Western Electric Co., Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 27, 1949

84 N.L.R.B. 552 (N.L.R.B. 1949)

In the Matter Of WESTERN ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC., EMPLOYER and
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, PETITIONER
Case No. 35-RC-175.-Decided Jvne 07, 1949
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing in this case was held in Indian-
apolis, Indiana, on March 10, 11, and 22, 1949, before Martin Sacks,
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 National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three-member panel [Members Reynolds, Murdock, and
Gray].
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 Petitioner, International Brotherhood of Electrical Work-
ers, AFL, herein called the IBEW, Communications Workers of Amer-
ica-CIO herein called the CWA, and Association of Communication
Equipment Workers, CIO, herein called the ACEW, are labor organi-
zations claiming to represent employees of the Employer.2
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of certain employees of the Employer within the meaning of
Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The appropriate unit :
The Petitioner seeks a unit of production and maintenance em-
ployees of the Employer at its Speedway plant 3 in Indianapolis, In-
diana, excluding all office clerical and professional employees , guards,
1 The Employer, in an effort to prove the lack of an adequate showing of representative
interest, secured the issuance of subpenas duces tecum directing the Petitioner and the
intervening unions to produce the authorization cards designating them as bargaining
agents for the employees in question . The hearing officer properly granted petitions to.
revoke these subpenas , for we have repeatedly held that a showing of interest is an admin-
istrative matter not subject to direct or collateral attack . Matter of Noblitt -Sparks In-
dustries, Inc., 76 N. L. R. B. 1230.
2 Motions to intervene at the hearing by the IBEW , CWA, and ACEW were granted.
a This plant is also referred to in the record as the pilot plant
84 N. L. R B , No. 66.
552
WESTERN ' ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC. 553
watchmen, and, supervisors within the meaning of the Act. The
IBEW agrees with this unit contention. The CWA and ACEW
request a similar unit, but would include the office clericals with the
production and maintenance workers. The Employer agrees with the
composition of the unit sought by the Petitioner, but insists that the
appropriate unit should also. include its Shadeland plant now under
construction in Indianapolis.
The Employer is in the process of consolidating certain of its manu-
facturing operations now located in Chicago and other cities. For
this purpose, it acquired a site in Indianapolis on which it ` is con-
structing a permanent manufacturing unit, to be known as the Shade-
land plant, where the Employer plans both to produce parts and
assemble finished products. This plant will not be in complete op-
eration until January 1, 1953, although partial production will begin
early in 1950. As the Employer must vacate certain of its leased
plants in Chicago and other cities long before Shadeland will be
ready, and as the Employer intends to hire personnel for the Shade-
land plant locally, it leased the Speedway plant for a 3-year period.
It was necessary to establish this "pilot" plant, first, to have a manu-
facturing site in Indianapolis pending the completion of the perma-
nent plant, and second, to train and develop personnel in the Indian-
apolis area for ultimate employment at the permanent plant. The
Speedway plant is about 10 miles from the Shadeland plant.
The principal business of the Employer is to manufacture com-
munication equipment for the Bell Telephone System and other com-
panies. The Indianapolis operation was set up primarily to manu-
facture substation apparatus, largely consisting of the ordinary hand-
set telephone, and certain types of central office equipment. The
Speedway plant is chiefly an assembly plant, and most of the parts are
manufactured elsewhere. The first employees were hired at the Speed-
way plant in September 1948, and by March 18, 1949, there were about
875 shop employees employed 4 Peak employment of 1,100 will be
reached at Speedway in December 1949. Although the Employer
plans to vacate this plant in December 1951, there will at all times be
at least 800 shop employees at Speedway. According to present
plans, Shadeland will be in full production and completely manned
on January 1, 1953. There will be about 125 employees there in Jan-
uary 1950, less than 500 in July 1950, and these figures will gradually
increase until a full complement of 4,224 is reached in 1953. For al-
most 2 years, therefore, the Speedway and Shadeland plants will be
in concurrent operation. Employees are hired at the Speedway plant
4 References to numbers of employees , unless otherwise specified , mean production and
maintenance employees in the unit claimed appropriate by the Petitioner.
554 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
with the understanding that they will eventually be transferred to
Shadeland. As Speedway employees are transferred to Shadeland,
and as long as Speedway continues to operate, new employees will be
hired to fill the vacancies at Speedway.
The Employer contends that it has but one Indianapolis operation,
consisting of one plant temporarily occupying two locations. It argues
that both Speedway and Shadeland will be under the same general
supervision, that the wages, hours, and working conditions of em-
ployees at both plants will be the same, that there will be constant
interchange of employees and equipment between the two plants, and
that common products will be produced at both locations. The Em-
ployer concludes that the appropriate unit of production and mainte-
nance workers should include both the Speedway and Shadeland
plants.
We are not persuaded that the Employer's position is sound. What-
ever merit the Employer's arguments for a multiple-plant unit might
have in the future, the fact remains that the Shadeland plant will not
have any employees until early in 1950, and that even by the middle of
1950, which is more than a year after the election we are directing,
the Shadeland plant will only, have about 10 to 15 percent of its
expected personnel conmplement. In the meantime, the Speedway
plant is already in operation,.is producing finished products, and will
continue so to function for about 21/2 more years. Thus, for at least
another year, practically all the Employer's production in Indian-
apolis will be at the Speedway plant. In view of these circumstances,
we do not believe that it is appropriate to include a future group of
employees at a plant now being constructed with an existing, inte-
grated group of employees that is now functionally able to be repre-
sented as a separate bargaining unit. We conclude, therefore, that
the Speedway employees now constitute an appropriate unit and are
entitled to the immediate benefits of collective bargaining.
O fce clerical employees.-The CWA and ACEW would include
office clericals in the production and maintenance unit. However, no
persuasive reason has been advanced to influence us to depart from our
well-established policy not to include office clericals in production and
maintenance units in manufacturing industries. The office clerical
employees will, therefore, be excluded from the unit."
We find that all production and maintenance employees of the
Employer at its Speedway plant, Indianapolis, Indiana, excluding all
office clerical and professional 6 employees, guards, sergeants, firemen
6 See, for example , Matter of Standard Oil Co . (Indiana), 80 N. L. R. B 1275 ; Matter
of Blue Star Airlines , Inc, 73 N . L R B 663
9 Some reference was made at the hearing to the possible professional status of hourly
rated technicians . There is not, however , enough evidence in the record for us to determine'
WESTERN ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC. 555
on the watch and fire service,' 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.
5. The determination of representatives :
In view of its expansion plans for the Shadeland plant, the Employer
contends that it does not now have a representative group of employees
in Indianapolis, and that the petition in this case was prematurely
filed. This argument was based on the assumption that the Speed-
way and Shadeland plants together constituted the appropriate unit,
and that the expansion plans for Shadeland must be considered in
determining whether an election should now be directed. We have,
however, found that the employees in the Speedway plant alone con-
stitute an appropriate bargaining unit. We have pointed out that
there are presently employed at the Speedway plant, in the unit found
appropriate, about 80 percent of the expected total complement of
employees at Speedway, and that this number of employees will con-
tinue to be employed as long as the Speedway plant is operated. The
same general type of work will be done at the Speedway plant through-
out its operation, and approximately 75 percent of the occupational
titles that Speedway will have at its employment peak are already in
existence. We find, therefore, that the present complement of em-
ployees at the Speedway plant constitutes a substantial and essentially
representative proportion of the contemplated working force at Speed-
way, and that an election may properly be held at this time."
DIRECTION OF ELECTION"'
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the
purposes of collective bargaining with the Employer, an election by
secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than
30 clays from the date of this Direction, under the direction and super-
vision of the Regional Director for the Region in which this case was
heard, and subject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62 of National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 5, as amended, among
the employees in the unit found apropriate in paragraph numbered
4, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately
whether or not the technicians are professional employees within the meaning of the Act_
If, however , the technicians do fall within the definition of professional employees in the
Act, they shall be deemed excluded from the unit
' The Employer produced at the hearing a list of all its hourly rated production and
maintenance jobs at the Speedway plant . The parties agreed that all employees in those
classifications , except guards , sergeants , and firemen on the watch and fire service should
be included in the appropriate unit.
B Matter of General Motors Corporation , etc, 82 N L R . B 876; Matter of Western
Electric Company, Inc, 76 N L R B. 400
' Any participant in the election herein may , upon its prompt request to , and approval
thereof by , the Regional Director , have its name removed from the ballot.
556 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
preceding the date of this Direction of Election, including employees
who did not work during said pay-roll period because they were ill or
on vacation or temporarily laid off, but excluding those employees
who have since quit or been discharged for cause and have not been
rehired or reinstated prior to the date of the election, and also exclud-
ing employees on strike who are not entitled to reinstatement, to deter-
mine whether they desire to be represented, for purposes of collective
bargaining by International Association of Machinists, International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL, Communications Workers
of America-CIO, Association of Communication Equipment Work-
ers, CIO, or by none.
MEMBER GRAY, dissenting:
I cannot join in the decision of the majority insofar as it limits
the appropriate unit to the employees at the Speedway plant. I be-
lieve that the employees at both the Speedway and the Shadeland
plants constitute a single appropriate unit.
The two plants are in reasonably close proximity and are func-
tionally integrated in the sense that pending the completion of the
Shadeland plant in 1953, the Speedway plant will be used to train
personnel to be employed in the Shadeland plant, and when both
plants are in operation there will be constant interchange of per-
sonnel and equipment between the two plants. Employment at Speed-
way is only a prelude to employment at Shadeland; Speedway is
essentially only a training department of Shadeland.
The vice of the majority decision, in my opinion, is that as em-
ployees are "fed" from Speedway to Shadeland they will pass out
of the bargaining unit established by the majority and thereby lose
any collective bargaining rights that they may have acquired by
virtue of any certification that the Board may issue in this case. To
reacquire their bargaining rights they will have to file a new petition
for certification of a bargaining agent in the Shadeland plant, and this
they may not do under Board policy until a representative comple-
ment is employed in the Shadeland plant.1° Thus, the majority
decision will require two successive representation proceedings to de-
termine the bargaining agent of substantially the same employees and,
despite this duplication of proceedings, there will be, under the major-
ity decision, a period of indefinite duration during which the employees
in the Shadeland plant will have no representation at all.
In my opinion, the statutory policy of encouraging the practice
and procedure of collective bargaining, can be best effectuated by
assuring to the employees in this case continuous representation by the
10 Matter of Solar Aircraft Company, 48 N. L. R B 242.
WESTERN ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC. 557
bargaining agent of their choice. This can be done only by treating
both plants as a single unit for collective bargaining purposes.
The fact that such unit may undergo a considerable expansion
does not preclude a finding that it is appropriate." The present com-
plement of both-plants is less than one-fourth of the peak complement,
expected to be reached in 1953, of more than -4,000 employees.` I
would, nevertheless, direct an election at the present time for em-
ployees in both plants. However, in view of the probable increase
in employment after the date of such election, I would provide that
a new representation petition affecting the employees in both plants
would be entertained at anytime after 1 year from the date of any
certification that might issue in this case.12
n See Matter of Aluminum Company of America, 52 N. L. R. B. 1040, and cases there cited.
12 See Matter of Aluminum Company of America, supra . The usual provision in "expand-
ing unit" cases that a new petition will be entertained after 6 months from the date of
certification has been here extended to a period of 1 year after certification , in view of the
requirements of Section 9 (c) (3) of the amended Act
853396-50-vol. 84-39