Western Electric Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 8, 1948

78 N.L.R.B. 160 (N.L.R.B. 1948)

In the Matter Of WESTERN ELECTRIC COMPANY, INCORPORATED, EM-
PLOYER and DISTRICT 133, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHIN-
ISTS, PETITIONER
In the Matter Of WESTERN ELECTRIC COMPANY, INCORPORATED, EM-
PLOYER and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS,
A. F. L., PETITIONER
Cases Nos. 18-RC-26 amd 18-RC-^62, respectively.Decided
July 8, 1948
Mr. Harvey Hoshour, of St. Paul, Minn., and Mr. James Nye, of
Duluth, Minn., for the Employer.
Mr. James Ashe, of St. Paul, Minn., and Mr. Dale S. Pommerville,
.of Duluth, Minn., for the IAM.
Mr. Gerald W. Heaney, of Duluth, Minn., for the IBEW.
Mr. Fred D. Waldeck, of Duluth, Minn., for the CWA.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon two petitions duly filed, hearing in the consolidated cases was
held at Duluth, Minnesota, on February 18, 1948, before Erwin A.
Peterson, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the
hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations
Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. TIIE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER
Western Electric Company, Incorporated, a New York corporation
and subsidiary of American Telephone and Telegraph Company, is
engaged in manufacturing, buying, and selling communication equip-
ment for the Bell System. We are here concerned only with the
Employer's plant at Duluth, Minnesota. During January 1948, the
Employer shipped $390,000 worth of equipment from this plant to
78 N. L. R. B., No. 28.
160
WESTERN ELECTRIC COMPANY 161
points outside the State of Minnesota. At the end of the same month,
the Employer had on hand approximately $110,000 worth of 'raw
materials, all of which originated outside the State. The Employer
estimates that more than 95 percent of the materials used at the Duluth
plant, which is a comparatively new operation, will hereafter be
obtained from outside the State. It also estimates that future ship-
Inents of finished material outside the State will be substantial.
The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce
within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED'
The Petitioner in Case No. 18-RC-26, herein called the IAM,, is a
labor organization claiming to represent employees of the Employer.
• The Petitioner in Case No. 18-RC-62, herein called the IBEW, is
a labor organization affiliated with the American Federation of Labor,
claiming to represent employees of the Employer.
Communications Workers of America, the Intervenor in both cases,
herein called the CWA, is a labor organization claiming to represent
employees of the Employer.
III. TILE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The Employer has refused to recognize either the IAM or the
IBEWV as the exclusive bargaining agent of its employees in the ab-
sence of a Board certification.
We find that questions affecting commerce exist concerning the
representation of employees of the Employer, within the meaning of
Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. TIIE APPROPRIATE UNIT ; THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
The IAM seeks a unit of employees engaged in the installation, re-
pair, and maintenance of machinery and equipment, consisting of
maintenance machinists, tool makers, and certain related work classifi-
cations. The IBEW seeks a unit of all hourly rated production and
maintenance employees, excluding those in the IAM's requested unit.
Alternatively, should the Board find the IAM's unit inappropriate, the
IBEW seeks an over-all production and maintenance unit. The CWA
and the Employer contend that only a production and maintenance
unit is appropriate.
1 At the hearing, the United Electrical, Radio, and machine workers of America, CIO,
sought to intervene Because it was not in compliance , and had no contractual interest,
the motion was pi openly denied _
162 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The unit sought by the IAM consists of the following employees :
detail makers, construction machinists, junior mechanics, junior
tradesmen, tool makers, grinders, grinding machine operators, lathe
operators, tool and gauge inspectors, and gauge inspectors. Of these,
the detail makers, of whom there are 2, are located in Department 6;
the remaining employees are in Department 7.2 Also in these de-
partments, but not sought by the IAM, are 10 electrical repairmen, a
tool keeper, and unspecified employees engaged in various phases of
inspection in Department 6, and an equipment cleaner, tool keeper, 2
oilers and beltmen, and the custodial staff in Department 7.
Of the requested employees in Department 7, the tool makers and
machinists are admittedly skilled craftsmen; the junior mechanics
and junior tradesmen are trainee machinists; and the remaining em-
ployees are closely allied in skill and function to the machinists.
The machinists assign work to grinders, grinding machine operators,
and lathe operators, doing the parts requiring greatest skill themselves.
The inspectors in the department are required to repair, adjust, and
install gauges, in addition to their inspection duties.
Except for the detail makers, whom we shall discuss below, there
are apparently no 'employees elsewhere in the plant who perform
functions similar to those of the employees in Department 7. And
while the integrated nature of the Employer's operations makes it
necessary for these employees to spend considerable time among pro-
duction employees, they are under separate supervision at all times.
In addition, there appears to be no interchange between maintenance
and production employees, and such transfers as do occur are on a
long-term basis.3 From all the foregoing, it is apparent that the
requested employees in Department 7 comprise a cohesive, well de-
fined,, and well-recognized craft grouping whose establishment as a
separate collective bargaining unit is feasible.4
There remain for consideration the impact of bargaining history
at other plants of the Employer on the unit Issue ; the disposition to
be made of detail makers, equipment cleaners, tool keepers, oilers and
beltmen; and the effect on the unit issue of the expansion of the Em-
ployer's operations.
s Department 6 is known as Apparatus and Raw Material Inspection and Test Set
Maintenance Department 7 is known as Tool and Machine Maintenance and Plant Serv-
ice. The remaining five departments are engaged exclusively in production work.
a
We find no merit either in the Employer's contention that the transfer system would be
upset if the employees were represented in more than one unit or in the similar contention
addressed to its job rating system. Matter of Dow Chemical Company, Bay City Division,
77 N. L. R. B. 328.
4 Matter of American Can Company, 75 N. L. R. B. 1127; Matter of C. V. Hill & Company,
Inc., 76 N. L. R. B. 158.
WESTERN ELECTRIC COMPANY 163
Prior bargaining history
There has been no previous bargaining history at this plant. The
Employer and Intervenor, in opposing the IAM petition, rely heavily
on a history of plant-wide units at all other plants of the Employer.
However, the Board has previously considered this contention in two
cases involving other plants of the Employer. In Matter of Western
Electric Company, Inc., 61 N. L. R. B. 974, involving the Employer's
St. Paul plant, separate units of machinists and electricians were found
appropriate. And, in Matter of Western Electric Company, Inc., 74
N. L. R. B. 1029, involving one of the Employer's Chicago plants,
the Board pointed out that the prior multi-plant bargaining history
for production and maintenance employees in the area of which this
plant was a part did not preclude craft severance on a proper basis!
Accordingly, we find that the bargaining history at the Employer's
other plants is not sufficient to deny to the employees in the unit
sought by the TAM the opportunity to decide whether they desire to
be represented as part of a plant-wide unit, or to bargain as a separate
unit.'
Equipment cleaner, tool keepers, oilman, beltman, detail makers
As to all these employees, except the detail makers, it is clear that
none of them has skills similar or allied to those of the requested em-
ployees in Department 7.7 They will therefore be excluded from the
voting group of employees sought by the IAM.
The detail makers in Department 6 lay out and fabricate parts
which they use in the repair of complicated test sets. They use ma-
chine tools and possess a degree of skill comparable to that of the con-
struction machinists in Department 7. Both these classifications have
the same grade in the Employer's job-rating system. Under these
circumstances, we shall include the detail makers in the voting group
of employees sought by the IAM.
The expanding unit issue
The Duluth plant is a fairly new one which is still expanding. At
the time of the hearing there were 48 employees in the unit sought by
5 We do not regard as controlling in this connection the facts that bargaining at the
St. Paul plant is now being conducted on a plant -wide basis, and that craft severance was,
In fact , denied at the Chicago plant of the Employer
9 Matter of Grinnell Company , Inc., 55 N L R B 1476 . Matter of Goodyear Tire and
Rubber Company of Kansas , 65 N, L R. B 532 ; Matter of Radio Corporation of Annerica,
58 N L It B 271 , cited in the Employer ' s brief in support of its unit contention, are
clearly distinguishable from the instant case.
7In Matter of Western Electric Company, Inc., 61 N L R B. 974, involving the Em-
ployer ' s St. Paul plant, the Board rejected a contention that these employees should be
included in a unit similar to that sought herein by the IAM.
164 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the IAM, and about 880 employees in the unit sought by the IBEW.
These figures will reach about 70 and 1,500, respectively, in October
or November 1948, when the full complement will be attained. With
respect to work classifications involved, it appears that there will be
no additional classifications in the IAM group, and that most new
classifications in the IBEW group will be merely expansions of those
already in existence. Furthermore, the plant is currently in produc-
tion and the present work force-would appear to be- representative of
the expanded one. Accordingly, as the expansion will not affect the
character of the voting groups set forth below or the nature of the
operations, we find that it does not preve .t elections therein at this
time.
We shall therefore direct that separate elections by secret ballot be
held among employees at the Duluth plant of the Employer in each
of the following voting groups :
1. All construction machinists, junior mechanics; junior tradesmen,
tool makers, grinders, grinding machine operators, lathe operators,
tool and gauge inspectors, and gauge inspectors, including detail mak-
ers, but excluding beltmen, oilmen, equipment cleaners, tool keepers,
and supervisors.
2. All remaining production and maintenance employees, excluding
office and clerical employees, guards, and supervisors.
If, in these elections, the employees in both voting groups select
the CWA, they will be taken to have indicated a desire to constitute
a single bargaining unit; otherwise they will be taken to have indi-
cated a desire to constitute separate bargaining units.8
DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS 9
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
purposes of collective bargaining with Western Electric Company,
Incorporated, Duluth, Minnesota, elections by secret ballot shall be
conducted as early as possible, but not later than thirty (30) days
from the date of this Direction, under the direction and supervision
of the Regional Director for the Eighteenth Region, and subject to
Sections 203.61 and 203.62 of National Labor Relations Board Rules
and Regulations-Series 5, among the employees in the voting. groups
found appropriate in Section IV, above, who were employed during
the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of this Direction,
including employees who did not work during said pay-roll period
because they were ill or on vacation or temporarily laid off, but ex-
s The IBEW indicated that it did not lush to appear on the ballot against the IAM
9Anv participant in the elections directed heiemn may, upon its prompt request to, and
approval thereof by, the Regional Director, have its name removed from the ballot
WESTERN ELECTRIC COMPANY 165
cluding those employees who have since quit or been discharged for
cause and have not been rehired or reinstated prior to the date of the
elections, to determine (a) whether employees in Group 1, above, de-
sire to be represented by District 133. International Association of
Machinists, or by Communications Workers of America, for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining , or by neither ; and (b ) whether em-
ployees in Group 2, above, desire to be represented by International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, A. F. L., or by Communications
Workers of America, for the purposes of collective bargaining, or by
neither.
MEMBER GRAY took no part in the consideration of the above De-
cision and Direction of Elections.
79579..-4c-vo1 79-12