Sperry Rand Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 19, 1966

158 N.L.R.B. 994 (N.L.R.B. 1966)

994 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Remington Office Machines, Minneapolis Branch , Division of
Sperry Rand Corporation and George K. Frederick , Petitioner
and International Union of Electrical , Radio and Machine
Workers, AFL-CIO , Local 459, Business Machine and Office
Appliance Technicians Conference Board . Case No. 18-RD-340.
May 19, 1966
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hearing was conducted before
Hearing Officer Alan Bruce.' The Hearing Officer's rulings made
at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby
affirmed. Both the Petitioner and the Union have filed briefs with
the National Labor Relations Board.
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 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 Petitioner, an employee of the Employer, asserts that the
Union,2 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) and2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner seeks a decertification election in a unit con-
sisting of all typewriter, adding, calculating, accounting, systems and
photorecord mechanics (hereinafter referred to as customer engi-
neers), limited to the Employer 's Minneapolis, Minnesota , branch
office. The Union contends that the unit sought is less than the
existing bargaining unit and is, therefore, inappropriate for purposes
of decertification. The Employer agrees with the Petitioner that
the customer engineers at the Minneapolis branch office constitute a
separate appropriate unit.
'After the hearing and pursuant to section 102 67 of the National Labor Relations
Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 8 , as amended , the Regional Director issued an
order transferring the case to the National Labor Relations Board for decision.
g The Employer's motion that the Union, hereinafter also referred to as Local 459, be
denied the right to intervene simply because it did not make appearances for two other
locals of International Union of Electrical , Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO , wVich
represent employees In two of the Employer 's other branch offices, Is without merit and
is denied. r
158 NLRB No. 88.
REMINGTON OFFICE MACHINES, MINNEAPOLIS BRANCH 995
The Employer is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and servicing
of office and business machines throughout the United States Its
principal office is in New York City It also has 36 branch offices
elsewhere in the United States Employees in nine of the branch
offices are represented for purposes of collective bargaining by Locals
459, 852, and 1059 of the International Union of Electrical, Radio
and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, pursuant to Board certifications
The employees in the Minneapolis branch office involved herein are
represented by Local 459 Employees in four branch offices are
represented by the International Association of Machinists, AFL-
CIO, employees in the other 23 officers are unrepresented
The Petitioner seeks to decertify Local 459 as the bargaining
representative of the employees in the Minneapolis branch office
Local 459, notwithstanding the fact that these employees constitute
a certified bargaining unit, contends that the history of negotiations
between the IUE locals and the Employer has revealed an intention
on the part of the negotiating parties to merge the separate certified
units into one overall bargaining unit, and that consequently the unit
identified in the petition is inappropriate for purposes of collective
bargaining It, therefore, urges dismissal of the petition, relying
on the authority of Univae D2vis2on of Remington Rand DqlvZSion of
Sperry Rand Corporation 3 The Employer contends that the facts
in this case show conclusively that, notwithstanding its participation
in centralized collective-bargaining negotiations for the purpose of
negotiating contracts with the various IUE locals representing its
employees, it has never intended or agreed that the separate certified
bargaining units be merged into a single overall unit Accordingly,
it urges that the Board direct the election petitioned for by the
employees of the Minneapolis branch office
The record reveals that, at least from 1956 until the present date,
Local 459 and its sister locals have participated in centralized
collective-bargaining negotiations with the Employer's representa-
tive in New York In all essential respects, such bargaining has
been conducted in the manner described in the Unvvac decision,4 and
has resulted in the execution of agreements for the various certified
units, which, though separate, contain identical termination dates
and reflect a high degree of uniformity in the provisions regulating
terms and conditions of employment
Unlike the Univac case, however, in this case such evidence does
not stand alone Here, the Employer has introduced evidence which
shows that the negotiations were uniformly initiated by correspond-
ence between the parties signaling that the ensuing negotiations
were to concern contracts for the separate units and revealing the
137 NLRB 1232
Ibid
996 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Employer's resistance to bargaining with respect to any unit in which
the Union did not continue to enjoy majority status Moreover, the
recognition clauses in the contracts thus negotiated have never con-
tained an expression of an intention to merge the sepai ately certified
units into a single bargaining unit Instead they have, in each
instance, continued to recognize only the particular local certified
as the bargaining representative of the employees in the individual
branch offices Furthermore, uncontradicted testimony of the
Employer's officials reveals that, notwithstanding the essential uni-
formity of the terms and provisions of the various contracts, arbitra-
tion awards issued under one contract are not dispositive of similar
disputes arising under the other contracts
The foregoing evidence, pointing to a practice of centralized bar-
gaining for separate bargaining units rather than to a practice of
bargaining for one overall unit , gains significance from the fact that,
for its part, the Union has only recently contested decertification peti-
tions on the ground it urges in this case The record reveals that,
in 1962, Local 852 consented to separate decertification elections foi
the Denver, Colorado, and the Portland, Oregon, branch employees,
and, in 1958 , failed to contest the appropriateness for a bargaining
unit limited to the employees of the San Francisco branch office
Local 459 also failed to object to an election confined to employees
of the Buffalo , New York , branch office in 1958 While Local 459
did raise the unit issue in decertification proceedings involving the
Milwaukee , Wisconsin , branch office in 1962, it failed to seek review
of the Regional Director 's decision directing the election in the
branch office unit Moreover, in 1964, the president of Local 1059
initiated separate bargaining negotiations for the Chicago branch
office Company officials met with the officials of Local 1059 for such
purposes The separate negotiations broke off, however, before
agreement was reached
On the basis of the foregoing, we find in the terms of the contracts
negotiated no clear indication that the parties intended to effect a
consolidation of the original certified units into a single overall unit
Nor do we find such indication in the conduct of the parties during
the negotiations cited to us On the contrary, it definitely appears
that the Employer, at least, agreed to participate in the centralized
bargaining negotiations only as a convenient method of conducting
negotiations for the multiple bargaining units which were involved
Moreover , the Union 's failure in other Board proceedings to defend
the appropriateness of the overall bargaining unit which it contends
has emerged from the pattern of bargaining since 1956 persuades us
that the bargaining and representation techniques it has developed
were developed initially because the Union deemed it to be convenient
UNIVAC DIVISION, SPERRY RAND CORPORATION 997
to bargain at one time and place and through one set of negotiators
for the separate units.5 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
right of the employees in each branch office to select, change, or
decertify their bargaining representatives by the vote of their sepa-
rate majorities, we reject the Union's contention that the decertifica-
tion petition seeks an election in an inappropriate unit.6
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 customer engineers employed 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.] 7
5 See Swift ci Company, 124 NLRB 50.
s Hygrade Food Products Corporation , 85 NLRB 841; Univac Division, Sperry Rand
Corporation, 158 NLRB 997.
7 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 118, 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. Excelsior Underwear Inc., et al., 156 NLRB 1236.
Univac Division , Sperry 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.i 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.