Thompson Ramo Wooldridge, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 22, 1960

128 N.L.R.B. 236 (N.L.R.B. 1960)

236 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
2. By discharging Walter Maliauski on August 28, 1959, to encourage member-
ship in the said labor organization, and by discharging the same employee on Sep-
tember 25, 1959, because he had filed a charge with the National Labor Relations
Board, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8(a)^(3) and (4) of the Act.
3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees in the exercise of
rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged in and is
engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Thompson Ramo Wooldridge, Inc. and Local Union 11, Inter-
national Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Peti-
tioner. Case No. 21-RC-63392. July 22, 1960
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 Floyd C. Brewer, 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.
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. Petitioner seeks to represent a craft unit of maintenance elec-
tricians 1 at the Employer's Canoga Park plant. The Employer ob-
jects to the requested unit on the grounds, among others, that: (1)
The category of employees sought does not have true craft charac-
teristics and in any event, there are other categories of employees
who possess and exercise similar skills; and (2) no unit can be appro-
priate if confined only to one of the four operations in the western
area.
'The petition would also include construction electricians, helpers, and/or apprentices.
However, as there are no employees in these classifications, we shall make no determina-
tion as to their unit placement.
2 The plants in its western area are : Canoga Park, Reseda, and Beverly Hills, Cali-
fornia, and Denver, Colorado. The record indicates that the Employer also has plant
facilities at Rome, New Yark. However, the Employer would not include this plant's
employees in any of its unit contentions.
128 NLRB No. 32.
THOMPSON RAMO WOOLDRIDGE, INC. 237
The maintenance electricians sought by the Petitioner are employed
at Canoga Park in the maintenance department where other groups
of maintenance employees such as those concerned with air condi-
tioning and plumbing, buildings and grounds, and transportation
are also located. The electricians are part of a group identified as
the electrical and machine tool group. Each group has its own
foreman.
The electrical maintenance unit requested is composed of two lead-
men and seven maintenance electricians "A." The job description sets
forth the duties of maintenance electricians as including installing
and maintaining electrical equipment such as motors, switches, circuit
breakers, heating units, conduit systems, and switchboards; replacing
wiring and parts, diagnosing trouble, working standard computations,
and, as required, using a variety of electricians' hand tools and testing
instruments; and the reading of blueprints, wiring diagrams, and
drawings. The record otherwise establishes that they do in fact per-
form the work set forth in the job description. While the Employer
has no apprenticeship program and journeyman status is not required
as a condition of employment, prospective maintenance electricians
are questioned as to their journeyman status and are required to have
at least 4 years' electrical experience, or the equivalent of the standard
form apprenticeship prior to being hired. On the foregoing facts,
we are satisfied that contrary to the Employer's contention its main-
tenance electricians are craftsmen.'
The electronic technicians and electronic test technicians, who the
Employer contents do work similar to that performed by maintenance
electricians, are not in the maintenance department, and are engaged
mainly on the "pilot line" in the development phases of the Em-
ployer's operations. They are separately interviewed for hire and
separately supervised. While they occasionally maintain electrical
equipment used on development projects sites, and do certain other
electrical maintenance work, it appears to be routine in nature and
does not require the exercise of the skills possessed by the electricians
craft. Unlike the maintenance electrical group, this group is not
required to have 4 years of electrical experience as a condition of hire.
The air-conditioning maintenance mechanics, about whom the Em-
ployer makes similar contentions, are in the maintenance department
but under different supervision. While they may be called upon to do
emergency electrical maintenance work on Saturdays and Sundays,
when the maintenance electricians are not on duty, it does not appear
that the performance of such work requires that they exercise the
skills of the electricians craft, or that the Employer requires the same
kind of background and experience as a condition of hire as is re-
quired of the maintenance electricians.
Royal McBee Corporation, 127 NLRB 896.
238 , DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
In accord with Board precedent we find that neither the electronic
technicians, electronic test technicians, nor air-conditioning mainte-
nance mechanics are entitled to be included in a craft unit of electri-
6ians.4 Accordingly, we shall exclude them from the unit hereafter
found appropriate.'
We now consider the Employer's objections to establishment of a
single-plant unit and its contention that any unit the Board might
establish should include all employees engaged in similar work
throughout its western operations.
The record shows that while the Employer has four separate facili-
ties in the western area, maintenance electricians of the kind requested
by the Petitioner are employed only at Canoga Park and at Denver,
Colorado,6 where the Employer manufactures the items successfully
tested at Canoga Park. Tending to support establishment of a unit
including the Denver electricians are such factors as centrally estab-
lished labor relations policies, uniform employee benefits, transfers of
employees from one plant to the other, and retention of seniority on
transfer. However, these factors are not so compelling as to preclude
establishment of a unit confined to the Canoga Park electricians, for
the Canoga Park plant is geographically separated from the Denver
plant by 1,200 miles. The employees at each plant are separately
hired and supervised. The transfers from one plant to another are
permanent, and there is no interchange. While the transferred em-
ployees do retain seniority on transfer, they have no "bumping" rights
at the plant from which they were transferred. And there is no evi-
dence that either the Canoga Park or the Denver plant lacks auton-
omy in the conduct of its day-to-day operations. In these circum-
stances, and as there is neither a history of bargaining nor any union
seeking a broader unit than the one requested, we find that the unit
of craft electricians may properly be confined to the Canoga Park
plant.7 Accordingly, we find the following employees of the Em-
ployer constitute an appropriate unit for the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act :
All maintenance electricians at the Employer's 8433 Fallbrook Ave-
nue, Canoga Park, California, facilities , excluding all other em-
ployees and supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
4 There is no evidence or contention in the record to indicate that there are any other
categories of employees performing electrical work.
Royal McBee Corporation, supra, footnote 4.
The Beverly Hills and Reseda, California, facilities have no maintenance electricians
and such work is performed by independent contractors
° Cf. American-Marietta Company, 121 NLRB 912, Southeastern Concrete Products
Company, 127 NLRB 1024 In view of the foregoing determinations , we find it un-
necessary to pass on the remaining contentions of the Employer and we deny its motion
to dismiss the petition