Westinghouse Electric Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 15, 1953

107 N.L.R.B. 349 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION 349
sified production workers at the plant doing the various jobs
assigned to them under the temporary present.working condi-
tions. When renovation and installation work is completed, the
Employer plans to increase the work complement to approxi-
mately 100 employees in 6 to 8 months and to 150 to 200 em-
ployees in about 18 months . The Employer , however , does not
contemplate that the Barnhart plant will operate independently
of the St . Louis plant . So far as the instant record discloses,
employees at the St. Louis plant are not presently represented
by any labor organization.
In view of the expected increase in the number of employees
at the Barnhart plant in the near future, the present training
status of employees at the plant and their lack of work classi-
fication , and the temporary uncertainty and dependent nature
of the plant ' s present operations , an immediate election among
employees presently working at the Barnhart plant would be
premature . ' Furthermore , it does not clearly appear -that
employees at the Barnhart plant may properly constitute an
appropriate unit apart from employees at the St. Louis plant,
concerning which there is little in the instant record from
which any satisfactory conclusion with respect to the scope of
the appropriate unit for Barnhart plant employees can be drawn.
For these reasons, we dismiss the petition.
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
1 Individual Drinking Cup Company, 101 NLRB 1751; A. O. Smith Corporation, 97 NLRB 1570.
WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION and INTER-
NATIONAL UNION OF ELECTRICAL, RADIO AND MA-
CHINE WORKERS, CIO, Petitioner
WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION and INTER-
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, AFL, Peti-
tioner . Cases Nos . 4-RC-2073 and 4 -RC-2074. December 15,
1953.
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9 ( c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before
Julius Topol , 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 Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning
of the National Labor Relations Act.
2. The labor organizations named below claim to represent
certain employees of the Employer.
107 NLRB No. 96.
337593 0 - 55 - 24
350 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
3. On August 7, 1953, International Union of Electrical,
Radio and Machine Workers, CIO, herein called the IUE, and
International Association of Machinists, AFL, herein called
the Machinists , filed separate petitions seeking to represent
certain employees at the Employer's South Philadelphia Works.
The IUE's petition seeks an election among the plant's hourly
paid production and maintenance employees . The Machinists
seeks to represent all nonsupervisory employees at the plant
in a single bargaining unit , but ask for separate elections among
the production and maintenance employees and the salaried,
clerical, and technical employees if the Boardfinds the overall
unit inappropriate . i The Employer and the Intervenor , United
Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, herein
called the UE, contend that no elections should be held at this
time among the salaried employees because , among other
reasons, their contract of November 1, 1950 , as amended,
constitutes a bar to a present determination of representatives.
We agree with this contention.
In 1950 , following a Board -directed election , the UE was
certified as the bargaining representative for the salaried
employees and the production and maintenance employees at
the South Philadelphia Works in two separate bargaining units. 2
On November 24, 1952, following a consent election, the UE
was again certified as bargaining representative for the
salaried unit? Thereafter, on July 10, 1953, the Employer
and the UE executed supplement V to their contract of November
1, 1950 , extending their agreement until June 30, 1954 . Clearly
supplement V bars a determination of representatives in the
salaried unit at this time as it is well established that any
contract of reasonable duration made during the year following
a certification precludes a new investigation of representatives
during its regular term .4 However, as none of the parties has
asserted a contract bar to an election in the hourly paid
production and maintenance unit hereinafter found appropriate,
we find that a question affecting commerce exists concerning
the representation of such employees within the meaning of
Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.5
4. We find that the following employees of the Employer
constitute a unit appropriate within the meaning of Section
9 (b) of the Act: All hourly paid production and maintenance
employees of the Employer at its South Philadelphia Works,
Tinicum Township, Delaware County, Pennsylvania, including
i At the hearing the Machinists also requested that a self - determination election be conducted
among the Employer ' s professional employees in view of the fact that the Machinists made
no showing of interest among these employees , its request is denied.
2 Westinghouse Electric Corporation, 89 NLRB 8.
3Case No. 4-RC-1679 ( not reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions.)
4See Bath Iron Works Corp., 101 NLRB 849
5 We find no merit in the several grounds for dismissal of one or both petitions advanced
by the UE during the hearing . Accordingly, its various motions to dismiss are hereby
denied
RETAIL EMPLOYEE RELATIONS COMMISSION 351
group leaders , but excluding guards, professional employees,
and supervisors as defined in the Acts
[Text of Direction of Election7 omitted from publication.]
6 This is the identical bargaining unit which the Board found appropriate in the 1950
proceeding.
IOn January 14, 1953, the Board in Westinghouse Electric Corporation , 102 NLRB 270,
directed that a self- determination election be conducted among the patternmakers at the
South Philadelphia Works to determine whether they desired to be represented as a separate
bargaining unit or remain a part of the existing hourly paid production and maintenance
unit represented by the UE . In the subsequent election they indicated that they desired to
remain in the overall unit, and on February 11, 1953 , the Regional Director issued a certifi-
cation of results of election to such effect . The UE here contends that under the provisions
of Section 9 (c) (3) no election affecting these employees can be directed at this time. We
reject this contention as the election herein directed is not in the unit or a subdivision of the
unit in which that election was held. See Robertson Brothers Department Store, 95 NLRB
21.
On September 18, 1953, the IUE moved that the name of the UE be excluded from the
ballot on the ground that the record establishes that the UE will not represent in the presen-
tation and processing of grievances any employees who are not members of the UE. We
do not find that the record supports this contention. Accordingly the motion is hereby denied.
RETAIL EMPLOYEE RELATIONS COMMISSION, Petitioner
and BUILDING SERVICE EMPLOYEES ' UNION, LOCAL NO.
64, A. F . OF L. and RETAIL CLERKS' UNION , LOCAL NO.
2, A. F. OF L. Case No. 18-RM-139 . December 15, 1953
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Richard P.
O'Connell , 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 this case , the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing of the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent cer-
tain employees of the Employer.
3. The question concerning representation:
Building Service Employee ' s Union , Local No. 64, A. F. of L.,
herein called Local 64, has represented employees of the
Employer in the classifications involved herein since 1939. The
most recent contract between the Employer and Local 64 ex-
pired on April 30, 1953. In June 1953 Retail Clerks ' Union,
1 At the hearing , Local 64 moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that the Employer is
attempting to establish a "multiple employer " unit for which there is no history of direct
collective bargaining between all of the members of the Employer ' s Association and Local 64.
For the reasons indicated in the text below, the motion to dismiss is hereby denied.
107 NLRB No. 97.