Westinghouse Electric Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 19, 1949

85 N.L.R.B. 1519 (N.L.R.B. 1949)

In the Matter of WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION (KANSAS
CITY, Mo.), EMPLOYER and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELEC-
TRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL No. 124, AFL, PETITIONER
In the Matter Of WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION (KANSAS
CITY, MO.), EMPLOYER and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF FIRE-
MEN AND OILERS, LOCAL No. 1, AFL, PETITIONER
In the Matter Of WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION (KANSAS
CITY, Mo.), EMPLOYER and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING
ENGINEERS, LOCAL No. 6, AFL, PETITIONER
Cases Nos. 17-RC-:371, 17-RC-377, and 17-RC-398, respectively.-
Decided September 19, 1949
DECISION
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
AND
ORDER
Upon separate petitions duly filed, a consolidated hearing 1 was
held before Charles F. McCoy, hearing officer. The hearing officer's
rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are
hereby affirmed.2
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 [Chairman Herzog and Members
Houston and Murdock].
Upon the entire record in this case,3 the Board finds :
1During the hearing , Building Service Employees Union , Local No. 96, AFL, with the
consent of the Regional Director, withdrew its petition in Case No. 17-RC-360..
2 The hearing officer admitted in evidence a table of prior Board unit determinations
involving the Employer and the history of this plant prior to the Employer 's acquisition.
Although the Board takes judicial notice of its own proceedings ( Matter of Celanese Cor-
poration of America , 84 N. L. R. B. 207 ), the admission of the summary of unit determina-
tion was not erroneous . The prior history of the plant was admissible as background.
See Matter of Sprague Electric Co ., 81 N. L . It. B. 410.
3 After the hearing, the Employer filed a "Motion For Correction of Errors in Transcript
of Testimony and Company 's Exhibit 9." As none of the parties have objected thereto,
this motion is hereby granted , and the record is hereby amended to conform to the
motion.
85 N. L. R. B., No. 238.
1519
1520 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD'
1. The Employer is a Pennsylvania corporation over which the
Board has frequently asserted jurisdiction 4 The present proceeding
involves the Kansas City, Missouri, plant which the Employer leased.
from the Navy Department for the future production of jet.aircraft
engines for the United States Government. From December 31., 1948,.
when the Employer took possession, to June 1949, the Employer, as
agent for the United States, made purchases of tools, equipment, and
supplies for use in this plant, totaling $6,589,901.02, all originating
outside of the State of Missouri. In addition, the Employer, in its
own name, purchased a total of $101,965.48, of supplies, fuel, water,
etc., for use by the Employer and its subtenants 5 in the Kansas City
plant. The largest purchases of this type were local. As noted below,,
the plant is still in the process of being equipped and production has
not been started. Production will be integrated with the activities,
of the Employer's companion plant in South Philadelphia, Pennsyl-
vania, where the experimental work and small-scale production of the
type of engine ultimately to be produced at Kansas City are now
being conducted.
As the operation involved in this case is part of the Employer's;
integrated enterprise, other plants of which have previously been
determined to be subject to the Board's jurisdiction, we And, contrary
to the Employer's contention, that it is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act."
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain
employees of the Employer.7
3. For the following reasons no question affecting commerce exists;
concerning the representation of the employees within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, in Case No.
17-RC-371. However, such a question exists in Cases Nos. 17-RC-37T
and 17-RC-398.
The Petitioners seek craft or departmental units, discussed below..
The employer and the UAW-CIO contend that only a production and
4 Matter of Westinghouse Electric & Manufacturing Company , 3 N. L. it. B. 1 ; 10&
N. L. it. B. 794 ; 14 N. L. it. B. 263 ; 18 N. L. it. B. 115 ; et seq . See especially 38
N. L. it. B. 404 , 412. The Employer 's Exhibit No. 9 lists 71 Board unit determinations
in 27 different plants.
5 The Employer has leased space to several tenants who use it chiefly for warehouse
purposes.
6 Matter of Pilotless Plane Division , Fairchild Engine & Airplane Corp., 72 N. L. it. B.
381, 382.
' International Association of Machinists and Its Local No. 314 ( herein called IAM)
and International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers.
of America, CIO (herein called UAW-CIO), intervened for the limited purpose of filing
briefs in support of the contention that only a plant-wide unit is appropriate . Under the
circumstances, the hearing officer did not err in permitting such intervention. See
Matter of Celanese Corporation of America, 84 N. L. R. B. 207, and cases cited there,
in footnote 3.
WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION 1521
maintenance unit is appropriate but that, because of the expanding
nature of the operation, any unit determination is at present pre-
mature. The IAM agrees with the Employer and the UAW-CIO, ex-
cept that it favors a present determination of representative within
the powerhouse group.
The Employer took possession of the Kansas City plant on De-
cember 31, 1948. The plant was built during the war for use in the
manufacture of reciprocating-type gasoline engines for military air-
craft, but had subsequently been leased for use as a warehouse. When
the Employer took possession, it found little equipment in the manu-
facturing area which could be used in its projected production of avia-
tion-gas-turbine engines for military aircraft. The plant as acquired
consisted of the building shell, electrical wiring, heating and ventilat-
ing equipment, air conditioning equipment, and a pipe system. Be-
fore the Employer can undertake production in accordance with the
Navy Department's schedule, acquisition and installation of equip-
ment is required. This task is not yet completed.
At present, the Employer's activities at the Kansas City plant
consist in maintaining the plant and furnishing services, such as heat
and light, for the company-occupied areas and the subleased sections;
and in work preliminary to ultimate production, such as preparation
of lay-outs, ordering machine tools and other equipment, installing
such equipment, and procuring a nucleus of management personnel.
There are approximately 143 employees presently employed in the
performance of these limited operations. When the, plant reaches
the proposed capacity production, sometime in 1951, the Employer
expects to employ between 4,000 and 5,000 persons, 80 percent of whom
will be production workers. Recruiting for personnel is expected to
begin in September 1949 and expand fairly rapidly with a training
program to facilitate expanded production. The Employer estimates
that there will be approximately 950 production employees, 130 to
140 maintenance employees, and 300 salaried employees by the end
of 1949, when the first production work will begin.
The present number of employees (143) thus constitutes about 10
percent of the complement of employees projected by the Employer
for December 1949 (1,390), and about 3 percent of its projected
ultimate complement (4,500). On these facts we agree with the Em-
ployer's contention that a substantial and representative force of
employees is not presently employed and we would regard an election
in an over-all production and maintenance unit as inappropriate at
this time. However, the Petitioners have not requested such a unit,
and it is thus necessary to consider the effect, if any, of the proposed
1522 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
expansion upon the particular craft and departmental units herein
requested.
The Petitioner in Case No. 17-RC-371, the IBEW, requests a unit
consisting of all maintenance electricians and helpers. At present 6
employees are working in this job classification; the.Employer con-
templates the addition of 14 to 19 more employees. The record further
demonstrates that once production is reached at least 5 additional
classifications of electrical workers will be required, ranging between
the unskilled work of light cleaners and the highly skilled work of
electronics and primary distribution specialists.
As new job classifications of electricians are contemplated and the
present tasks appear to differ significantly from those which these
employees may perform once the production stage is reached, we agree
that any unit determination affecting these employees is at present
premature." Accordingly we shall dismiss the petition in Case No.
17-RC-371, without prejudice.
The Petitioner in Case No. 17-RC-398, the Operating Engineers, re-
quests a unit consisting of all operating engineers; and the Petitioner
in Case No. 17-RC-377, the Firemen and Oilers, requests all firemen
and "plant equipment oilers in or working out of the powerhouse" 9
The powerhouse employees requested in these petitions constitute 50
percent of the complement projected for their classifications and the
record establishes that they are performing substantially the same
functions they will once production is under way. As the present em-
ployees constitute a representative group and no change is anticipated
in the basic operation of the proposed unit, it is clear that these em-
ployees will not be greatly affected by the expansion of the plant.10
Accordingly, contrary to the Employer's contentions, the contemplated
expansion does not warrant denying them the right to a determination
of representatives at this time.
There remains for consideration the appropriateness of the unit, in-
cluding the question of whether separate units of operating engineers
as distinct from firemen and plant equipment oilers should be estab-
lished. Both the Operating Engineers and the Firemen and Oilers
have indicated that in the event the Board finds separate units inap-
propriate, they each desire to represent both groups of employees in
a single unit: The powerhouse is physically separated from the rest
9 See Matter of Coast Pacific Lumber Co., 78 N. L. R. B. 1245.
The requested plant equipment oilers have their headquarters in the powerhouse,
although some of them work on equipment located outside the powerhouse.
10 See Matter of United States Rubber Company, 80 N. L. R. B. 1039 ; Matter of Standard
Steel Spring Company, 75 N. L. R. B. 471. Cf. Matter of Tucker Corporation, 79 N. L. R. B.
1262.
WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION 1523
.of the plant. The powerhouse employees perform tasks which consti-
tute them a homogeneous group, with interests distinguishable from
those of the production and maintenance employees, such as we have
frequently found constitute an appropriate unit.h1 The fact that the
operating engineers and the plant equipment oilers work on equip-
ment located outside as well as that located in the powerhouse does not
destroy the distinctive community of their interests.12 The operating
engineers are unlicensed and work in close association with the other
powerhouse employees with whom they share common supervision and
working space. Moreover, there is considerable interchange among
the three job classifications because of the Employer's practice of up-
grading powerhouse employees in preference to hiring outside. On
these facts we find that a single unit of operating engineers, firemen,
and plant equipment oilers rather than separate units of these employ-
ees is appropriate."
Accordingly we find that all operating engineers, firemen, and those
plant equipment oilers with headquarters located in the powerhouse of
the Employer's Kansas City, Missouri, plant, excluding all supervisors
as defined in the amended Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b)
of the Act.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining with the Employer, an election by se-
cret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than
30 days 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, among the employees in the
unit found appropriate in paragraph numbered 3, above, who were
employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of
this Direction of Election, including employees who did not work dur-
ing said pay-roll period because they were ill or on vacation or tem-
porarily 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 excluding employees on strike
who are not entitled to reinstatement, to determine whether they de-
" Matter of Baugh and Sons Company , 82 N. L. R. B. 1399, and cases cited therein.
12 Matter of Owens -Corning Fiberglas Corp ., 81 N. L. R. B. 441.
" Matter of Washburn Wire Co., Inc., 79 N. L. R. B. 1479.
857829-50-vol. 85-97
1524 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
sire to be represented, for purposes of collective bargaining, by Inter-
national Brotherhood of Firemen and Oilers, Local No. 1, AFL, or by
International Union of Operating Engineers, Local No. 6, AFL, or by
neither.
ORDER
Upon the basis of the foregoing facts, the National Labor Relations
Board hereby orders that the petition in Case No. 17-RC-371 be, and
it hereby is, dismissed without prejudice.