Unelco Electronics Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 31, 1972

199 N.L.R.B. 1254 (N.L.R.B. 1972)

1254 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Unelco Electronics Corporation and International Un-
ion of District 50, Allied and Technical Workers of
the United States and Canada, Petitioner. Case 5-
RC-8062
October 31, 1972
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS FANNING AND
PENELLO
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a
hearing was held before Hearing Officer Harvey A.
Holzman. Following the hearing and pursuant to Sec-
tion 102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board
Rules and Regulations and Statements of Procedure,
Series 8, as amended, and by the direction of the
Regional Director for Region 5, this case was trans-
ferred to the National Labor Relations Board for de-
cision. Briefs were filed by the Petitioner and the Em-
ployers.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
Act, the Board has delegated its authority in connec-
tion with this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's
rulings made at the hearing and finds that they are
free from prejudicial error. They are hereby affirmed.
The Board has considered the entire record in the
case, including the briefs of the parties, and hereby
makes the following findings:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act and it will effectuate the poli-
cies of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
2. The Petitioner and the Intervenor' are each
labor organizations claiming to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. No question affecting commerce exists con-
cerning the representation of certain employees of the
Employer within the meaning of Section 9(c)(1) and
Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
The Employer is engaged in the manufacture and
assembly of phonographs and other electronic equip-
ment at two facilities, one located in Baltimore, Mary-
land (known as the Neiman Road plant), and one
located in Columbia, Maryland (known as the Berger
Road plant). The two plants are approximately 10
miles apart, in adjacent counties.
The Petitioner seeks to represent all production
and maintenance employees employed at the
Employer's Berger Road operation, excluding all of-
t International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-
CIO, District No 12, was permitted to intervene at the hearing on the basis
of a contract alleged as a bar to the instant petition.
fice clerical employees, guards, and supervisors as de-
fined in the Act. The Employer contends that the
petition should be dismissed, inter alia, because the
only appropriate unit is one consisting of the produc-
tion and maintenance employees at both plants .2 The
Intervenor's position coincides with that of the Em-
ployer.
On December 3, 1971, the Intervenor was certi-
fied as the collective-bargaining representative for
"all production and maintenance employees em-
ployed by the Employer at its Baltimore, Maryland,
location.... " At that time, only the Neiman Road
plant was in existence. Negotiations between the Em-
ployer and Intervenor began in February 1972, and
culminated on April 1, 1972, in the execution of a
collective-bargaining agreement containing a recogni-
tion clause encompassing employees at both the Nei-
man Road plant and the newly acquired Berger Road
plant. On or about May 1, 1972, the Employer began
applying the terms of the contract to the employees at
both locations.
Prior to February 1972,3 the Employer' s entire
manufacturing and assembly operation was per-
formed at the Neiman plant.4 However, in order to
meet increased demands, the Employer acquired the
Berger location and, near the end of February, began
transferring equipment and personnel from Neiman
to Berger. By April 1, the Employer had commenced
'production at Berger , utilizing 46 production and
maintenance employees, 20 of whom had transferred
permanently from Neiman. By the time of the hear-
ing, there were approximately 55 production and
maintenance employees at at Berger , with 39 produc-
tion and maintenance employees at Neiman.
The manufacture and assembly of the
Employer's two principal products 5 -the SP 100 and
SP 200-occur partly at Neiman and partly at Berger.
Thus, most of the components used in these two mod-
els are shipped to Berger where they are stored for
transporting to Neiman as needed. At Neiman, the
process begins with the preparation of resistors, which
are inserted into the circuit board and soldered into
place. Wires, volume controls, and switches are then
2 In addition to contending that the unit sought is inappropriate , the Em-
ployer maintains that the petition should be dismissed because (a) the Em-
ployer and Intervenor are parties to a current contract which is a bar to the
instant petition , (b) the unit sought is an accretion to an existing unit in which
Intervenor is the certified collective-bargaining representative ; (c) the peti-
tion is based solely on Petitioner's extent of organization ; and (d) Petitioner
will soon be subject to the AFL-CIO "no raid" procedures In view of our
dis3posmon of this case , we find it unnecessary to reach these issues.
All dates herein are 1972 unless otherwise indicated.
° The Employer's pnmary operation consists of the preparation of compo-
nents and assembly of three models (SP 100, SP 200, and SP 300) of solid
state stereo systems. Preparation and assembly of the SP 100 and SP 200
models comprise about 80 percent of the Employer 's production.
5 The SP 300, which accounts for approximately 5 to 10 percent of the
Employer's production, is assembled only at Berger , since , unlike the other
models, it consists of components purchased intact and requires none of the
processing performed at Neiman.
199 NLRB No. 184
UNELCO ELECTRONICS CORPORATION 1255
attached to the circuit board and the partially com-
pleted product-the "electronic heart" of the sys-
tem-is tested, packed, and shipped to Berger.
At Berger, various other components, including
the cabinets, speakers, and tone arms, are prepared.
When the circuit boards arrive from Neiman, they are
installed in the cabinets and wired into place. The
adjustment knobs, line cord, and base are added, the
speakers are installed, and the dust cover put in place.
Finally, the finished product is tested and, if accepta-
ble, stored at Berger to await shipment to a customer.
If the amplifier is found to be defective during testing,
it is removed and returned to Neiman for repair.
All of the functions presently performed at Ber-
ger were performed at Neiman prior to commence-
ment of operation at Berger. Likewise, most of the
equipment currently used at Berger was transferred
from Neiman.
According to the Employer, any disruption at
one location would result in disruption of the entire
production process at both locations, with the excep-'
tion of assembly of the SP 300, which is carried out
solely at Berger.
With respect to the terms and conditions of em-
ployment, there is virtually no distinction between the
employees at the two locations, and labor relations
policy for both locations is determined centrally. The
employees at both plants receive identical benefits,
including the same wage rates, holidays, medical plan,
and other fringe benefits. The job classifications and
skills are identical, and employees at both plants work
on the same or similar equipment. All employees fill
out the same job application and, although employees
may be interviewed and hired at each plant, all appli-
cations are subject to final approval at the Employer's
central office, located at Neiman, and are subject to
the same 90-day probationary period. All personnel
records are maintained at Neiman, including com-
mon payroll records and a common seniority list.
Also, job vacancies are posted at both locations and
all employees, regardless of location, may bid on such
vacancies. All production and maintenance employ-
ees are required to punch a timeclock, and any em-
ployee traveling from one plant to the other is re-
quired to carry his timecard with him. Thus,' an em-
ployee may punch in at Neiman, but punch out at
Berger . Finally, all employees work the same hours,
regardless of location, and are all subject to the same
grievance procedure.
While the production employees work primarily
at only one location, the maintenance employees and
the stockmen work at both plants, and the mainte-
nance supervisor supervises employees at both loca-
tions. There are, however, separate immediate
supervisors for the assembly departments at each
plant.
With respect to the transfers, as indicated above,
20 employees had been transferred permanently from
Neiman to Berger by April 1, although at the time of
the hearing only about 14 of the approximately 55
employees at Berger had previously worked at Nei-
man. Other Neiman employees have been transferred
temporarily to Berger to instruct Berger employees on
methods of testing stereo systems, and the Employer
anticipates transferring Neiman employees to Berger
as needed for the production of special items.
On the basis of the facts set out above and the
entire record in this case, we find no evidence that the
employees encompassed by the petition herein consti-
tute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining. We view the Employer's Berger plant op-
eration merely as a relocation of a portion of the
highly integrated continuous flow production process
previously conducted solely at Neiman. When consid-
ered together with the degree of employee transfer
and interchange, the virtual identity of terms and con-
ditions of employment, the similarity in skills, a com-
mon labor relations policy and administration, and
the geographic proximity of the two locations, we find
no basis upon which to conclude that the production
and maintenance employees at the Berger plant enjoy
a separate community of interest sufficient to out-
weigh the broad community of interest they share
with their counterparts at the Neiman plant.
Accordingly, it is here ordered that the petition
herein be, and it hereby is, dismissed.