Sperry Rand Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 19, 1966

158 N.L.R.B. 997 (N.L.R.B. 1966)

UNIVAC DIVISION, SPERRY RAND CORPORATION 997
to bargain at one time and place and through one set of negotiators
for the separate units 6 This is not to say that the Union is not
seriously pressing the Employer to agree to a merger of the separate
units, it is to say that this record shows that it has been unsuccess-
ful to date in such efforts Accordingly, as there is no unmistakable
indication that these parties mutually intended to extinguish the
light of the employees in each branch office to select, change, or
decertify their bargaining representatives by the vote of their sepa-
rate majorities, we ieject the Union's contention that the decertifica-
tion petition seeks an election in an inappropriate unit 6
We find, accordingly, that the following employee, constitute an
appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining within
the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act
All customer engineers employed tat the Employer' s Minneapolis,
Minnesota, branch office, excluding clerical employees, executives,
salesmen, and all supervisors as defined in the Act
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication ] 7
6 See swift d Company 124 NLRB 50
9 ll ygi ade Food Products Corporation 85 NLRB 841 Univac Dwraaon !Sperry Rand
Corporation 158 NLRB 997
4 An election eligibility list containing the names and addresses of all the eligible voters
must be filed by the Employer with the Regional Director for Region 18, within 7 days
after the date of this Decision and Direction of Election The Regional Director shall
make the list available to all parties to the election No extension of time to file this
list shall be granted by the Regional Director except in extraordinary circumstances
Failure to comply with this requirement shall be grounds for setting aside the election
whenever proper objections are filed Emceisior Underwear Inc et al 156 NLRB 1236
Univac Division , Speiry Rand Corporation and R W. McCabe,
et al, Employees-Petitioners, and International Union of Elec-
trical, Radio and Machine Workers , AFL-CIO, Local 459
Univac Division, Sperry Rand Corporation , Employer-Petitioner
and International Union of Electrical , Radio and Machine
Workers, AFL-CIO, Local 459 Cases Nos 18-RD-339 and 18-
RM-500 May 19, 1966
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
On petitions duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, as amended, a hearing was conducted before Hearing
Officer Max Rotenberg 1 The Hearing Officers' rulings made at
1 The hearing during the first 3 days was conducted by Alan Bruce and during the last
3 days by Max Rotenberg The substitution of the Hearing Officer was occasioned by
Bruce s illness
158 NLRB No 87
998 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.z
Both the Employer and the intervening Union have filed briefs with
the National Labor Relations Board.3
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the National
Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with
these cases to a three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Mem-
bers Fanning and Jenkins].
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 Employees-Petitioners assert that the Union, which is the
certified bargaining representative of the employees involved herein,
is no longer such representative as defined in Section 9(a) of the
Act.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the represen-
tation of employees' of the Employer within the meaning of Sections
9 (c) (1) and 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, for the following reasons :
The Employees-Petitioners seek a decertification election limited to
a unit of tabulating machine servicemen at the Employer's Minne-
apolis, Minnesota, branch office. The Employer-Petitioner contends
that the unit sought is appropriate since it is a Board certified
unit and its separate identity has been maintained during bargaining
between it and the Union. The Union contends that the Board's
decision in the Univac Division of Remington Rand Division of
Sperry Rand Corporation, 137 NLRB 1232, shows that a multiplant
unit has been established by action of the parties and that, therefore,
these petitions should be dismissed on the grounds that the unit
sought is inappropriate.4
At present, the Employer has 43 branch offices, 15 of which are
represented by the International Union of Electrical, Radio and
Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, and its affiliated Locals 459, 852, and
275, 3 branches by the International Union of Machinists, AFL-CIO,
(hereinafter referred to as the IAM), and the remaining 25 are
unrepresented.
Board records show that various bargaining representatives have
been individually certified as the representative of employees in each
of the branch -office units pursuant to stipulations for consent elec-
tions. The unit of tabulating machine servicemen (hereinafter
referred to as servicemen) in Minneapolis was established in Case
No. 18-RC-729, on September 18, 1950, and was represented for
a After the hearing and pursuant to Section 102 67 of the National Labor Relations
Board Rules and Regulations , Series 8, as amended, the Regional Director issued an order
transferring the cases to the Board for decision.
s The Employer 's request for oral argument is hereby denied as the record and the
briefs adequately present the issues and the positions of the parties.
4 The Union 's motion to dismiss is hereby denied on the basis of our Decision in this case.
UNIVAC DIVISION, SPERRY RAND CORPORATION 999
purposes of collective bargaining by the Mechanical and Electrical
Workers, Independent. Thereafter, the Independent affiliated with
IUE-Local 459 and entered into its first collective-bargaining agree-
ment on December 18, 1950. Successive agreements were thereafter
entered into between the parties ; it is noted that these agreements
were signed by employee representatives of the Minneapolis unit,
with the possible exception of the 1962-65 agreement.,'
All these agreements were entered into by the Employer, on behalf
of its tabulating machine service department at Minneapolis, and
IUE-Local 459. As in the case of the Minneapolis unit, all the other
branch office units have been covered by separate collective-
bargaining agreements.
Board records further substantiate the evidence presented in this
case showing that :
In 1948 and 1949, employees in four branch offices in St. Louis,
Missouri, Newark, New Jersey, Syracuse and 'Buffalo, New York,
pursuant to four separate petitions, designated IUE-Local 459's
predecessor as bargaining representative for their individual
branches.
In 1950, as a ,result of separate petitions and elections, employees
in the Providence, Rhode Island, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,
Chicago, Illinois, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and the Minneapolis
branches, selected IUE-Local 459's predecessor as their collective-
bargaining representative.
In 1952, IUE-Local 459 won an election among branch employees
in Detroit, Michigan, and was certified as bargaining representative
of employees in a separate unit. In the same year, IUE-Local 459
lost an election conducted among employees in the Pittsburg, Penn-
sylvania, branch.
Upon the expiration of the second Providence collective-bargaining
contract on January 31, 1953, no new agreement was entered
into because the Employer rejected Local 459's request for bargain-
ing until and unless the local demonstrated its majority status; the
servicemen employed there have since remained unrepresented.
In 1953, pursuant to an election, IUE-Local 459 was certified by
the Board as the representative of a unit of servicemen in the Bridge-
port, Connecticut, branch. Two successive collective-bargaining con-
tracts were signed; subsequently, the Union lost its majority status.
Since February 29, 1956, the Bridgeport servicemen have remained
unrepresented.
5 Extensions were effective 'to the Minneapolis agreement on February 1, 1952, to
January 31, 1953, and March 2, 1953, to August 31, 1954 Subsequently , agreements
were entered into for September 1, 1954 , to February 29, 1956; March 6, 1956, to
February 28, 1958; March 17 , 1958, to September 6, 1961 , and February 14, 1962, to
January 29, 1965.
1000 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In 1954, pursuant to an election, IUE-Local 852 was certified as
the bargaining representative for servicemen in the San Francisco,
California, branch office. The bargaining contract was separately
executed on July 29, 1954, as no other bargaining contracts were
executed by the parties until October 11, 1954.
On May 30, 1956, a separate bargaining contract was entered into
for the servicemen in the Boston, Massachusetts, branch, 3 months
after the execution of all other collective-bargaining contracts for
that year. Also, in 1956, Elmira, New York, servicemen were added
to the Syracuse unit after a separate election, and the servicemen at
Aurora, Peoria, and Rockport, Illinois, and Hammond, Indiana, were
added to the existing bargaining unit at Chicago, Illinois.
In March 1958, servicemen in the Pittsburgh branch, who had
voted in 1952 against representation by IUE-Local 459, voted to be
represented by the IAM.
In addition to the above showing of the separate units choosing
and changing their respective bargaining representatives over the
years, the record further shows no manifestation on the part of the
Employer and the Union of an intention to merge these separate
units into one overall unit. The Employer's position has always
been that it was bargaining for separate units. This is shown con-
clusively by documents contained in this record, such as the agree-
ments themselves, the correspondence, and the conduct of the parties
during negotiations.
Thus, on December, 10, 1955, IUE-Local 459 by letter to the
Employer initiated negotiations for the purpose of negotiating new
collective-bargaining agreements. At this time, however, the
Employer only agreed to negotiate for 11 of the 12 units specified
in the Union's letter; it excluded the Bridgeport unit on the ground
that the Union no longer represented a majority of the Bridgeport
employees. At the conclusion of these negotiations, 11 separate con-
tracts were signed; the Bridgeport branch employees were not
covered.
In 1956 one of the proposals made by the Union, was a demand for
one national contract covering all tabulating cities; the Employer
rejected this proposal.
On December 12, 1957, IUE-Local 459 wrote the Employer to
initiate negotiations for the 1958-61 collective-bargaining agree-
ments, listing 12 units in its heading; it excluded Bridgeport and in
its place included Boston.
On June 30, 1961, IUE-Local 459 opened the negotiations for new
collective-bargaining agreements with almost an identical reopener
letter which referred to "Tabulating Service Department Units,"
listing them and offering to meet for the above purpose.
UNIVAC DIVISION, SPERRY RAND CORPORATION 1001
In January 1962, while the 1961-62 contract negotiations were
being conducted, the Elmira-Syracuse unit employees submitted their
resignations to the Union and revoked union checkoff authorizations.
They 'subsequently filed a decertification petition in Case No.
3-RD-198, and IUE-Local 459 for the first time alleged, in a motion
to'dismiss the petition, that the unit sought was inappropriate on the
grounds that the individual units had been merged into one overall
unit covering all the represented branch offices.s
The record in this case shows that, during the period of the Syra-
cuse `proceedings, the parties concluded their negotiations for the
1962-65 contract with 11 agreements being agreed to by the parties
with the exclusion of the above Elmira-Syracuse branch office unit.
Since that time, the record herein shows that the parties, although
in accord as to the 11 agreements for the other represented branch
offices, failed to sign the agreements. The Employer insisted that
the agreements, as in the past, be individually signed by the repre-
sentatives of the various branch office units, and IUE-Local 459
Insisted that they be signed by the negotiating committee of the
National Conference Board, which -did not include representatives
of all the branch office units but which conducted the negotiations on
behalf of the certified IUE Locals.7 It was not until July 1964 that
the Employer executed the 11 agreements with the Intervenor and
only upon the representation of the Intervenor that the signatures
of the members of the negotiating committee of the National Con-
ference Board were authorized by and binding upon the units at each
of the locations.
Concerning the Elmira-Syracuse unit, on October 7, 1964, a mem-
orandum of agreement was executed between IUE-Local 459 and the
Employer calling for the signing of a contract covering the above
unit on or before Octover 12, 1964, the date of the contract to be
February 14, 1962. It is noted in the memorandum agreement that
one of the terms insisted upon by both parties was "That this settle-
ment shall not be construed as an admission by either of the parties
as to their respective positions on the fundamental nature and extent
of the bargaining unit and the contractual relationship." The record
herein continues to show that up until the time of the filing of the
decertification petition in this case, the intentions of the parties have
6The Board on July 10, 1962, rendered its decision in Univac Division of Remington
Rand Division of Sperry Rand Corporation, 137 NLRB 1232, and at 1234 stated: "We
find on these facts, that the Employer and the Union intended to and did carry on bar-
gaining on the basis of a multiplant unit and that the individual certified units had been
merged into one overall unit," and dismissed the petition.
'+The record shows that since 1956 negotiations were conducted by the Union in the
manner described in the Univac decision, supra.
1002 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
been unchangeable concerning the extent of the bargaining unit and
the contractual relationship.
We find on the basis of the evidence presented in this record that
the Employer and the Union have never mutually agreed that their
negotiations have been for one -overall or multiplant unit during the
,course of their collective-bargaining relationship. Furthermore,
although the 1962 Univac case, supra, shows that the parties since
1956 carried on centralized bargaining negotiations in New York
City, we find the record in this case to be barren of any indication
that the parties mutually intended to effect a consolidation of the
branch office units thereby destroying the separate indentity of each
,one. From all that appears in this record, the Employer and the
Union adopted the practice of negotiating at New York City because
it was convenient to bargain at one time and place. There is no
indication that these parties mutually intended to extinguish the
right of employees in each of the branch office units to select and
change their bargaining representatives at appropriate intervals, by
balloting limited to their separate units .8
We therefore find, on the basis of the above facts and the record
herein, as well as our holding in the companion case, Remington
Office Machines, Minneapolis Branch, Division of Sperry Rand Cor-
poration, 158 NLRB 994, issued simultaneously herewith, that
during the years of collective bargaining between the parties the
Minneapolis servicemen have not been merged into one overall unit,
nor has their participation in the centralized negotiations constituted
a waiver or loss of their separate identity, as originally certified
in 1950.
We find, accordingly, that the following employees constitute an
appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:
All tabulating machine servicemen at the Employer's Minneapolis,
Minnesota, branch office, excluding clerical employees, executives,
salesmen, and all supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
8 We find, therefore , that the Univac decision is not controlling on the issue herein,
and, to the extent that it may stand for the proposition that the separate certified units
have been merged into one multiplant unit, it is overruled.
8 An election eligibility list, containing the names and addresses of all the eligible
voters , must be filed by the Employer with the Regional Director for Region 18 within
7 days after the date of this Decision and Direction of Election . The Regional Director
shall make the list available to all parties to the election No extension of time to file
this list shall be granted by the Regional Director except in extraordinary circumstances.
Failure to comply with this requirement shall be grounds for setting aside the election
echenever proper objections are filed Excelsior Underwear Inc., et al, 156 NLRB 1236