organization is 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 bargaining. How-
ever, if a majority of the employees in voting group ( 8) vote against
the IUE; the Regional Director is instructed to issue a certification
of results of election.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.]
10 The exclusions follow an agreement of the parties.
11 If the votes are pooled, they are to be tallied in the following manner : The votes
for the IAM shall be counted as valid votes, but neither for nor against the IVE ; all
other votes are to be accorded their face value, whether for the IUE or for no union.
Herman Sausage Co., Inc . and Amalgamated Meat Cutters and
Butcher Workmen of North America , Local Union No. 282,
AFL-CIO.' Case No. 12-CA-13$. November 21, 1958
DECISION AND ORDER
On April 2,1958, Trial Examiner Ralph Winkler issued his Inter-
mediate Report in this case, finding that the Respondent had engaged
122 NLRB No. 23.