Telecomputing Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Apr 10, 1959

123 N.L.R.B. 708 (N.L.R.B. 1959)

708 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
bus, Ohio. At the time of this consolidation, the Employer had 26
employees, Fairmont had 31 employees. The expanded operations of
the Employer remained substantially the same in character, except
that it acquired a cottage cheese operation from Fairmont, employing
two or three employees. The Employer also uses two or three of the
former Fairmont employees to do maintenance work which was for-
merly subcontracted. The employee classifications at the Bowman
plant remained substantially unchanged.
At least 30 percent of the Employer's enlarged complement had been
employed at the time the 1958 contract with the Dairy Workers was.
executed, and at least 50 percent of the plant job classifications were
also in existence at that time. The merger and consolidation of the
operations of Bowman of Ohio and Fairmont did not result in the
creation of an entirely new operation with major personnel changes.2'
The employees transferred from Fairmont to Bowman have no par-
ticular skills and no special interests not possessed by the original
employee complement of the Employer with whom they are now com-
mingled.' Accordingly, pursuant to the rules established by the Board
in the General Extrusion case ,4 we find that the Dairy Workers' con-
tract of February 1, 1958, covers the employees of both the former
Richer Dairy and the Fairmont Foods plant, and is a bar to the,
proceeding. We shall, therefore, dismiss the petition.
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
a See New Jersey Natural Gas Company, 101 NLRB 251, 252 , where the Board found'
the merger of two gas utility systems which resulted in a fivefold expansion of the-
Employer 's original operation , as comparable to an entirely new operation.
Builders Emporium , 97 NLRB 1113, 1115.
General Extrusion Company, Inc ., et al., 121 NLRB 1165.
Whittaker Controls Division of Telecomputing Corporation
(Lynwood Plant ) and International Union, United Automobile,,
Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America,.
UAW-AFI.-CIO
Whittaker Controls Division of Telecomputing Corporation,
(Hollywood Plant ) and International Union, United Auto-
mobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of
America, UAW-AFL-CIO. Cases Nos. 21-RC-5344 and 201-RC-
5494. April 10, 1959
DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
On December 19, 1958, the Board issued a Decision and Direction
of Election in Case No. 21-RC-5344,1 finding therein that a unit
I Whittaker Controls Division of Telecom'puting Corporation , 122 NLRB 624 , hereink
called the Lynwood case.
123 NLRB No. 90.
WHITTAKER CONTROLS DIV. OF TELECOMPUTING CORP. 709
composed of production and maintenance employees at the Lynwood
plant of the Employer's Whittaker Controls Division was an appro-
priate unit . On December 30, 1958, the Employer filed a motion for
reconsideration of the decision in that case , contending that the Board
:should find that a unit of all the Employer 's plants is the only appro-
priate unit.
On November 3, 1958, the Petitioner filed a petition in Case No.
-21-RC-5494,2 seeking a production and maintenance unit at the
Hollywood plant of the Employer 's Whittaker Controls Division and
a hearing was held in that case before Max Steinfeld , hearing officer.
The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from preju-
dicial error and are hereby affirmed.
As these cases are related cases, involving the same parties and issues
the cases are hereby consolidated for the purpose of decision and
,disposition.
Upon reconsideration of the Lynwood case, and upon the entire
:record in these cases ,' the Board 4 finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in coirunerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees 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. In the decision in the Lynwood case, the Board, as noted above,
found appropriate a single-plant unit of the Lynwood plant of the
Employer's Whittaker Controls Division , on the basis of the geo-
graphical separation of the plant , absence of employee interchange,
local autonomy in matters affecting labor relations , the absence of a
bargaining history, and the fact that no labor organization sought
a broader unit. In the Hollywood case the Petitioner , as noted, seeks
It unit limited to the Hollywood plant of the Employer 's Whittaker
Controls Division . It is, however , willing to proceed to an election
in a unit combining both of these plants, if the Board finds that such
a unit is appropriate . In support of its motion for reconsideration
in the Lynwood case and in the Hollywood case, the Employer con-
tends, as it did in the original Lynwood proceedings , that the only
.appropriate unit for its employees is an employerwide unit, pointing
to additional factors which have arisen since the hearing in the
Lynwood case which, it argues , add further support to its contentions.
2 Herein called the Hollywood case.
a As the records and briefs in these cases adequately present the positions of the parties,
Employer 's motion for oral argument is hereby denied.
'Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its
powers herein to a three -member panel [ Members Rodgers , Jenkins, and Fanning].
710 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
As the Board has noted in the Lynwood case , while there are factors
here, such as centralized administration and labor relations policy-
making, which might in other contexts support the appropriateness
of an Employerwide unit, these factors do not compel the conclusion
that such a unit is the only appropriate unit. With respect to the
additional factors relied on by the employer, the extension of the
profit-sharing plan to other divisions, and the standardized year-end
holiday shutdown and medical-life insurance program, are merely
cumulative evidence of such centralization. Nor do the further
changes in corporate structure or the permanent transfer of em-
ployees, neither of which affects the units petitioned for herein, com-
pel a different conclusion. Accordingly, we reaffirm the Board's
rejection of the Employer's contention that only an Employerwide
unit is appropriate.
There remains for consideration the question of the appropriate
unit or units for the Lynwood and Hollywood plants in the light of
present circumstances. Although the Board found in the Lynwood
case that a unit limited to that plant was an appropriate unit, we
are convinced upon consideration of the records in both cases that
this decision cannot stand.
Thus, the Hollywood and Lynwood operations are jointly engaged
in the production of aircraft valves, which are products completely
distinct from those produced by any of the Employer's other plants.
All standard parts used in the Whittaker Controls operations are
stocked at Lynwood and are sent upon order to Hollywood. At Holly-
wood a subassembly operation takes place. The subassemblies are
then sent to Lynwood where they are placed in stock until needed for
the final assembly operation, which takes place at Lynwood. Person-
nel from both plants meet regularly for purposes of coordinating
engineering, purchasing and production, and for establishing prices.
A shuttle system of trucks operates between the two plants, delivering
parts at Hollywood and returning the subassemblies to Lynwood. A
vice president of the Employer is general manager of the Whittaker
Controls Division, with authority over both of these plants. Thus,
the production of the final product of the Whittaker Controls Divi-
sion is a combined effort of the Lynwood and Hollywood plants and
the operations of these two plants are interdependent. In these cir-
cumstances, we find that a two-plant unit, including employees at
both the Lynwood and Hollywood plants, is appropriate,5 and that
5 At the second hearing the Employer introduced additional leaflets used by the Peti-
tioner in its campaign to organize the Lynwood , Hollywood , and the Whittaker Gyro
plants. The Employer contends that this simultaneous organizational campaign by the
Union at three plants of the Employer, and the references in the leaflets to common
problems of the employees at the various plants, constitute admissions that the overall
WHITTAKER CONTROLS DIV. OF TELECOMPUTING CORP. 711
single-plant units at such plants are therefore inappropriate. We
shall, therefore , to this limited extent , grant the Employer's motion
for reconsideration and shall set aside and vacate the Decision and
Direction of Election heretofore issued in the Lynwood case. As the
Petitioner is willing to represent the two -plant unit , we shall direct
an election therein.
In the Decision in the Lynwood case, the Board considered various
disputed categories of employees , including some in the unit and ex-
cluding others. No reason appears for reaching a different result
here. Insofar as such categories exist at the Hollywood plant, we shall
place them in the same manner.
At the Hollywood plant there exists, in addition, the planner,
prototype , who performs duties necessary to plan and expedite pro-
curement of parts for small production runs, maintaining daily status
records of all parts in process and conducting a daily followup to see
that schedules are maintained . The Employer contends that this
employee is a plant clerical and should be included in the production
and maintenance unit, while the Petitioner contends that this em-
ployee should be excluded , as his interests are closely allied to those
of management and he is a professional or technical employee. We
find that he is not a professional or technical employee and that his
interests are sufficiently allied to those of the production and main-
tenance employees to warrant his inclusion, and we shall therefore
include him.
Accordingly , on the basis of the foregoing and the entire record,
we find that all production , maintenance , and plant clerical employees
at the Employer 's plant No . 1 at Hollywood , California, and plant
No. 2 at Lynwood, California , including the planner , prototype, and
the employees listed in Appendix A attached hereto, but excluding
the employees listed in Appendix B attached hereto, all office clerical
employees , watchmen, guards , professional employees , and super-
visors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of
the Act.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion for Reconsideration in Case
No. 21-RC-5344 be, and it hereby is, granted to the limited extent set
multiplant unit is the only appropriate unit for this Employer . We find no merit to this
contention for, as noted in the Lynwood decision , the fact that the Petitioner may be
attempting to organize the Employer 's employees on a broader basis does not, contrary to
the Employer 's contention , render the narrower unit sought inappropriate under Sec-
tion 9 ( c) (5), prohibiting the Board from giving controlling weight to extent of organiza-
tion, where , as here, the independent factors noted above establish the appropriateness of
such narrower unit. See The Berger Brothers Company, 116 NLRB 439, 441.
712 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
forth herein above, and that the Decision and Direction of Election
therein, issued on December 19, 1958, be, and it hereby is, vacated
and set aside.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
APPENDIX A
1. PRODUCTION
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 & 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 & Prototype, A, B
Inspector, Test
Janitor & 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
Operator, Borematic, A, B, C
Operator, Burgmaster
Operator, Drill Press, A, B, C
Operator, Engine Lathe, Hardinge,
A, B, C
AND MAINTENANCE EMPLOYEES
II. PLANT
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
Operator, Engine Lathe, Production
Operator, Engine Lathe, Toolroom,
A, B, C
Operator, Honing, A, B, C
Operator, Jig Bore & 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 & Setup
Operator, Turret Lathe, A, B, C
Painters
Plater, A, B, C
Plater, Hard Chrome
Polisher & Buffer, A, B, C
Stores Attendant
Technician, Burring
Technician, Honing & Lapping
Technician, Shipping & Receiving
Technician, Industrial X-Ray
Testers
Timekeeper
Tool & Die Maker, A, B, C
Tool Maker, A, B, C
Truck Driver, A, B, C
CLERICALS
Coordinator, Manufacturing, Traffic
Coordinator, Manufacturing, Special
Packaging Section
Coordinator, Manufacturing, Stockroom
Dispatcher, Stock, A, B, C
Expediter, Shop, A, B, C
Followup man, Purchasing
APPENDIX B
1. SUPERVISOR
Assistant Foreman, Maintenance
II. OFFICE
Biller Typist
Clerk, Cost
Clerks, File, A, B, C-(other than those
included above)
Clerk, Mail
CLERICALS
Clerk, Order
Clerk, Typist
Cost, Estimator
Operator, Key Punch
Scheduler, Production
III. TECHNICAL EMPLOYEES
Technician, Assembly & Test