Hytron Radio & Electronics Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 16, 1953

105 N.L.R.B. 592 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

592 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
discuss a new agreement with the Petitioner on the ground that
its contract with the Intervenor and Local #35 had been auto-
matically renewed . On February 6, 1953 , the Petitioner filed
the instant petition.
The Intervenor is the certified bargaining representative of
the employees covered by the current contract with the
Employer . Furthermore , it participated in the negotiation and
the execution of the contract with the Employer and is ready
and willing to carry out the terms thereof . Under these cir-
cumstances , we find , as contended by the Intervenor and the
Employer , that the contract is a bar. Accordingly , we shall
dismiss the instant petition.
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
Chairman Herzog took no part in the consideration of the
above Decision and Order.
HYTRON RADIO & ELECTRONICS CO. (A DIVISION OF
COLUMBIA BROADCASTING SYSTEM, INC.) and INTER-
NATIONAL UNION OF ELECTRICAL, RADIO & MACHINE
WORKERS, CIO, Petitioner
HYTRON RADIO & ELECTRONICS CO. (A DIVISION OF
COLUMBIA BROADCASTING SYSTEM, INC.) and INTER-
NATIONAL UNION OF ELECTRICAL, RADIO & MACHINE
WORKERS, CIO, Petitioner. Cases Nos. 1-RC-3156 and
1-RC-3188. June 16, 1953
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held
before Joseph Lepie, 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 these cases
to a three -member panel [Members Houston , Styles, and
Peterson].
Upon the entire record in these cases, 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.'
1 The Petitioner in both cases will herein be called the IUE. In Case No. 1-RC-3156,
the Hytron Employees Union of Massachusetts, herein called the Independent, intervened.
In Case No. 1-RC-3188, the Independent and United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers
of America (UE), herein called the UE, intervened.
105 NLRB No. 79.
HYTRON RADIO & ELECTRONICS CO. 593
3. No questions affecting commerce exist concerning the
representation of employees of the Employer within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, for the
following reasons:
The IUE seeks separate production and maintenance units
at the Employer' s Salem ( Case No. 1 -RC-3156) and Danvers
(Case No. 1 -RC-3188) plants in Massachusetts . In both cases,
the Employer and Independent contend that a unit embracing
the Employer' s Salem, Danvers, and Newbury-port , Massachu-
setts, plants is alone appropriate . In Case No. 1-RC- 3188, the
UE is in agreement with the IUE that the Danvers plant con-
stitutes a separate appropriate unit . As to composition, the
IUE would exclude watchmen, whom the other parties would
include.
The Employer' s plants in Salem , Danvers, and Newburyport
are engaged primarily in manufacturing electronic tubes. There
are approximately 700 employees in all at Salem, 1,800 at
Danvers, and 2,200 at Newburyport. Except for warehouses,
the 3 plants constitute a single division of the Columbia
Broadcasting System, Inc. The Salem plant has been in operation
since before 1942 , when the Newburyport plant was opened.
The Danvers plant has been in operation since March 1952,
although there has been a machine shop at Danvers since 1949.
In 1944 the Independent was recognized , and in 1946 was
certified as bargaining agent for the Salem plant, and the
Employer and Independent executed contracts for that plant.
Following a decision and certification by the Board in 1947,
the Independent was also recognized as bargaining agent for
the Newburyport plant. At that time, although the Employer
and Independent executed a separate contract covering Newbury-
port, this contract, including its expiration date, merely
duplicated the contract then covering Salem. ' In 1949, the
Employer and Independent executed a single agreement for
both Salem and Newburyport, and in 1951, executed another
single agreement for Salem, Newburyport, and the machine
shop at Danvers , which, by its terms, was in effect until April
23, 1953.' The new Danvers plant commenced production in
March 1952, aiid, in April 1952, pursuant to the wage reopening
clause of the 1951 contract , employees of the Danvers plant,
along with those of the Salem and Newburyport plants, partici-
pated in negotiating a new "wage agreement " for the three
plants, which, when executed , was appended to the 1951 contract
itself.4
z The expiration date of the Salem contract was extended to coincide with that of the
Newburyport contract.
3 Prior to the expiration of the 1949 contract , the Employer agreed to an election at the
Salem plant alone, in which the WE and independent participated and which the independent
won.
4 When the new Danvers plant began operations in March 1952, the Employer and inde-
pendent assert that the latter was recognized as bargaining agent for the employees there
under the existing 1951 contract However , no memorandum of such recognition appears
to exist. In any event , as already mentioned , employees of the new plant were represented
in the April 1952 wage reopening negotiations under the 1951 contract . The present peti-
tions for the Salem and Danvers plants were filed March 6, 1953, and March 26, 1953,
respectively.
594 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Salem and Danvers plants are about 4 miles apart, and
the Newburyport plant is about 23 and 21 miles, respectively,
from the Salem and Danvers plants. The three plants, as
already stated, are engaged in similar functions for the most
part.5 Although the tubes these plants manufacture are
normally begun and substantially completed at a single plant,
Salem and Newburyport rely on Danvers for buttons, carbonates,
and, especially, cathode coatings--items entering into the
production process, and Danvers, inturn, relies on Salem and
Newburyport for such items as sprayed plates, button shield
assemblies, and getter assemblies. Also, Newburyport supplies
Salem with tubulated bulbs utilized in manufacturing miniature
tubes. A common director of quality control fixes final test
specifications for the Employer's products. Thirty percent of
Newburyport's receiving tubes and 100 percent of Salem's are
sent to Danvers for final inspection, which involves short testing,
pin straightening, cleaning and branding, and, except for
picture tubes, practically all shipping is done from Danvers.
Selling and purchasing are likewise centralized at Danvers.
Although each plant has its own plant manager, these
managers meet at Danvers weekly with the Employer's vice
president. At Danvers, too, the Employer's other officers and
officials have their offices and determine labor relations
policies for the plants. The great majority of the Employer's
office clericals work at Danvers, where the payrolls are
prepared and where the insurance and pension records are
maintained for the three plants. There has been considerable
interchange among the maintenance employees, including
"specialists ," especially since the Danvers plant began
operations, and time-study men are shifted fromplantto plant.
Production employees have also been interchanged, although
to a far lesser degree . Job qualifications are centrally
determined, all job applications requiring clearance by the
personnel director's office at Danvers. Discharges cannot be
effected without similar central clearance. Also under the
personnel director's supervision each plant has organized
bowling , basketball, and golf teams which engage in interplant
competitions that are reported, as are outings and other
recreational activities, in Microphone, a company magazine
distributed to all employees. Apparently, there is no company-
wide seniority for purposes of a reduction in force, but the
parties agree that employees, in the event of a voluntary or
involuntary transfer from one to another of the three plants,
retain their seniority.' The employee classifications at each
of the plants are almost identical, as are the rates of pay, and
the employees at each plant enjoy identical vacation and holiday
benefits.
5All three plants are primarily engaged in manufacturing electronic tubes. However, of
the 3 plants, Newburyport alone manufactures cathode-ray, or picture, tubes; these repre-
sent 2 percent of Newburyport's output. Danvers is the only plant manufacturing, to a com-
paratively small extent, products other than electronic tubes.
6 The seniority clause in the 1951 contract is ambiguous, and no grievance concerning
seniority rights has ever been presented.
CONTINENTAL OIL COMPANY 595
In view of the foregoing factors, including the similar and
integrated functions of the three plants, the centralized control
of labor relations and personnel policies , the common conditions
of employment , and the bargaining history on amultiplant basis,
we find that separate production and maintenance units at the
Salem and Danvers plants are inappropriate for collective -bar-
gaining purposes .' Consequently , we shall dismiss the petitions.
[The Board dismissed the petitions.]
7Aircraft Engine Service , Inc., 102 NLRB 1326; Birdsboro Armorcast , 101 NLRB 22.
Contrary to the IUE's contention, the fact that separate units were agreed to in previous
proceedings is not controlling in the present proceeding . Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical
Corporation, 100 NLRB 107.
CONTINENTAL OIL COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL ASSO-
CIATION OF MACHINISTS , AFL, Petitioner . Case No. 16-
RC-1293. June 16, 1953.
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 John F. Funke,
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 Houston , Styles, and Peter-
son].
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
employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the rep-
resentation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of
Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 ( 6) and ( 7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner seeks to sever a unit of machinists and their
apprentices and helpers from the unit currently represented by
the Intervenor , Independent Oil Workers Union of Oklahoma, at
the Employer's Ponca City , Oklahoma, oil refinery . Thelnter-
venor opposes the proposed severance , while the Employer is
neutral. In 1941, after consent elections , the Intervenor was
certified as the bargaining representative of the Employer's
production and maintenance employees , including the employees
sought herein, while other labor organizations were certified as
the bargaining representatives of five craft units : Boilermakers
and welders , electricians , carpenters, painters , and brick-
105 NLRB No. 80.