Sterling Faucet Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 2, 1958

119 N.L.R.B. 1225 (N.L.R.B. 1958)

STERLING FAUCET COMPANY 1225
Sterling Faucet Company and International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and Helpers of Amer -
ica, Local Union No. 789,1 Petitioner. Case No. 6-RC-1950.
January 2,1958
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before H. G. Borchardt,
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 [Chairman Leedom and Members Bean 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 3
i The Board having been notified by the AFL-CIO that it deems the Teamsters' certifi-
cate of affiliation revoked by convention action, the identification of this Union is hereby
amended,
2 The Employer objected to the procedure followed by the Regional Director in with-
drawing his dismissal of the petition herein and issuing the notice of hearing. The
Petitioner joined with the Employer in protesting the absence of what they would con-
sider a full investigation. On June 6, 1957, on the basis of the petition, a letter from the
Employer contending that its contract with District 50, United Mine Workers of America,
hereinafter referred to as the Intervenor, is a bar, and a copy of that contract, the
Regional Director dismissed the petition. The Regional Director on July 9, 1957, upon
consideration of the Petitioner's timely appeal from the dismissal but without further
communicating with the parties, notified the parties of his withdrawal of his letter dis-
missing the petition. On July 12, 1957, the Board notified the parties that the dismissal
had been withdrawn and the matter remanded to the Regional Director for issuance of a
notice of hearing. The notice of hearing was issued on July 17, 1957.
In protesting the procedure followed by the Regional Director, the Employer apparently
contends that the Regional Director was without authority to withdraw his dismissal and
that only the Board, itself, could reverse his original action. Since the Regional Director's
dismissal had been appealed within the time provided therefor, his action had not become
final and, consequently, could effectively be withdrawn. Bulova. Research and Develop-
ment Laboratories, Inc., 110 NLRB 1036. The Board, by its notice to the parties, prior
to the issuance of the notice of hearing, that it had remanded the proceeding to the
Regional Director for issuance of such notice, ratified and approved the Regional Director's
decision to withdraw the dismissal. Feet Milling Company, 117 NLRB 1277.
Further, on the basis of these facts, the Employer moved that the hearing be postponed
for further investigation. This motion was properly denied by the hearing officer. The
preliminary investigation is a matter entirely for administrative determination and is not
litigable by the parties. Lloyd A. Fry Roofing Company, 107 NLRB 1327.
I The facts with respect to the Employer's operations were stipulated. In addition, the
Employer requested that the Board take official notice of its decision in Pittsburgh Valve
Company, et al. , 106 NLRB 109, in which the Board allegedly found common ownership
and control of five corporations, including the Employer involved herein. The Employer
further points out in its brief that in Pittsburgh Valve Company, et al., 114 NLRB 193,
the Board held that these five corporations together constitute a single employer for the
purposes of the Act. Testimony was adduced to the effect that the facts have not changed
since the time of the prior decisions. While the Board customarily takes official notice of
its own decisions, there is no contention in the instant proceeding that any of the
employees involved are employed any place other than at Sterling Faucet Company, the
Employer named-herein. The integrated nature. of. the;operations of these corporations is,
therefore, not material to a consideration of the instant case.
119 NLRB No. 145.
1226 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent employees
of the Employer."
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the repre-
sentation 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 Petitioner seeks a unit limited to over-the-road drivers employed
by the Employer at its Morgantown, West Virginia, plant.' The
Employer and the Intervenor contend that all the drivers sought are
within the unit represented ; by ,tl-ie ;Intervenor and covered by the
current and preceding corltracts,s and that therefore the current con-
tract is a bar to this proceeding. They also contend that there is no
identifiable group of over-the-road drivers, but rather a single group
of truckdrivers who are used interchangeably for local and long-
distance driving as needed.' .
In December 1944, following a consent election," the Intervenor
was certified as the collective-bargaining representative of "all pro-
duction and maintenance employees, including watchmen, but exclud-
ing shipping clerks, office employees, foremen, and other supervisors
of higher rank." 9 The Intervenor has continuously represented and
bargained for the Employer's employees since that time. The recog-
4 The Intervenor' s motion to intervene was granted by the hearing officer subject to, and
for the purpose of, showing that its contract is Fi bar. Petitioner opposes the intervention
on the ground that the Intervenor is not in compliance with Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) of
the Act.. In view of its alleged contractual interest in the unit sought by the Petitioner,
the Intervenor was entitled to intervene and 'participate fully, notwithstanding its non-
compliance with the filing requirements of the Act. General Electric Company, 85 NLRB
150; Westinghouse Electric Corporation , 87 NLRB 463. The hearing officer's ruling
granting the motion is therefore affirmed insofar as it permitted the intervention.
Although the condition and limitation should not have been placed on the intervention, the
Intervenor was not prejudiced, since it participated fully in the hearing . It may be
further noted that, even if Campbell Soup Company, 76 NLRB 950, relied on by Peti-
tioner, were controlling, the motion to intervene was properly granted in view of our
determination herein.
6 The Employer's motion to dismiss the petition, on the ground that on its face it does
not seek an appropriate unit because the exclusions set forth therein are neither compre-
hensive nor customary, is denied. The Petitioner contends , and we agree , that the unit
sought is clear , although the exclusions may not be clearly stated. A petition is not a
pleading and is not, therefore, subject to dismissal because it does not request a unit in
the precise form which the Board ultimately finds appropriate. S. S. White Dental
Manufacturing Company, 109 NLRB 1117.
It was agreed that the local drivers are within the unit and covered by the contract.
'The hearing officer referred to the Board motions by the Employer and by the
Intervenor to dismiss the petition on the grounds (1) that the current contract is a bar
to this proceeding, and (2) that the unit sought is inappropriate. For the reasons stated
below, the motions to dismiss on the ground that the contract is a bar are granted. In
view of this determination, we find it unnecessary to determine the question of the
appropriateness of the unit sought.
B In Case No. G-R-1070, not reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions and Orders.
B All the parties apparently agreed that this was the language of the unit description as
it appeared in the consent-election agreement, but they refused to stipulate to that fact
because of qualifications which the Employer and the Intervenor sought to add to such a
stipulation . However, we take official notice of the unit as set forth in the consent`
election agreement in the prior case, in accordance with our usual practice of taking
official notice of our own records and proceedings , particularly those pertaining to em-
ployees of the same employer . Mount Hope Finishing Company, et al., 106 NLRB 480.
STERLING FAUCET COMPANY 1227
21itIOli clauses in the current agreement and in the immediately preced-
ing contract describe the unit as "all production and maintenance
•e7riployees at the [five Employers'] plants, . . . excluding shipping
clerks, factory clerks, timekeepers, cafeteria workers, clerical and
salaried employees, subforemen, foremen, and other excluded cate-
gories of employees, as required by The National Labor Relations
Act, as amended."
At the time of the Intervenor's certification in 1944, the Employer
had no employees who did truckdriving, either local or long distance.
All product hauling was done under contract by a local transfer
company. About 1949, Jack Ward, who had been employed contin-
uously for about 3 years in various jobs around the plant," became the
sole truckdriver. At about this time, the Employer started to do
some long-distance hauling on its own, and Ward made some trips
to Pittsburgh, Chicago, and Cleveland, for which he received the
same rate of pay as for his local driving. However, the major portion
of the long-distance hauling was handled by the transfer company.
Ward continued in the Employer's employ until about April 1953,
and during all that time remained the sole driver.
Prior to April 1953, the Employer used only a small truck for
whatever deliveries it made itself. Not long after Ward left, the
Employer acquired a tractor-trailer. Since that time, its trucking
operations have been gradually increased 11 as its production opera-
tions have expanded, but the transfer company continues to do some
of the Employer's long-distance hauling.12
The Petitioner contends that under the unit description of the recent
contracts, the over-the-road drivers have been excluded from the con-'
tracts' coverage, that the recognition clause cannot be extended, and
that such drivers constitute an appropriate unit either because of their
different interests or as a residual unit. The Employer and the Inter-
venor contend that, notwithstanding the absence of any reference to
truckdrivers in the recognition clause, they have been included within
the unit at all times and have been represented and bargained for by
the Intervenor."
11 The last such job was as a material handler in the receiving department.
" . On January 1, 1954, the Employer had 2 pieces of equipment for over -the-road
deliveries , and on January 1, 1956, it had 5 or 6. At the time of the hearing, it had a
total of' 11 pieces of equipment, of which 8 were tractor-trailers and 3 were smaller trucks.
These 11 trucks are used interchangeably for local or long distance trips as needed. The
Petitioner nevertheless contends that there are approximately 12 drivers who are pri-
marily over -the-road drivers.
The transfer company also operates some of the Employer's equipment under their'
agreement,
33 There was testimony to the effect that drivers have been covered by the contracts
since 1944 . ' On the other hand , the Employer's vice president and secretary, who has
participated in the Employer' s contract negotiations since 1944, testified that drivers have
been covered "ever since the company did any product hauling ." In view of the un-
contradicted testimony concerning the development of the Employer 's trucking operations,
it is clear that drivers could not have been covered prior to 1949 at the earliest.
1223 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The current contract was executed on November 10, 1956, effective
November 1, 1956, for a term of 3 years. The Petitioner first requested
recognition in April 1957, and the petition was filed on May 2, 1957.
It is thus clear that the current contract is a bar to the present pro-
ceeding if the employees sought have been added to the existing unit
and have been covered by the contract.14
The disagreements of the parties are basically as to (1) the effect
of the inclusion of the classification "Truck Driver & Labor Local"
in the hourly wage schedule appended to the contracts and the posting
of a schedule of rates for over-the-road drivers, and (2) the basis on
which the over-the-road drivers receive their various employee benefits.
The Hourly Wage Schedule and The Alleged Supplement
Appended to the copy of the current contract which is in evidence as
Intervenor's Exhibit No. 1 is an hourly wage schedule 15 for various
classifications. One of these classifications is "Truck Driver & Labor
Local" with a top rate of $1.55 per hour.ls The Employer and the
Intervenor take the position that this classification is intended and
has been interpreted to apply to the over-the-road drivers when they
do local driving or work in the plant." The Petitioner contends that
since this same classification has admittedly appeared in all of the
contracts since 1944, it was intended to apply to the first truckdriver's
job as it existed at that time and to the existing comparable jobs now
held by the local drivers.
Because of the difficulty in securing and retaining satisfactory trac-
tor-trailer drivers, the Employer makes it a practice to assign its long-
distance drivers to work in the plant whenever they cannot be sent
out on either a local or long-distance trip, in order that they may be
employed at all times. The Employer and the Intervenor contend
that, since such assignment of drivers is for the benefit of the drivers,.
rather than of the Employer, and is usually to laborer jobs carrying
the rate of $1.38 per hour, the drivers would be paid the lower rate
under the contract provision covering assignments for the benefit of
employees. However, in order to retain the truckdrivers, the phrase
14 American Cast Products , Inc., 110 NLRB 705.
15 The copy in evidence indicates that the new rates were effective September 1, 1956,
whereas the contract was effective November 1, 1956. However , the testimony throughout
the hearing refers to the wage increase for all covered employees as being effective
November 1, 1956, and nowhere was it stated that they became effective on any other date.
16 The same classification appeared in the appendix to the immediately preceding con-
tract with a top hourly rate of $1.45.
17 It is undisputed that some of the drivers here sought regularly spend as much as
40 percent of their time in local driving for which they are paid at the hourly rate. On
occasion they have been assigned to such work as assisting in the garage or unloading the
shipping department , for which they have also been paid at the hourly rate. However,
it appears that assignments to work within the plant occur infrequently . It is also un-
disputed that the over -the-road drivers received an increase to $1.55 per -hour effective
November 1, 1956.
STERLING FAUCET COMPANY 1229
"Labor Local" has been interpreted to require the payment of the
standard rate of $1.55 an hour to truckdrivers rather than any lower
rate . It is undisputed that it has been the Employer's practice to pay
the higher rate in these circumstances.
In November or December 1956, a schedule of driving rates la
on a mileage basis for over-the-road drivers, as well as hourly layover,
local driving, and holiday and vacation rates of $1. 55,19 was posted
in the plant. The copy of the schedule which is in evidence 21 con-
tains the typed name of Victor D. Rosso,21 and the signature of the
Intervenor's representative and initials of the Employer's vice presi-
dent and director of industrial and public relations after notations
of "0. K." In general the testimony of the Petitioner's witnesses
was that at the time of the posting only the typed name of Victor D.
Rosso appeared thereon.
The Employer and the Intervenor contend that this schedule is
a "supplement" to the current contract and indicates their under-
standing that the over-the-road drivers are covered by the contract.22
They take the further position that the schedule was posted pursuant
to section XIII of the contract," which, they state, has been inter-
preted as applying to the establishment of new piece rates for old
jobs 24 although it refers to "new job classifications and rates of pay
71 This schedule is dated November 20, 195G. It states that "The following pay schedule
with respect to city delivery and layover has been in effect since November 1, 1956 : . . .
"The mileage rates remainded unchanged from those of the preceding year. The hourly
rate was raised from $1.45. The Petitioner points to the fact that most drivers were
actually receiving $1.49 per hour prior to November 1, 1956, rather than $1.45. The
Employer explains this discrepancy as being the result of merit increases which were not
authorized by the prior contract. In order to even off all rates to conform to the contract
rates, truckdrivers, as well as several other classifications admittedly within the unit,
received less than a 10-cent-per-hour increase.
The Employer testified that during the contract negotiations in November 1956, there
was discussion as to whether the increase for the drivers was to be to $1.59 or $1.55,
and that the latter amount was agreed upon. The Employer further testified that there
was a lengthy discussion of the mileage rates for these employees , and it was only after
the Employer showed a high gross earnings record for them that the Intervenor dropped
its request for an increase in mileage rates to 10 cents per mile for a single-man run and
settled for the increase in the hourly rate.
20 Intervenor's Exhibit No. 2.
21 Employer's traffic manager, who supervises the over-the-road drivers, as well as local
drivers, and warehouse, shipping, receiving, and garage employees.
21 The Petitioner contends that a letter dated May 13, 1957, from the Intervenor solicit-
ing the membership of the disputed employees, shows that the Intervenor did not in fact
understand that it represented those employees. The letter states, in part, "I am sure
you will agree with me that it would be to your advantage to be a member of the same
Union that represents all the other workers in the various . . . plants. " This language
is equivocal , at best, and must be considered in the light of the conduct of the contracting
parties.
I "New job classifications and rates of pay for the same may be established by the
Employers from time to time. If the Union is dissatisfied with the classification and rate
of pay, then it shall have the right to bring this up as a grievance, and the same shall be
carried through the grievance procedure under this contract."
11 The Employer and the Intervenor testified that because there are 2,800 different rates
in the plants , they cannot be discussed during the regular contract negotiations , and this
method of revising the rates has therefore been followed for many years. The Employer
further stated that to include rates in the contract itself would result in the disclosure of
1230 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
for the same." In disputing this position, the Petitioner contends
that the schedule is not a "supplement" on its face and does not
purport to be a supplement, that mileage rates cannot be equated, to-
piece rates, and that the procedure is not within section XIII of the
contract, since that section relates only to new classifications, whereas
this is an old classification.
We find it unnecessary to determine the nature of the posted sched-
ule. Whether it is,a "supplement," or was posted pursuant to section
XIII, or was merely a notification to the drivers of their new hourly
rate, it evidences the extension by the. parties of the contract rate to
the over-the-road drivers and, considered in conjunction with the un-
disputed testimony, supports the. conclusion that the over-the-road
drivers have been incorporated into the contract unit, have been rep-
resented by the Intervenor, and have been covered by the provisions
of the contracts.
Benefits of Over-the-Road Drivers
In further support of their position, the Employer and the Inter-
venor contend that they have consistently applied the provisions of
their contracts to the over-the-road drivers.25 In addition, to the
hourly rate, the alleged following of* the contract procedure in, estab-_
lishing mileage rates, and the discussion of their income during negoti-
ations, the over-the-road drivers receive the same vacation, holiday,,
and insurance benefits as the local drivers and all other employees
admittedly within the unit. Noncovered employees receive different
benefits.26 Also, it is undisputed that there is a common seniority list
for local and over-the-road drivers, and that the traffic manager assigns
local trips to the over-the-road drivers as they are needed rather than
on the basis of classification."
. The Employer further contends that the checkoff provisions of the
contracts have been applied to the over-the-road drivers. It states
that it has at all times, upon transfer of an employee from one. posi-
trade secrets to competitors . Accordingly, they take the position that similar schedules
have been posted under this section of the contract for various existing job classifications
throughout the history of bargaining between them , and in the absence of a grievance by
the Intervenor , such schedules become binding agreements which add to the contract.
25 Although the Petitioner admits that the disputed drivers enjoy certain benefits which
are similar to those of the covered employees , it takes the position that they have not been
granted pursuant to the contract but were unilaterally instituted by the Employer merely
as a method of operation.
26 For example , vacation pay under the contract is computed from July 1 to June 30 of
the next year , and if a new employee enters on duty prior to July 1, he receives a pro-
rated amount of additional vacation pay for the extra period worked. Vacations for non-
covered employees are computed from January 1 and they do not receive a proration for
any additional time.
2% As noted above , over -the-road drivers may spend as much as 40 percent of. their time
on local trips for which they are paid at the hourly rate . Local drivers on occasions may
make over-the-road trips , either alone or with a regular long-distance driver, in which
event the local driver receives the same mileage rate as the over-the -road drivers. In the
20 months preceding the hearing , local drivers made 42 such trips.
STERLING: FAUCET: COMPANY 1231.
tion to. another, checked the application of the contract -'to 'the .new.
job.' If it is found that the new position is in a noncovered category,,
an order is automatically issued_to.the payroll section to discontitiile-
the checkoff. However, in the,case of one of the over-the-road drivers,.
who had authorized a checkoff while in 'an admittedly covered job,. it
continued to check off his dues until he requested cancellation of the
authorization some 6 months after his transfer.28
The contracting parties take the position that grievances have been
processed for over-the-road drivers under their prior contracts, and
submitted into evidence copies of two grievance records.29 The Peti-
tioner , on the other hand, contends that the grievance procedure has
not, in fact, been so applied. In support of this position, the Peti-
tioner contends that the drivers were never informed that they were
covered by the existing contract or were subject to its grievance pro-
cedures. It points to the fact that in May 1.957 management officials ,o
met with a group of the over-the-road drivers, without participation
by the Intervenor, to discuss their complaints, many of which were
thereafter settled. It is not disputed that at the time the drivers
were hired and also at this May 1957 meeting the drivers were told that
the Intervenor had a contract covering the plant. All. but one of the
several drivers who testified at the hearing stated that they did not
understand this to mean that the drivers were covered by that contract.
It appears, however; that the interpretation -by the drivers may have
been influenced by their failure to understand that the contracts
with the Intervenor have been open shop contracts under which they
could be covered although they did not become members of that
union.,,
The May 1957 meeting occurred as a result of a prior visit of some
of the over-the-road drivers to the home of the Employer's personnel
manager, at which time the latter told the drivers that he would
arrange the meeting which took place. It is undenied that the
21 The Petitioner 's position that this employee's withdrawal of his cheekoff'authorization
upon request demonstrates that the checkoff was not considered applicable to over-the-road
drivers is clearly untenable . The uncontradicted testimony indicates that the authoriza-
tion in question had been in effect for more than a year and at that time , unlike the
present practice , an employee could cancel his authorization at any time after 1 year.
Such authorizations were not then considered to renew themselves and to become binding
for another year where the employee failed to exercise his right to escape therefrom at the
end of the year.
21 It is noted that these grievances were filed while the employees involved were not
employed as full-time drivers. For example, one was filed by an individual seeking a
transfer to the job of truckdriver. The other was filed by a warehouse employee-who was
assigned to make a single trip and protested the method of payment for that trip on a
mileage rather than an hourly basis., It was testified, however, that it was as a result of
this latter grievance that the drivers now receive either the mileage or hourly rate,
whichever is greater, for any trip.
8U The Employer' s president , vice president and director of industrial and public rela-
tions , personnel manager , and traffic manager.
81 This widespread misunderstanding was shown by the testimony of the drivers at the
hearing.
1232 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
drivers had discussed their "gripes" with the traffic manager, were
dissatisfied with his disposition, and therefore took the matter up
with the personnel manager. Nevertheless, the Employer testified
that such a visit to the personnel manager's home is not unusual and
that the May meeting was in accordance with the contractual grievance
procedure, which does not require that the Intervenor be represented
at the first step32
It is difficult under these circumstances to characterize the May
meeting as the first step of the contractual grievance procedure, but
the Petitioner does not dispute the Employer's testimony that such
visits to the personnel manager are not unusual.
Although the Board has traditionally held that truckdrivers who
comprise an appropriate unit 33 may be separately represented,34 it is
equally well settled that where employees who may otherwise consti-
tute an appropriate unit have been covered under an existing contract,
such contract is a bar to an -untimely petition 35 The fact that a new
category or operation has not been specifically named in the recog-
nition clause of the contract asserted as a bar is not controlling."
Rather, the Board looks to the construction of the parties and their
practices under the contract31
While the instant case is not entirely free from doubt, we believe
that the contracting parties have, by their conduct as described
above,38 evinced an intention to include the over-the-road drivers
within the scope of the contract. Accordingly, as the petition in this
case was filed after the execution of the contract, we find that the con-
tract is a bar to a present determination of representatives. We shall,
therefore, dismiss the petition.
[The Board dismissed the petition filed in Case No. 6-RC-1950.]
32 The grievance clause of the contract provides : ". . .- the aggrieved employee, who
may be accompanied by a representative of the Union , shall take up the grievance with
the foreman or supervisor directly involved . . . 21 In the absence of the foreman
or supervisor . . . the grievance shall be referred to the General Superintendent for
attention. . . .
"If the grievance is not adjusted satisfactorily , it then becomes a Union grievance...'."
W As indicated above , we do not decide whether the unit sought herein is appropriate.
34 See The Lawson Milk Company, 116 NLRB 549; Ritexvay Motor Parts Corp., 115
NLRB 294.
35 See American Cast Products, Inc., 110 NLRB 705. Cf. Miller Manufacturing Company,
110 NLRB 909; Ukiah Pine Lumber Company, Inc., d/b/a Hi-Way Lumber Company,
87 NLRB 468.
38 See Josten Engraving Company, d/b/a American Yearbook Company, 98 NLRB 49.
Further, truckdrivers may be included within a production and maintenance unit without
a specific _reference to that category. See, e. g., Aerial Products, Inc., 111 NLRB 385, in
which the Board defined the unit only as "all production and maintenance employees"
although the parties had stipulated that the appropriate unit consisted of "all production
and maintenance employees, including truck drivers."
a; See W. S. Tyler Company, 93 NLRB 523.
38 Although the May 1957 meeting does not appear to have been a first -step grievance
meeting within the terms of the contract , we believe that this factor is outweighed by
the other matters considered, i. e., the discussion of mileage rates and hourly increase
during the negotiations and the application of the various contract provisions ( hourly
rates ; vacation, holiday, and insurance benefits ; seniority rights ; and dues checkoff) to
the over-the-road drivers.
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY 1233
MEMBER JENKINB, dissenting in part:
Although I concur in the result reached by my colleagues, I would
dismiss the petition on the ground that the unit sought is inappro-
priate.39 For the reasons stated in my dissent in West Virginia Pulp
and Paper Company, 118 NLRB 1595, I would refuse to find as a bar
the contract of District 50, United Mine Workers of America, which is
not in compliance with the filing requirements of the Act.
89 On the basis of the facts stated in the majority opinion, it is clear that an appropriate
unit of truckdrivers in this plant would consist of both over -the-road and local drivers,
in view of their frequent interchange and their common functions , supervision , employee
benefits, seniority , and method of payment . General Electric Company, Aircraft Gas
Turbine Division, 116 NLRB 1396.
General Electric Company, Petitioner and American Federation
of Technical Engineers , AFL-C10, Local 142. Case No. 5-RM-
136. January 2,1958
SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER
On July 19, 1950, after an election conducted pursuant to a Decision
and Direction of Election,' the Board issued a Supplemental De-
cision, Certification of Representatives and Order in the above-entitled
proceeding, in which International Federation of Technical Engi-
neers, Architects and Draftsmen's Union, AFL, the predecessor to
the Union named in the caption above,' was certified as the collective-
bargaining representative of the following employees :
All draftsmen, draftsmen apprentices, designers, detailers, tracers,
and trainees at the West Lynn apparatus department plants of
General Electric Company, 40 Federal Street, West Lynn, Massa-
chusetts, excluding all other employees, guards, and supervisors as
defined in Section 2 (11) of the Act, as amended.
On February 26, 1957, the Union requested the Board to clarify
its certification by finding that the classification of engineering de-
signers was included within the certified unit. On March 22, 1957,
the Board notified the parties to show cause why the request should
not be granted, and on April 11, 1957, the Employer filed a "Re-
sponse" thereto, contending that the Union's request for clarification
should be dismissed. On May 7, 1957, the Board remanded the
matter to the Regional Director for the First Region for the purpose
of receiving evidence on the issues involved, and pursuant thereto,
a hearing was held on June 10 and 12, 1957, before Robert S. Fuchs,
189 NLRB 726, 734 (voting group 17).
a On July 22, 1953, the Board amended the Certification of Representatives to show
Local 142, American Federation of Technical Engineers, as the certified bargaining
representative.
119 NLRB No. 146.
476321-58-vol. 119-79