Sperry Rand Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 10, 1962

137 N.L.R.B. 1232 (N.L.R.B. 1962)

1232 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Accordingly, we find that all employees at the Employer's Wey-
mouth and Quincy, Massachusetts, electric service locations, including
office clerical employees and retail appliance sales department em-
ployees, but excluding professional employees, guards, and supervisors
as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes
of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(c) (1) and
Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act 3
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
3 The composition of the unit is not in dispute.
Univac Division of Remington Rand Division of Sperry Rand
Corporation I and Francis H. Coyne , Petitioner and Business
Machine and Office Appliance Mechanics Conference Board,
Local 459 International Union of Electrical , Radio and Ma-
chine Workers , AFL-CIO.2 Case No. 3-RD-198. July 10, 1962
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a decertification petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the
National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Salvatore J.
Arrigo, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hear-
ing 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 [Chairman McCulloch and Members Rodgers 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 Petitioner, an employee of the Employer, asserts that the
Union, which is the certified bargaining representative of the em-
ployees involved herein, is no longer such representative as defined
in Section 9 (a) of the Act.
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the repre-
sentation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of 9 (c) (1)
and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act for the following reasons:
The Petitioner seeks to decertify a unit of tabulating machine serv-
icemen at the Employer's locations in Syracuse and Elmira, New
York, excluding clerical employees, executives, salesmen, and all su-
pervisors as defined in the Act. The Union contends that the petition
1 The name of the Employer appears as amended at the bearing..
The name of the Union appears as amended at the hearing.
137 NLRB No. 133.
UNIVAC DIVISION, ETC., SPERRY RAND CORPORATION 1233
should be dismissed because the unit sought is not coextensive with
the existing bargaining unit, and therefore not appropriate for de-
certification? The Petitioner and the Employer contend that the unit
sought for decertification is appropriate since it is a Board certified
unit and because its separate identity has been maintained in
bargaining.
Board records show that the unit of tabulating machine servicemen
located in Syracuse was certified by the Board in Case No. 3-RC-190
on December 17, 1948; and the tabulating machine servicemen located
in Elmira, was certified as included in the Syracuse unit in Case No.
3-RC-1680 on March 30, 1956. Both certifications resulted from stip-
ulations for certification upon consent elections. The record does not
show how the parties carried on their collective bargaining immedi-
ately after the Syracuse certification. However, about 1956 the Em-
ployer and the Union and its affiliated locals proceeded to engage in
centralized bargaining negotiations in New York City for the Syra-
cuse and Elmira employees along with other tabulating machine serv-
icemen performing the same duties located at the Employer's various
locations throughout the United States'
The Union and its affiliated locals in preparation for the centralized
negotiations have a conference of union representatives from the
various locations to determine the proposals to be bargained and to
choose a bargaining committee to represent all locations. Not all loca-
tions have representatives on the bargaining committee; however, the
proposals to be bargained and the proposed bargaining committee are
submitted to each location for a vote of ratification. The respective
locations have a minimum of 1 vote for 20 or fewer employees, and 1
additional vote for eacaa 20 or more employees, not to exceed 4 votes.
These votes may be divided into quarter votes, and the decision of the
majority of votes at all locations is binding on each location. This
procedure for voting is also followed once the bargaining begins.
The bargaining committee bargains the same provisions for all lo-
cations except for minor differences such as holidays, which are
dependent on local customs, and union-security clauses, which are
dependent on the extent of union membership at each location.5 Fur-
3 The Union also contended that a recent contract is a bar to the instant petition. As
this contention would not affect the outcome of the case in view of our dismissal of the
petition we do not give it consideration.
' During the 1961-62 negotiations the following locations were included in the central-
ized bargaining with the Employer: New York, Syracuse, and Buffalo, New York ; the
New Jersey area, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania ; St. Louis, Missouri ; Detroit, Michigan ;
Chicago, Illinois ; Milwaukee , Wisconsin ; Minneapolis , Minnesota ; Boston, Massachusetts,
and San Francisco , California . It appears that each of these locations are independently
certified by the Board pursuant to stipulations for certification upon consent elections.
5 These provisions , though tailored to meet local conditions , are negotiated by the
committee at the New York negotiations.
649856-63--vol. 137-79
1234 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ther, the bargaining committee seeks to have provided supplemental
pension agreements for the west coast and Boston locations and the
inclusion of certain categories of clerical employees at the Detroit,
Chicago, and New York City locations.
The Employer bargains through its manager of labor relations and
its national manager of customer engineering. There is no show-
ing in the record that any employer representative from any of the
locations participates in the negotiations.
As the negotiations between the Employer and the bargaining com-
mittee progress and the parties reach or are unable to reach agree-
ment the bargaining committee submits questions to a vote of all the
locations such as whether to accept an offer of the Employer or to call
a strike. Again, the committee abides by the decision of the majority,
and a contract can be accepted or a strike called binding on all of the
locations even though several locations disapprove.
Upon the conclusion of negotiations, a copy of the contract is pre-
pared for each location incorporating the local differences, and stating
that they cover the employees at a particular location, and provid-
ing for local seniority. Except for such local differences, the con-
tracts are identical. Then the individual contracts are executed by
the bargaining committee on behalf of the various locals.
We find on these facts, that the Employer and the Union intended to
and in fact did carry on bargaining on the basis of a multiplant unit
and that the individual certified units have been merged into one over-
all unit.6 In Goodyear Tire ct Rubber Company (Houston Synthetic
Rubber Plant),' the Board gave effect to the particular facts and equi-
ties in that case which preserved the separate identity of a Board certi-
fied unit although the union thereafter chose to enter into a contract
merging two separate units. The instant case is distinguishable. Here
there are no special circumstances. To the contrary, the employees at
the Syracuse and Elmira locations assented by ratifying the acts of the
bargaining committee to the multiplant bargaining, which has pro-
ceeded for a substantial period of times As the Petitioner is here
seeking to decertify less than the existing bargaining unit, we shall
dismiss the petition.'
[The Board dismissed the petition in Case No. 3-RD-198.]
0 General Motors Corporation, Cadillac Motor Car Division, 120 NLRB 1215
7130 NLRB 889
8 The record shows that the Syracuse and Elmira employees concerned in this proceed-
ing, in January 1962 during current negotiations, submitted to the Union their resigna-
tions from the Union and revocations of their union checkoff authorizations without
considering whether these actions are a protest to multiemployer bargaining, their timing
could not negative their previous assent to multiemployer bargaining
Cf Mission Appliance Corporation, 129 NLRB 1417.