Telecomputing Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 19, 1958

122 N.L.R.B. 624 (N.L.R.B. 1958)

624 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Respondents cease and desist from engaging in the unfair labor practices
found.5
One of the objectives of the Act is to stabilize industrial relations and this
Board endeavors to encourage a reasonable stability in existing bargaining rela-
tionships-the Board's 1-year rule with reference to certifications is based on these
principles.
In view of the fact that the impairment of noncompliance has now been elim-
inated and there is no contention that the contract under consideration has been
used in such a fashion as to give the Union an unlawful advantage, and since the
parties could now lawfully execute an agreement identical to the one involved
herein, the Trial Examiner believes a negative order adequate to effectuate the
policies of the Act and in keeping with the objective of the Act to achieve stable
industrial relations.
ULTIMATE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
In summary, the Trial Examiner finds and concludes:
1. The evidence adduced in this proceeding satisfies the Board's requirements
for the assertion of jurisdiction herein.6
2. Respondent Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5)
of the Act.
3. By conditioning employment on clearance from, or membership in, Re-
spondent Union and denying employment to Morton H. Baker because Respondent
Union failed to grant clearance, Respondent Company violated Section 8(a)(1)
and (3) of the Act.
4. By executing an agreement containing union-membership conditions of em-
ployment at a time when the labor organization party to the agreement (Re-
spondent Union) was not in compliance with Section 9(f), (g), and (h) of the
Act, Respondent Company violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act and
Respondent Union violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and (2) of the Act.
5. The aforesaid activities are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within
the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
6. The evidence adduced does not establish that Respondent Union caused or
attempted to cause Respondent Company to refuse to hire Morton H. Baker.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
5 At the conclusion of the hearing in this matter, the Trial Examiner posed the question
noted above and asked counsel for the General Counsel to specify the remedy he deemed
appropriate. Nevertheless, he has not come forward with any suggestions concerning
appropriate remedial action.
e Schenley Distillers, Inc., a Delaware corporation engaged in the production of beverage
distilled spirits maintains plants throughout the United States. The plant involved
herein is located in Lawrenceburg, Ind. During the period of time material herein goods
and materials valued in excess of $1,000,000 were shipped to the Lawrenceburg plant
from States other than Indiana and goods and materials valued in excess of $5,000,000
were shipped from said plant to points and places in States other than Indiana.
Whittaker Controls Division of Telecomputing Corporation
(Lynwood Plant) 1 and International Union, United Automo-
bile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of Amer-
ica, UAW-AFL-CIO , Petitioner.. Case No. 921-RC-5344. De-
cember 19, 1958
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Ben Grodsky, hear-
ing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are
free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
1 The name of the Employer appears as corrected at the hearing.
122 NLRB No. 81.
WHITTAKER CONTROLS DIVISION OF TELECOMPUTING CORP. 625
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 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 labor organization involved claims to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section
9(c) (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
4. Through its various divisions and subsidiaries, Telecomputing
Corporation operates various plants in Los Angeles County, Calif.2
Aircraft valves are manufactured at the Lynwood and Hollywood
plants of the corporation's Whittaker Controls Division; gyroscopic
devices at the Van Nuys plant of its Whittaker Gyro Division;
automatic data processing equipment and systems at the North
Hollywood plant of its Data Instruments Division; and nuclear
warhead testing equipment at the North Hollywood plant of its
subsidiary Enterprise Development Corporation. Electronic research,
design, development, and production are conducted at the Culver
City plant of its subsidiary Brubaker Electronics, Inc., and at the
recently established Chatsworth test facility tests are conducted,
mainly for products of Whittaker Controls Division.
The Petitioner seeks a production and maintenance unit limited
to the above-mentioned Lynwood plant. The Employer contends
that the only appropriate unit is one encompassing all the plants
of Telecomputing Corporation in the Los Angeles area.
In an earlier proceeding3 the Board found appropriate a unit
limited to the Lynwood plant involved. herein, rejecting the Em-
ployer's contention that the only appropriate unit was one including
employees at both the Lynwood and Hollywood plants. In a still
earlier proceeding4 the Board had found appropriate a unit limited
to what is now the Van Nuys plant of Whittaker Gyro Division,
rejecting the Employer's contention that the appropriate unit should
include the aforementioned Lynnwood and Hollywood plants. In
these decisions the Board noted that there was a considerable degree
of functional and administrative integration between the various
plants involved. On the other hand, the Board also noted the
geographical separation of the plants, the absence of employee inter-
change, the degree of local plant autonomy, the absence of a bar-
gaining history, the fact that no labor organization sought a
z It also operates a test facility in New Mexico , which is not involved in this proceeding.
Wm. R. Whittaker Co., Ltd., 117 NLRB 339.
4 Schwien Engineering Co., 114 NLRB 173.
505395-59--vol. 122-f1
626 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
broader unit, and with respect to the Van Nuys plant, the difference
in products manufactured; and on the basis of these latter factors
the Board found that the separate plant unit sought was appropriate.
The record in the instant case establishes that since the earlier
proceedings there have been certain changes in corporate structure
as a result of which, inter alia, the former corporate entities in-
volved in the above-cited cases have become divisions of Tele-
computing Corporation. In consequence of these corporate changes
steps have been taken to centralize the administration of all the
plants of Telecomputing Corporation. However, there have been no
substantial changes either in the degree of functional and admin-
istrative integration of the various plants, or in the geographical
separation of the various plants, the absence of employee interchange,
and the substantial degree of local plant autonomy in matters
affecting labor relations. Moreover, as in the earlier cases, there
is no bargaining history affecting these employees and no labor
organization seeks a broader unit.5 In these circumstances we find
that the single-plant unit sought by the Petitioner is appropriate.6
The Disputed Categories
The parties generally agree that a production and maintenance
unit is appropriate and have stipulated as to the inclusion or ex-
clusion of most of the job classifications herein involved. However,
certain job classifications remain in dispute, which are herein found
to be office clerical, plant clerical, and technical. The Employer
would include, while the Petitioner would exclude, all of these
classifications.7
a. Office clerical employees and related categories
Clerk, inspection record: These clerks work in the inspection de-
partment, typing and filing data and inspection records. They work
with clerk-typists in the inspection department who were excluded
6 The fact that the Petitioner may have unsuccessfully attempted to organize the
Employer 's employees on a broader basis does not, contrary to the Employer 's contention,
render the unit sought inappropriate under Section 9(c) (5), prohibiting the Board from
giving controlling weight to the extent of organization , in view of the independent
factors establishing the appropriateness of such a unit . See The Berger Brothers Com-
pany, 116 NLRB 439, 441.
6 As the plans for consolidating all operations at a single location are concededly
speculative, they do not affect the present appropriateness of this single -plant unit.
7In the earlier decision involving this plant (footnote 3, supra ) the Board excluded
mail clerks and production schedulers as office clerical employees, excluded assembly and
test technicians as technical employees , and included purchasing or outside production
buyers and purchasing follow-up men as plant clerical or related employees. The place-
ment of these classifications is again in dispute . The instant record establishes that the
duties and responsibilities of these employees remain substantially the same as they were
at the time of the earlier proceeding . Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in that
decision , we shall exclude mail clerks, production schedulers , and assembly and test
technicians , and shall include purchasing or outside production buyers and purchasing
follow-up men.
WHITTAKER CONTROLS DIVISION OF TELECOMPUTING CORP. 627
from the unit in the prior decision.8 While the inspection depart-
ment is near the toolroom and production departments, these clerks
have very little contact with factory personnel.
Clerk, order: This clerk works in the production control depart-
ment, initiating shop orders and purchase requisitions for additional
requirements from predetermined requirements. He maintains a
constant control over parts on order as against requirements, re-
ordering parts in case of scrap or loss. His duties are similar to
those of production control planners who were excluded from the
unit in the earlier case .9
We find that the employees set forth above have the usual duties
of office clerical employees or perform work closely allied with
office clerical employees. Under these circumstances, we shall exclude
them from the unit.'°
b. Plant clerical employees and related categories
Clerk, dispatch: Working in the vicinity of one of the production
departments, and under the supervision of the general supervisor
of material handling who reports to new plant manager, this clerk
maintains requirements for shop loading and furnishes information
upon request.
Clerks, file, A, B, and C: The Employer contends only that those
file clerks who work in the shop area should be included in the unit.
These latter employees work in the blueprint area, filing and issuing
blueprints to factory personnel.
Coordinator, manufacturing order control: This job classification
does clerical work, checks on past-due schedules, follows up on
changes, and issues weekly past-due reports. The duties are similar
to those of the production control coordinators, included in the
production and maintenance unit in the prior decision."
Coordinator, manufacturing, traffic: This employee works in the
shipping department, preparing shipping tickets, maintaining records
related to shipping, and preparing parcels for shipment. This per-
son has continuous contact with plant employees.
Coordinator, manufacturing, special packaging section: This em-
ployee works in the shipping, receiving, and bond room department,
setting up packaging cards for purchase orders received from
customers for overseas shipment. He has continuous contact with
production and maintenance personnel.
Coordinator, manufacturing, stockroom: The stockroom coordi-
nator maintains the stockroom and the stockroom records, and boxes
8 Wm. R. Whittaker Co., Ltd., supra, at 342.
8 Ibid.
10 International Smelting and Refining Company, etc., 106 NLRB 223, 225.
u Wm. R. Whittaker Co., Ltd., supra, at 343.
628 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
parts and components for final assembly. This person has continuous
contact with plant employees in the course of his job.
We find that the clerical employees described above perform plant
clerical work which is closely allied to that of the production and
maintenance employees, and we shall, therefore, in accordance with
established policy, include them in the unit.12 Accordingly, on the
basis of the foregoing and the entire record, we find that all produc-
tion, maintenance, and plant clerical employees at the employer's
plant No. 2 at Lynwood, Calif., including the employees in ap-
pendix A, attached hereto, but excluding the employees in ap-
pendix B, all office clerical employees, watchmen, guards, professional
employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit
appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
12 Northrop Aircraft, Inc., 110 NLRB 1349.
APPENDIX A
1. PRODUCTION AND MAINTENANCE EMPLOYEES
Assembler, Hydraulic, A, B, C
Burrer, A, B, C
Carpenter, Maintenance, A, B, C
Electrician, Maintenance, A, B, C
Gage, Crib Attendant
Grinder, Production, A, B, C
Grinder, Tool and Cutter, A, B, C
Group Leader
Inspector, Floor
Inspector, Line, A, B, C
Inspector, Assembly Floor, A, B, C
Inspector, Bench, A, B, C
Inspector, Gage, A, B, C
Inspector, Tooling and Prototype, A, B
Inspector, Test
Janitor and Janitress, A, B, C
Leadman, Leadwoman
Machinist, Production, A, B, C
Machinist, Prototype, A, B, C
Millwright, Maintenance, A, B, C
Oiler
Operator, Bench Lathe, A, B, C
WHITTAKER CONTROLS DIVISION OF TELECOMPUTING CORP . 629
Operator, Borematic, A, B, C
Operator, Burgmaster
Operator, Drill Press A, B, C
Operator, Engine Lathe, Hardinge, A, B, C
Operator, Engine Lathe, Production
Operator, Engine Lathe, Toolroom, A, B, C
Operator, Honing, A, B, C
Operator, Jig Bore and Setup, A, B, C
Operator, Lapping, A, B, C
Operator, Machine
Operator, Milling, A, B, C
Operator, Punch Press, A, B, C
Operator, Screw, Automatic and
Operator, Turret Lathe, A, B, C
Painters
Plater, A, B, C
Plater, Hard Chrome
Polisher and Buffer, A, B, C
Stores Attendant
Technician, Burring
Setup
Technician, Honing and Lapping
Technician, Shipping and Receiving
Technician, Industrial X-Ray
Testers
Timekeeper
Tool and Die Maker, A, B, C
Tool Maker, A, B, C
Truck Driver, A, B, C
II. PLANT CLERICALS
Buyer, Purchasing or Outside Production
Clerk, Dispatch
Clerks, File, A, B, C (in blueprint room)
Clerk, Receiving
Clerk, Shipping
Clerk, Tool Room
Coordinator, Manufacturing, Order Control
Coordinator, Manufacturing, Traffic
Coordinator, Manufacturing, Special Packaging Section
Coordinator, Manufacturing, Stockroom
Dispatcher, Stock, A, B, C
Expediter, Shop, A, B, C
Followup man, Purchasing
630 DECISIO'IiS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX B
I. SUPERVISOR
Assistant Foreman, Maintenance
IT. OFFICE CLERICALS
Biller Typist
Clerk, Cost
Clerks, File, A, B, C (other than those included above)
Clerk, Mail
Clerk, Order
Clerk, Typist
Cost, Estimator
Operator, Key Punch
Scheduler, Production
III. TECHNICAL EMPLOYEES
Technician, Assembly and Test
Wm. Wolf Bakery, Inc. and American Bakery and Confectionery
Workers International Union , AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No.
15-RC-1850. December 19, 1958
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
AND VACATING DECISION AND DIRECTION OF
ELECTION
On November 18, 1958, the Board issued a Decision and Direction
of Election in the instant proceeding,' finding therein that a sub-
sisting contract was not a bar, citing as authority Keystone Coat,
Apron & Towel Supply Company, 121 NLRB 880.
On November 24, 1958, the Intervenor filed a motion for recon-
sideration and a brief in support thereof urging the Board to reverse
its finding that the contract's checkoff provision is illegal under
Keystone and to find the contract to be a bar to the petition.
Thereafter, the Board received a reply from the Petitioner and
statements from the AFL-CIO and United Steelworkers of America,
AFL-CIO, as amici curiae in support of the Intervenor's contention
with respect to Keystone but urging the Board•to find that a schism
exists removing the contract as a bar.
Upon reconsideration, the Board has concluded that Keystone was
incorrectly applied in the instant case. The checkoff clause in ques-
tion provides as follows :
I Unpublished.
122 NLRB No. 89.