Westinghouse Electric Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 8, 1949

87 N.L.R.B. 463 (N.L.R.B. 1949)

In the Matter Of WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION, EMPLOYER
and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WOP.KERS, A. F. L.,
PETITIONER
Case No. 6-RC-362.-Decided December 8, 1949
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before Emil E.
Narick, hearing officer. The hearing officer's ruling made at the hear-
ing 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 [Chairman Herzog and Members
Houston and Gray].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the National Labor Relations Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. The question concerning representation :
United Electrical, Radio R Machine Workers of America, C. I. O.,
and its Local No. 601, hereinafter designated collectively as the Inter-
venor, contend that the petition in this case is barred by the Inter-
venor's contract with the Employer. The petition in this case was
filed on April 6, 1949, seeking a unit of maintenance employees at the
Employer's Irwin, Pennsylvania, plant. On April 1, 1947, the Inter-
venor and the Employer had executed a contract covering plants of
i We hereby affirm the hearing officer's ruling permitting the United Electrical, Radio &
Machine Workers of America, C. I. 0., and its Local No. 601 to intervene at the hearing
herein despite noncompliance with the filing requirements of Section 9 of the Act. The
hearing officer properly relied on the alleged contractual interest of the intervening unions
in the unit sought by the Petitioner. General Electric Company, 85 NLRB 150.
The hearing officer referred to the Board a motion by the intervening unions to dismiss
the petition because it failed to indicate that the Respondent had declined to recognize
the Petitioner as the representative of the employees in the unit sought. For the reasons
set forth in Advance Pattern Company, 80 NLRB 29, this motion is hereby denied.
After the hearing the Employer filed with the Board a "Motion for Correction of Errors
in Transcript of Testimony." As none of the parties have objected thereto, this Motion is
hereby granted, and the record is hereby amended to conform to the Motion.
87 NLRB No. 66. 463
464 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the Employer at 64 locations. One of these locations was described
as "East Pittsburgh Works," and the unit was defined as including
employees of the Employer "at its East Pittsburgh plant (including
its plants in East Pittsburgh ,, Trafford, and Homewood Service
Works, including Linhart and Copper Mill)." 2 A supplement to this
contract was executed on June 20, 1948, effective from April 1, 1948,
to March 31, 1950.
The East Pittsburgh Works consists of a main plant at Ease Pitts-
burgh, the Homewood plant in Pittsburgh, and the Trafford plant at
Trafford, Pennsylvania, comprising altogether about 18,000 employees.
These plants constitute the Employer's "Transportation and Genera-
tor" Division which is a separate administrative division of the Em-
ployer's operations. About 200 of the employees at the main East
Pittsburgh plant are engaged in the manufacture of mica. On May 4,
1948, the Employer acquired from the Jersey Cereal Company, the
Irwin plant, about 11 miles from the main plant at East Pittsburgh,
with a view to transferring to Irwin from East Pittsburgh its mica
manufacturing operations. At the time of the hearing, production
had not commenced at the Irwin plant and no definite date had been
set for beginning production.3 However, 18 maintenance employees
(and 4 watchmen) were already employed at Irwin to install machin-
ery and do other work in connection with the conversion of the plant
to the manufacture of mica; these employees were also engaged in
storing at the Irwin plant, and shipping to East Pittsburgh, raw
materials used by the Employer in the manufacture of mica at East
Pittsburgh. Seven of these 18 employees were hired before the execu-
tion of the 1948 supplement to the Intervenor's contract with the Em-
ployer; the balance were hired thereafter.
Part, but not all, of the machinery to be installed at the Irwin plant
will come from East Pittsburgh. None of the maintenance employees
at Irwin was recruited from East Pittsburgh and there is no inter-
change between such employees and the East Pittsburgh employees.
At the time of the hearing, the Irwin plant was subject to the over-all
supervision of the superintendent of manufacturing at the East Pitts-
burgh plant who reports in turn to the manager of the "Transporta-
tion and Generator" division at East Pittsburgh.
The 1948 contract, cited above, contains no reference to the Irwin
plant, although that plant had been acquired by the Employer before
the execution of the contract. It is significant, moreover, that the con-
This was the unit certified by the Board on July 9, 1937 , 3 NLRB 1.
There was evidence, however , that subject to certain contingencies , partial production
would begin at the end of 1949 and full production would be attained 3 months later. At
peak production , the expected complement will comprise about 300 production, 70 clerical
and supervisory , and 30 maintenance employees.
WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION 465
tract does expressly include in the East Pittsburgh unit the Trafford
and Homewood plants, which, like the Irwin plant, are physically
separate from the main East Pittsburgh plant. Under these circum-
stances, we are impelled to the view that if the Employer and Inter-
venor had intended to include the Irwin plant in the East Pittsburgh
unit, they would have so provided expressly in the contract as was done
in the case of Trafford and Homewood .4 Absent such a provision, we
find that the contract does not apply to the Irwin plant and, therefore,
is not a bar to the petition in this case.
Moreover, under all the circumstances of this case, including the
fact that the mica manufacturing operation to be transferred to Irwin
represents only a small part of the entire operation at East Pittsburgh,
that there has been no transfer of personnel to Irwin from East
Pittsburgh, and that there is no evidence that such a transfer is con-
templated, we are satisfied that the Irwin plant constitutes a new oper-
ation, separate and distinct from the East Pittsburgh operation.,"
Accordingly, even if the 1948 contract applied to Irwin, such contract
having been executed before the commencement of production in a
new operation and before the majority of the present maintenance
complement was hired, the contract would not operate as a bar to the
petition.,"
A question affecting commerce exists 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.
4. The appropriate unit :
The Petitioner seeks a unit of all maintenance employees, including
boiler room attendants, truck drivers, and'storekeepers at the Respond-
ent's plant at Irwin, Pennsylvania, but excluding office clerical em-
ployees, watchmen and guards, professional employees, and super-
visors.
The Intervenor contends that the unit sought is inappropriate be-
cause it is not a true craft group but consists of a variety of crafts.
The Employer contends that the separate unit of maintenance enm-
ployees sought by the Petitioner is inappropriate because inconsistent
' The Employer rejected demands made by the Intervenor in April 1949, that the terms
of Intervenor's contract be applied to the Irwin employees. The wage rates at Irwin are
different from those at East Pittsburgh.
6 See General Electric Company, 85 NLRB 150. Cf. Yale Rubber Manufacturing Com-
pa.ny, 85 NLRB 131.
See St. Regis Paper Company, 84 NLRB 454. See also, Sardili Food Products Cor-
poration, 46 NLRB 894, where, in holding that a contract executed before the commence-
ment of production at a new plant, which expressly covered that plant, could not bar the
petition in that case, the Board pointed out that the contracting union could not have
represented a majority in the new plant when the contract was executed. So, in the
instant case, the Intervenor could not have represented a majority of the maintenance
crew at Irwin when its supplementary contract was executed.
466 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
with the established bargaining pattern among employees of the Em-
ployer and among employees in the same industry.
At the time of the hearing, the plant complement, exclusive of
watchmen, consisted of 18 employees, including electricians, pipe
fitters, boiler room attendants, truck drivers, and helpers. These
employees report to a maintenance foreman who assigns them to
work throughout the plant. Their duties consist in maintaining the
plant facilities, installing new machinery, supplying heat, and storing
and shipping materials. When the plant achieves full production,
there will be added to the maintenance crew 12 new employees, and
the following new maintenance classifications will be set up : repair-
man,' storeroom attendant, janitor and janitress.
The unit sought by the Petitioner is essentially a multi-craft unit
of maintenance employees. The Board has in the past found such
a unit to be appropriate, absent any prior bargaining history on a
broader basis." The employees in the unit here sought have had no
prior bargaining history 9 We do not deem controlling the fact, if it
be a fact, that no similar unit has been established among the other
employees of the Employer or in the same industry.la In any case,
it appears that a unit similar to that here sought has, in fact, been
established by the Board in the same industry.,'
Accordingly, we find that all maintenance employees at the Employ-
er's Irwin, Pennsylvania, plant, including' boiler room attendants,
truck drivers, and storeroom attendants,12 but excluding office clerical
employees, watchmen and guards, professional employees, and super-
visors, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
5. The cleterminiation of representatives :
The Intervenor and the Employer contend that the petition is pre-
mature because of the contemplated expansion in the size of the pro-
posed unit from the present complement of 18 to an expected comple-
ment of 30 employees. However, the record shows that the present
complement of the maintenance crew at the Irwin plant constitutes
a substantial and essentially representative proportion of the
7It is contemplated that persons heretofore engaged in installing machinery will be
transferred to this classification after production begins.
8 Armstrong Cork Company, 80 NLRB 1328.
U As already indicated , the Employer has refused to recognize the Intervenor as the
representative of the employees at Irwin, and the terns of the Intervenor 's contract have
not been extended to them.
° See Weyerhaeuser Timber Co., 82 NLRB 820.
General Electric Company , 71 NLRB 1192.
12 The petition refers to "storekeepers." however , no such category is presently em-
ployed. Presumably , reference is intended to the proposed classification of "storeroom
attendants ," discussed above.
WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION 467
expected full complement of that crew.13 Under these circumstances,
we see no reason for departing from our usual policy of directing an
immediate election.
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 days from the date.of this Direction, under the direction
and supervision 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 4,
above, who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately pre-
ceding 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
determine Whether or not they desire to be represented, for pur-
poses of collective bargaining, by International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, A. F. L."
^ General Motors Corporation, 82 NLRB 876.
" We do not place the Intervenor on the ballot because of the noncompliance by Local
601 with the filing requirements of Section 9 of the Act.
877359-50-vol. 87-31