Litton Systems, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 4, 1966

156 N.L.R.B. 1319 (N.L.R.B. 1966)

DULUTH AVIONICS, GUIDANCE & CONTROL SYSTEMS 1319
United Automobile, Aerospace, and Agricultural Implement Workers of Amer-
ica, UAW-AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, or promise or grant them
benefits for the purpose of discouraging their union activities.
WE WILL NOT engage in surveillance of the union activities of our employees
or ask them to engage in surveillance and report to us on the union activities and
sentiments of their fellow employees.
WE WILL NOT threaten to close, sell, move, or terminate our operations if our
employees join, designate, or assist the above-named UAW, or any other labor
organization, as their collective-bargaining agent nor will we attempt to form or
organize a labor organization for our employees.
WE WILL NOT interfere with the right of our employees to wear union insignia.
WE WILL NOT in any other manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce employ-
ees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to join or assist the above-
named Union, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through
representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities
for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to
refrain from any and all such activities.
WE WILL offer the employees named below immediate and full reinstatement
to their former or substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their
seniority or other rights and privileges, and will make them whole for any loss
of pay, plus interest at the rate of 6 percentum per annum, which they may have
suffered by reason of the discrimination against them.
James Raby Gerald Goble Charles Nash
Robert Lawrence James Caudill James Steele
Carl Wyramon Jesse James Harold E. Cornet
Earl Blair Kenneth W. Fowler William Clemons
Bivon Fowler Ronald L. Keal Lester Pebworth
Marvin Frady Willie Joe Mills Paul Paris
All our employees are free to become or remain, or refrain from becoming or
remaining, members of the above-named or any other labor organization
GOLAY & CO., INC.,
Employer.
Dated------------------- By-------------------------------------------
(Representative) (Title)
NOTE.-We will notify any of the above-named employees presently serving in the
Armed Forces of the United States of their right to full reinstatement upon applica-
tion in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training
and Service Act, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces.
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 ISTA
Center, 150 West Market Street, Indianapolis 4, Indiana, Telephone No. Melrose
3-8921, if they have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its
provisions.
Duluth Avionics, Guidance & Control Systems Division of Litton
Systems, Inc. and International Union, United Automobile,
Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America,
UAW, AFL-CIO, Petitioner . Case No. 18-RC-6583. Febru-
ary 4, 1966
DECISION ON REVIEW
On November 12, 1965, the Regional Director for Region 18 issued
a Decision and Direction of Election in the above-entitled proceeding
in which he rejected as inappropriate the requested unit confined to
the Employer's Duluth, Minnesota, plant, and found appropriate a
two-plant unit including the Employer's subassembly plant at Hib-
156 NLRB No. 124.
1320 DECISIONS of NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
bing, Minnesota. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed a timely request for
review of the Regional Director's Decision, contending, inter alia, that
he had erroneously applied Board precedent in finding the requested
Duluth plant unit to be inappropriate. The Employer filed a state-
ment in opposition. On December 3, 1965, the National Labor Rela-
tions Board, by telegraphic Order, granted the request for review and
stayed the election. Thereafter, the Employer filed an addendum to its
opposition.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, the Board has delegated its powers in
connection with this case to a three-member planel [Chairman McCul-
loch and Members Fanning and Zagoria].
The Board has considered the entire record with respect to the
issues under review, together with the positions of the parties, and
makes the following findings : 1
The Employer, a manufacturer of the electronic components of two
types of inertial navigational systems, operates two plants, one at
Duluth and one at Hibbing, Minnesota.2 The main plant at Duluth
has approximately 690 hourly rated employees. The Hibbing plant,
which does subassembly work alone for the Duluth plant, has about
82 employees and is located 75 to 80 miles from Duluth. Industrial
relations, production control, finance, material, quality assurance, and
production engineering are centralized at the Duluth plant. Manu-
facturing is divided into electromechanical, counterparts, and sub-
assembly. Since shortly after the Duluth plant opened in 1962, almost
all of the subassembly work has been done at Hibbing, under a sepa-
rate general foreman. Subassembly kits are shipped from Duluth to
Hibbing for assembly and then returned to Duluth for testing, final
assembly, and shipment. Apparently the only subassembly work done
at Duluth is that occasioned by faulty work done at Hibbing. The
Hibbing general foreman's authority in matters of employer-employee
relations, such as wage raises, hire, discharges, discipline, and promo-
tion, is limited to recommendations to the manufacturing manager
and/or industrial relations manager located in Duluth. Employee
fringe benefits are the same for both plants.
However, as above indicated, the Hibbing subassembly plant is
located a substantial distance from Duluth. There have been only
four permanent transfers from Duluth to Hibbing during the past
2 years, and there have been no transfers from Hibbing to Duluth.
All four of the transfers have been voluntary. There is no interchange
of employees between the two plants. Although the general foreman
at Hibbing has limited managerial authority, he is responsible for the
'The Board affirms the Regional Director 's disposition of the unit placement of ex-
pediters and dispatchers , which the Petitioner also disputed in its request for review
2 The Employer ' s parent has other plants not here involved.
PETER PAUL, INC. 1321
day-to-day subassembly operations of the Hibbing plant. Although
interviewing and hiring is done by the Duluth-based personnel depart-
ment, the Employer utilizes the State employment services in Hibbing
to fill manpower needs for the Hibbing plant. There is no bargaining
history for the employees of either of the two plants.
Upon the foregoing and the entire record, we are unable to agree
with the Regional Director's conclusion that the presumption favoring
the appropriateness of the single-plant unit confined to Duluth has
been effectively rebutted. As the Board indicated in The Black and
Decker Manufacturing Company, 147 NLRB 825, a substantial degree
of product integration between two plants does not in itself preclude
a single-plant unit when there are other factors supporting such a
finding. Here, there is substantial geographic separation of the two
plants, the Hibbing subassembly employees are recruited generally
from the Hibbing area and are under separate supervision, there is no
employee interchange, and no labor organization seeks to represent a
two-plant unit.3 These factors satisfy us that the plant employees at
Duluth enjoy a separate community of interest apart from the em-
ployees at Hibbing. We find, therefore, that a unit confined in scope
to the Duluth plant is appropriate.4
Accordingly, the case is hereby remanded to the Regional Director
for Region 18 for the purpose of holding an election pursuant to his
Decision and Direction of Election, as modified herein, except that
the period for determining eligibility shall be the payroll period im-
mediately preceding the date above.
3It is clear that the Intervenor , Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO, did
not have sufficient showing of interest to be treated as a cross -petitioner.
4 The Black and Decker Manufacturing Company, supra ; Dixie Belle Mills, Inc., etc.,
139 NLRB 629.
Peter Paul , Inc. and Retail, Wholesale , and Department Store
Union, AFL-CIO. Cases Nos. 16-CA-2182 and 16-CA-224. Feb-
ruary 8, 1966
DECISION AND ORDER
On October 8, 1965, Trial Examiner George L. Powell issued his
Decision in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent
had not engaged in unfair labor practices as alleged in the complaints
and recommending that the complaints be dismissed in its entirety,
as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter,
the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Decision
and a supporting brief and the Respondent filed a brief in support of
the Decision.
156 NLRB No. 116.