Westinghouse Electric Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jan 14, 1953

102 N.L.R.B. 275 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION 275
(1) All maintenance employees, excluding all other employees,
office, clerical, technical, and professional employees, guards, and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
(2) All production employees, excluding all other employees,
office, clerical, and professional employees, guards, and supervisors as
defined in the Act.
If a majority of the employees in each of the voting groups (1) and
(2) select the Joint Petitioner, they will be taken to have indicated
their desire to constitute a single appropriate unit. If a majority
of the employees in voting group (1) select a labor organization which
is not selected by the employees in voting group (2), the employees in
voting group (1) will be taken to have indicated their desire to con-
stitute a separate unit. If a majority of the employees in voting
group (2) alone vote for the Joint Petitioner, that union will be certi-
fied for such unit. The Regional Director is instructed to issue a
certification of representatives consistent herewith to the bargaining
agent or agents selected for such unit or units, which the Board, under
the circumstances, finds to be appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication in this
volume.]
WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION, ELECTRONIC TUBE DIVISION
and UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS & JOINERS OF AMERICA,
AFL, PETITIONER
WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION, ELECTRONIC TUBE DIVISION
and DISTRICT LODGE No. 58, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MA-
CHINISTS, AFL, PETITIONER . Cases Nos. 3-RC-1084 and 3-RC-
1101. January 14, 1953
Decision and Direction of Elections
Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before
Katherine A. Tarbell, 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 Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Styles and Peterson].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
102 NLRB No. 30.
276 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The Petitioner in Case No. 3-RC-1084, herein called the Car-
penters; the Petitioner in Case No. 3-RC-1101; United Electrical,
Radio and Machine Workers of America, UE, an intervenor; Ameri-
can Flint Glass Workers Union of North America, an intervenor,
herein called the Flint Glass Workers; International Union of Elec-
trical, Radio & Machine Workers, CIO, an intervenor; and Inter-
national Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL, an intervenor,
are labor organizations claiming to represent employees of the
Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section
9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act,
4. The Employer and all labor organizations party to these pro-
ceedings, except the Carpenters, generally agree that a single unit
of production and maintenance employees at the Employer's Horse-
heads, New York, plant is appropriate. The Carpenters seeks a sep-
arate unit for certain maintenance employees at the plant, including
carpenters, pipefitters, electricians, mechanics, welders, painters, ma-
chinists, tool crib employees, and stockroom employees or, in the al-
ternative, a craft unit of carpenters 2 The Employer and the Flint
Glass Workers would exclude plant clerical employees from any unit
found appropriate.
The Employer manufactures electronic tubes at its Horseheads,
New York, plant. Its maintenance department includes a machine
shop, carpenter shop, and a general storeroom (in and out of which
work carpenters, pipefitters, electricians, welders, painters, machin-
ists, toolroom attendants, and stockroom employees), and powerhouse
employees, and janitors. These skilled, semiskilled, and unskilled
maintenance employees service the plant properties and repair and
maintain production machinery throughout the plant. They do no
productive work. Each group of maintenance employees works under
its respective craft or group foreman, and all such foremen report
to the maintenance superintendent. Working conditions are generally
1 We find no merit in the contention of the Employer and the Flint Glass workers that
their union -shop contract executed on October 18, 1952 , is a bar to these proceedings. The
1951 amendment to the Act requires , with respect to union-shop contracts , that a labor
organization must have "at the time the agreement was made or within the preceding
twelve months received from the Board a notice of compliance with sections 9, (f), (g),
and (h). . . Local 1014 of Flint Glass workers, a party to this contract, was not in
compliance during the period required by the Statute , and did not effectuate compliance
until November 18, 1952. We therefore find, without regard to any other considerations,
that the contract is not a bar to these proceedings Fein Tin Can Co., Inc., 99 NLRB
158, and cases cited therein . Cf. The D. M. Rare Paper Company, 99 NLRB 1487.
' The Carpenters would include millwrights in its proposed craft unit. The Employer
has no employees within this classification . We make no finding therefore with respect
to the unit placement for millwrights.
WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION 277
uniform throughout the plant. There is no history of collective bar-
gaining among the plant employees.
The Board has in the past, in the absence of bargaining history,
set up for maintenance employees of various skills and duties a single
bargaining unit .-3 However, the Carpenters, in the instant case, wishes
to exclude from its proposed maintenance unit, not only the power-
house employees, but also all the building service employees who,
like all other maintenance employees, are subject to maintenance super-
vision. We reject the unit initially sought by the Carpenters because
it does not include all the maintenance employees. It is, however,
clear that carpenters working at the plant are a distinct and traditional
craft group to which we have accorded separate craft representation,
despite normal integration of plant processes. We find, therefore,
in accord with the Carpenters' alternate request, that carpenters at
the plant may constitute a separate craft unit for bargaining pur-
poses; on the other hand, they may constitute a part of a plantwide
unit urged by the other parties herein, which is also appropriate.
We shall make no final unit determination for these employees at
this time. We shall direct elections among the following voting
groups of employees at the Employer's Horseheads, New York, plant:
(a) All carpenters and their apprentices, excluding all other em-
ployees and supervisors as defined in the Act.
(b) All production and maintenance employees, including plant
clerical employees,4 but excluding carpenters and their apprentices,
confidential employees, office clerical employees, laboratory techni-
cians, professional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in
the Act.
If a majority of employees in voting group (a) select the Carpenters
as their bargaining representative, they will be taken to have indicated
their desire to constitute a separate bargaining unit, which the Board
under these circumstances finds appropriate for bargaining purposes.
If employees in voting group (a) and employees in voting group (b)
select the same bargaining representative, the Board finds that all
these employees, under these circumstances, constitute a single plant-
wide unit appropriate for bargaining purposes. If, however, em-
ployees in voting group (b) select a representative other than that
chosen by employees in voting group (a), the Board finds that em-
ployees in voting group (b) constitute a residual unit appropriate for
bargaining purposes.
"'Westinghouse Electric Corporation , 87 NLRB 463 , and cases cited therein
4 We find no merit in the Employer's contention that'employees who collect and tabulate
production information for supervisors should be excluded from the unit As plant deri-
eals, we shall include them in the unit Wilson d Co., Inc., 97 NLRB 1388 ; Farrell-Cheek
'Steel Company, 88 NLRB 303.
250983-vol. 10 2-5 3-19
278 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
5. Flint Glass Workers contends in its brief that the petitions herein
are premature because of contemplated expansion in the Employer's
plant from 319 employees to an expected 800 employees within 1 year.
The record, however, shows that the present number of employees con-
stitutes a substantial and essentially representative proportion of the
expected complement. Moreover, further expansion is entirely con-
tingent upon increased sales of the Employer's product.
Under these circumstances, we see no reason for departing from our
usual policy of directing immediate elections s
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication in this
volume.]
6 General Motors Corporation, 82 NLRB 876.
GLOBE PRODUCTS CORPORATION and INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED
AUTOMOBILE WORKERS or AMERICA, AFL. Case No. 7-CA--578.
January 15,1953
Decision and Order
On June 18,1952, Trial Examiner W. Gerard Ryan issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Re-
spondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Inter-
mediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent and the
General Counsel filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report, and
briefs in support thereof.
The Board 1 has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner and
finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby
affirmed. The Board has considered the Intermediate Report, the ex-
ceptions and briefs, and the entire record in this case, and hereby
adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Trial
Examiner, with the following additions :
1. We agree with the Trial Examiner that Ripley and Little were
discriminatorily discharged in violation of Section 8 (a) (3) of the
Act. However, in addition to the findings, which we adopt, upon
which the Trial Examiner based his conclusions, we rely upon the fact
that Ripley and Little were selected as union representatives shortly
after the Union was organized in the Respondent's plant. These two
employees were thus identified to the Respondent as leaders in the
-1 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 Murdock and Peterson].
102 NLRB No. 35.