General Instrument Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 10, 1962

140 N.L.R.B. 18 (N.L.R.B. 1962)

18 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
personnel stationed there from violence or fear of it. One may reasonably conclude
that the thrust of its deregistration action against Mahoney in March 1961 was to
apply that policy. Certainly, that conclusion is at least as consistent with .h(-
evidence as a belief that it had any of the ulterior motives the General Counsel
attributes to it, and if that is the situation, the General Counsel has failed to carry
the burden of providing his case by evidence of preponderant weight.
In sum , much as one may personnally regret the curtailment of Mahoney's long-
shore employment opportunities as a result of the deregistration, the evidence impels
a conclusion that the General Counsel has not established that the deregistration
stemmed from unlawful motives rather than from a design by PMA to protect its
hiring facilities from violence, the fear of it, and disorder. Accordingly I shall
recommend dismissal of the complaint.io
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in this
proceeding, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Local 19 and the International are, and have been at all times material to this
proceeding, labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
2. Pacific Maritime Association is, and has been at all times material to this
proceeding, an employer within the meaning of Section 2(2) of the Act.
3. The record does not establish that the Respondent has engaged in the unfair
labor practices imputed to it in the complaint
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the entire
record in this proceeding, it is recommended that the Board enter an order dismissing
the complaint.
10 Section 16(a) of the collective-bargaining agreement , which prescribes the grievance
machinery , contains a proviso that the Coast Committee has no "power to review decisions
relative to the methods of maintaining registration lists, or the operation of hiring halls."
Section 16 ( g) provides that " ( n)othing in this section ( 16) shall prevent the parties from
mutually agreeing upon other means of deciding matters upon which there has been
disagreement ." The issues here require no determination as to the power of the Coast
Committee to review or take the action it did with respect to Mahoney . The results here
would be the same whether or not Its action was ultra vires , and by reaching the conclu-
sions set forth above, I intend no Implication that I have passed on the reach of the
Coast Committee 's review or other authority in Mahoney's case
General Instrument Corporation and Local 472, International
Union of Electrical , Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO.
Case No. 20-CA-1292. December 10, 1962
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a charge and first amended charge filed by Local 472, Inter-
national Union of Electrical , Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO,
herein called Local 472, the General Counsel of the National Labor
Relations Board by the Regional Director of the Twenty-second
Region issued a complaint dated August 3, 1962, against General
Instrument Corporation , herein called Respondent , alleging that Re-
spondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices
affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 8(a) (1) and (5)
and Section 2(6) and (7) of the National Labor Relations Act, as
140 NLRB No. 6.
GENERAL INSTRUMENT CORPORATION 19
amended. Copies of the charge, amended charge, complaint, and
notice of hearing were duly served upon Respondent.
With respect to the unfair labor practices, the complaint alleges,
in substance, that on or about April 12, 1962, the Regional Director of
the Twenty-second Region issued a certification in Case No. 22-RC-
1353 designating International Union of Electrical, Radio and Ma-
chine Workers, AFL-CIO, herein called the TUE, as the exclusive col-
lective-bargaining representative of a unit composed of all technical
employees in the Thermo-Electric Division of the Respondent's plant
in Newark, New Jersey. The complaint also alleges that on or about
April 13, 1962, and at all times thereafter, Respondent unlawfully
refused to bargain with the IUE or its designated agent, Local 472.
On September 17, 18, and 19, all parties to this proceeding entered
into a stipulation and jointly moved to transfer this proceeding di-
rectly to the Board for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and decision
and order. The motion states that the parties waive hearing and oral
argument before a Trial Examiner, the making of findings of fact
and conclusions of law by a Trial Examiner, the issuance of an Inter-
mediate Report and Recommneded Order, and oral argument before
the Board. The motion also provides that the parties' stipulation and
certain specified documents constitute the entire record in the case.
On September 25, 1962, the Board granted the parties' motion to
transfer the case to the Board. Briefs were thereafter filed by the
General Counsel, the Charging Party, and the Respondent.
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 [Chairman McCulloch and Members
Leedom and Brown].
Upon the basis of the parties' stipulation, the briefs,' and the entire
record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. THE BUSINESS OF TIIE RESPONDENT
The Respondent maintains its principal office and place of business
at its plant in Newark, New Jersey, and at all times material herein has
been engaged at said plant and place of business in the manufacture,
sale, and distribution of electronic devices and related products.
During the year immediately preceding the issuance of the com-
plaint, the Respondent had sales in excess of $500,000, of which prod-
'In its brief to the Board , Local 472 incorporated a motion to strike certain pt^rtions
of the stipulated record on the ground that these matters are "immaterial and superfluous "
Oppositions to this motion have been filed by the General Counsel and by the Respondent.
All parties , including Local 472, had stipulated that these matters "be deemed admitted
in evidence and made a part of the record of this proceeding." The motion is denied.
681-492-63-vol. 140-3
20 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ucts, goods, and materials valued in excess of $50,000 were shipped
from said plant in interstate commerce directly to States of the United
States other than the State of New Jersey.
The Respondent admits, and we find, that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the Act.
II. TILE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Local 472 and the IUE are labor organizations as defined in Section
2 (5) of the Act.
III. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
On September 11, 1961, the IUE filed a petition in Case No.
22-RC-1353 seeking to represent a unit of technical employees in the
Employer's Thermo-Electric Division, Newark, New Jersey. Follow-
ing a hearing, the Regional Director for the Twenty-second Region
issued a Decision and Direction of Elections on November 13, 1961
(not published in NLRB volumes), in which he found, in agreement
with the contention of the Respondent, that a unit including both tech-
nical and professional employees was appropriate. Accordingly, he
directed separate elections in two voting groups, one consisting of all
professional employees and the other consisting of all technical
employees.
Subsequent to this Decision the IUE filed with the Board a timely
request for review of the Regional Director's Decision and Direction
of Elections. Opposition to this request was filed by Respondent.
The Board by telegraphic orders, dated December 7 and 12, 1961,
respectively, ordered the Regional Director to proceed with the elec-
tions as scheduled, but to impound the ballots, and granted the re-
quest for review, directing that the ballots cast in the elections remain
impounded pending its decision on review? On March 27, 1962, the
Board issued its Decision on Review, Order and Direction (not pub-
lished in NLRB volumes), in which it modified the unit found appro-
priate by the Regional Director, and found the following unit of
Respondent's employees to be an appropriate unit within the meaning
of Section 9(b) of the Act: "All technical employees in the Thermo-
Electric Division of the Employer's plant in Newark, New Jersey,
including senior laboratory technicians, laboratory technicians, labora-
tory specialists, junior laboratory technicians, and laboratory appren-
tices, but excluding professional employees, all other employees,
watchmen, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act." 3
2 The elections were held on or about December 8, 1961.
On April 11, 1962, Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration of the Board's Deci-
sion on Review , Order, and Direction . This motion was denied by the Board on May 7,
1962.
GENERAL INSTRUMENT CORPORATION 21
Thereafter, on April 3, 1962, the ballots of the employees in the
unit found appropriate by the Board were counted and a tally of
ballots was furnished the parties which showed that of 15 valid votes
cast in the election, 8 were cast for the IUE and 7 were cast for
"no union." One other ballot was challenged because the voter's name
was not on the eligibility list. On April 12, 1962, the Regional Direc-
tor issued a Supplemental Decision and Certification of Representa-
tives (not published in NLRB volumes) wherein he sustained the
challenge to the ballot and certified the IUE as the exclusive repre-
sentative of the employees in the above-described unit .4
On April 13, 1962, the IUE designated Local 472 as its agent for
the purpose of engaging in collective bargaining with Respondent
with respect to the certified unit. On the same date, Harry Kelner,
International representative of the IUE and the business representa-
tive of Local 472, formally requested the Respondent to meet and
bargain. The Respondent refused. On May 8, 1962, Respondent sent
a telegram to the IUE stating that it refused to bargain with the IUE
for the unit certified by the Board on the ground that the Board's unit
determination violated the Act. Thereafter, by letter dated May 10,
1962, addressed to its employees, the Respondent stated that it had
advised the IUE to file a "refusal to bargain" charge with the Board
in order that Respondent might obtain review of the Board's action in
a Federal court. Respondent admits that on or about April 13, 1962,
and at all times thereafter it has refused and continues to refuse to
recognize or bargain with the IUE or its agents.
The Respondent's defense is concerned solely with the Board's
unit determination, and Respondent has raised no matter not previ-
ously considered and rejected by the Board in the aforementioned
representation proceeding. We accordingly find that the Respondent,
by refusing to bargain with the IUE on and after April 13, 1962,
has violated Section 8 (a) (5) and (1) of the Act.
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above,
occurring in connection with the operations of the Respondent de-
scribed in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial
relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States, and
tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce
and the free flow of commerce.
' The challenge to the ballot was sustained because the Regional Director found that
the voter in question had been discharged for cause prior to the payroll period used to
determine voter eligibility. This fact was conceded by the IUE in the course of the
investigation of the challenged ballot.
22 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
V. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in unf air labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (5) and (1) of the Act,
we shall order that it cease and desist therefrom and, upon request,
bargain collectively with the IUE as the exclusive representative of
its employees in the appropriate unit.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. General Instrument Corporation is an employer within the mean-
ing of Section 2(2) of the Act, and is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
2. International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers,
AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5)
of the Act.
3. All technical employees in the Thermo-Electric Division of the
Respondent's plant, Newark, New Jersey, including senior laboratory
technicians, laboratory technicians, laboratory specialist, junior lab-
oratory technicians, and laboratory apprentices, but excluding pro-
fessional employees, all other employees, watchmen, 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.
4. At all times since April 12, 1962, the IUE has been and continues
to be the exclusive bargaining representative of all the employees in
the aforementioned unit for the purpose of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9(a) of the Act.
5. By refusing, on and after April 13, 1962, to bargain collectively
with the IUE as the exclusive representative of its employees in the
aforesaid unit, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (5) of the
Act.
6. By refusing to bargain with the IUE, the Respondent has inter-
fered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in the exercise of
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, thereby engaging in an
unfair labor practice within the meaning of Section 8(a) (1) of the
Act.
ORDER
Upon the entire record in this case, and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board hereby orders that the Respondent, General Instru-
ment Corporation, Newark, New Jersey, its officers, agents, successors,
and assigns, shall:
1. Cease and desist from :
GENERAL INSTRUMENT CORPORATION 23
(a) Refusing to bargain with International Union of Electrical,
Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, as the representative of its
employees in the above-described appropriate unit.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with the efforts of
the above-named labor organization to bargain collectively.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act :
(a) Upon request, bargain collectively with International Union
of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, as the repre-
sentative of its employees in the above-described appropriate unit,
and, if an understanding is reached, embody such understanding in
a signed agreement.
(b) Post at its plant in Newark, New Jersey, copies of the attached
notice marked "Appendix." I Copies of said notice, to be furnished
by the Regional Director for the Twenty-second Region, shall, after
being duly signed by Respondent's representative, be posted by Re-
spondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it
for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including
all places where notices to its employees are customarily posted. Rea-
sonable steps shall be taken by Respondent to insure that said notices
are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
(c) Notify the Regional Director for the Twenty-second Region,
in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps
have been taken to comply herewith.
5In the event that this Order is enforced by a decree of a United States Court of
Appeals , there shall be substituted for the words "Pursuant to a Decision and Order" the
words "Pursuant to a Decree of the United States Court of Appeals , Enforcing an Order "
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES
Pursuant to a Decision and Order of the National Labor Relations
Board, and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our employees that:
WE WILL, upon request, bargain collectively with International
Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO,
concerning rates of pay, wages, hours of employment, and other
conditions of employment, and, if an understanding is reached,
we will embody said understanding in a signed agreement.
The bargaining unit is:
All technical employees in the Thermo-Electric Division
of the Employer's plant in Newark, New Jersey, including
senior laboratory technicians, laboratory technicians, labora-
tory specialists, junior laboratory technicians, and laboratory
apprentices, but excluding professional employees, all other
24 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
employees, watchmen, guards, and supervisors as defined in
the Act.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with the
efforts of the International Union of Electrical, Radio and Ma-
chine Workers, AFI.-CIO, to bargain collectively.
GENERAL INSTRUMENT CORPORATION,
Employer.
Dated---------------- By-------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the
date of posting, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any,
other material.
Employees may communicate directly with the Board's Regional
Office, 614 National Newark Building, 744 Broad Street, Newark 2,
New Jersey, Telephone No. Market 4-6151, if they have any question
concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions.
Northwestern Photo Engraving Co., Inc. and Chicago Photo-
Engravers Union No . 5. Case No. 13-CA-4175. December 10,
1962
DECISION AND ORDER
On July 30,1962, Trial Examiner Fannie M. Boyls issued her Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Re-
spondent had engaged in and was engaging in unfair labor practices
and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain
affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Intermediate Report.
The Trial Examiner also found that the Respondent had not engaged
in certain other unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and
recommended that such allegations be dismissed. Thereafter, the
Charging Party and the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Inter-
mediate Report and supporting briefs.
The Board 1 has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in the
case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions of the Trial Examiner.
1 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, Panning,
and Brown].
140 NLRB No. 4.