Westinghouse Electric Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 10, 1953

107 N.L.R.B. 16 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

16 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and modifications of the Intervenor, and that such notice
therefore did not terminate the contract. We do not agree. It
is clear from the fact that the Employer proceeded to negotiate
with the Intervenor despite the defect in its January 21
notice; that such defect was not deemed substantial by either
party and was waived by them., Inasmuch as the agreements
reached by negotiation were never signed by both parties,
they also cannot serve as a bar to this petition.4 Finally,
the provision in the original contract which continues that
contract until agreement is reached on proposed modifi-
cations does not preserve the original agreement as a bar,
as the Board consistently finds that such extension agree-
ments are of indefinite duration and cannot bar a representa-
tion petition.5
4. We find that all production and maintenance employees
employed by the Employer at its Goshen, Indiana, plant,
excluding office clerical employees, professional employees,
guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute
an appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act .6
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
Chairman Farmer took no part in the consideration of
the above Decision and Direction of Election.
SPaducah Battery Company, 88 NLRB 32.
4Monarch Silver King, Inc., 94 NLRB 295.
5 The Curtiss Way Corporation, 105 NLRB 642.
6 The parties stipulated that this unit is appropriate.
WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION and FEDERA-
TION OF WESTINGHOUSE INDEPENDENT SALARIED
UNIONS, Petitioner . Case No. 4-RC-2050. November 10,
1953
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Eugene M.
Levine, 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 Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent
certain employees of the Employer.
3. International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine
Workers, CIO, and its Local 401, herein collectively called
107 NLRB No. 7.
WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION 17
the IUE, were allowed to intervene on the basis of a current
contract with the Employer covering some of the employees
involved in this proceeding . The Employer and the IUE
assert that this contract constitutes a bar to an election
among the Employer ' s salaried nonprofessional employees.
The parties have stipulated that the IUE 's contract of
October 1, 1950, as amended , was renewed on August 1,
1953. The original petition herein was filed on July 17,
1953, and requested a bargaining unit composed of all salaried
employees at the Employer's Metuchen, New Jersey, plant,
excluding only guards and supervisors . Thereafter, on August
5, 1953, the Petitioner amended its petition to request one
election for the nonsupervisory salaried professional em-
ployees and a separate election for the remainder of the
nonsupervisory salaried employees of the Metuchen plant.
The IUE contends that the original petition did not raise a
question concerning representation because the Petitioner
there sought to represent both professional and nonprofes-
sional employees in a single unit, without according the
professional employees the separate election guaranteed them
by Section 9 (b) (1) of the Act. The IUE further contends that
the August 5, 1953, amendment to the petition could not cure
this defect because its contract with the Employer was
renewed on August 1, and thereafter constituted a bar. We
cannot accept these contentions.
Section 9 (b) (1) of the Act is not a general interdiction
against the establishment of bargaining units composed of
both professional and nonprofessional employees. Indeed,
the Board consistently finds such units appropriate when
professional workers indicate in a separate election that
they desire to be included in a larger bargaining unit.'
As the amendment of August 5, 1953, simply sought a voting
procedure required by the statute, and did not enlarge in
any way the unit requested by the original petition , we find
that it was timely and that the original petition raised a
question concerning representation of the employees of the
Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section
2 (6) and (7) of the Act.2
4. The Petitioner seeks to represent the salaried pro-
fessional and salaried nonprofessional employees at the
Employer's Metuchen plant either as a single unit or as
two separate units. The parties are in complete agreement
as to the composition of both units except that the Employer
would exclude the manufacturing engineers from the pro-
fessional unit as managerial employees. The Petitioner dis-
' See Sonotone Corporation, 90 NLRB 1236.
2See The Rauland Corporation , 97 NLRB 1333. We also reject the IUE's contention that
the Petitioner has made an inadequate showing of interest . We are advised that the Petitioner's
showing, which is a matter not subject to collateral attack, meets our administrative re-
quirement.
18 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
putes this contention and would include them in the profes-
sional unit.,
In an earlier proceeding the Board considered the status
of manufacturing engineers at the Employer ' s South Phila-
delphia Works and determined that they should be excluded
from the professional voting group there because they exercise
managerial functions . 3 As the duties and responsibilities
of these employees are the same at both plants, and as the
present record adds no significant evidence to that considered
by the Board in the earlier proceeding , we shall follow the
determination made in that case and exclude the manufacturing
engineers as managerial employees.
As a result of the foregoing , and the agreement of the
parties, we find that the employees in the following voting
groups may constitute separate appropriate units for the
purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9 (b) of the Act:
(a) The professional voting group--all professional em-
ployees employed by the Employer at its Metuchen, New
Jersey, plant, including engineers, design engineers , senior
engineers, junior engineers , method engineers , time and
motion analysts , and nurses , but excluding manufacturing
engineers, doctors, and supervisors as defined in the Act.
(b) The nonprofessional voting group -- all salaried clerical
and technical employees of the Employer employed at its
plant in Metuchen , New Jersey , including assistant buyers,
but excluding all industrial relations employees , department
heads, secretaries to department heads, the paymaster-
cashier, the internal auditor , budget accountants, buyers,
outside expediters , all employees in voting group ( a), guards,
and supervisors as defined in the Act.
We further find that if a majority of the employees in pro-
fessional voting group ( a) so desire, both groups may be
merged into a single salaried unit which , inthe circumstances,
we find to be appropriate for the purposes of collective
bargaining within the meaning of the Act.
In order to ascertain the desires of the professional em-
ployees as to inclusion in a unit with nonprofessional employees,
we shall direct separate elections in the two voting groups.
The employees in the nonprofessional voting group (b) will
be polled as to which , if either , of the competing unions they
wish to represent them. The employees in the professional
voting group ( a) will be asked two questions on the ballot:
(1) Do you desire the professional employees to be included
with the clerical and technical employees in a single unit
for the purposes of collective bargaining ?; ( 2) do you desire
to be represented for the purposes of collective bargaining
by the IUE, The Federation of Westinghouse Independent
Salaried Unions, or by neither?; and if a majority of the
employees in the professional voting group ( a) vote "Yes"
389 NLRB 8, 30.
IVORY PINE COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA 19
to the first question, indicating their wish to be included in
a unit with the nonprofessional employees, they will be so
included. Their votes on the second question will then be
counted together with the votes of the nonprofessional voting
group (b) to decide the representative for the whole salaried
unit. If, on the other hand, the majority of the employees in
the professional voting group ( a) vote against inclusion, they
will not be included with the nonprofessional employees.
Their votes on the second question will then be separately
counted to decide which union, if either, they want to rep-
resent them in a separate professional unit. If a majority
vote for one of the competing labor organizations in one
or more of the alternative units as described above, the
Regional Director 'conducting the elections is instructed to
issue a certification or certifications of representatives for
such unit or units.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.]
IVORY PINE COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA and OPERATING
ENGINEERS, LOCAL NO. 3, INTERNATIONAL UNION OF
OPERATING ENGINEERS, AFL, Petitioner. Case No. 20-
RC-2354. November 10, 1953
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before Albert
Schneider, 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
meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
2. The labor organization involved claims to represent
certain employees of the Employer.
3. 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 requests a unit of all production and main-
tenance employees employed at the Employer' s logging opera-
tion near Kings Canyon National Park, California. The Em-
ployer contends that the appropriate unit should include the
logging operations and its sawmill plant at Dinuba, California,
with certain exclusions. The Employer also contends that
certain men engaged in falling, limbing, and bucking opera-
tions at the logging camp are not its employees but employees
of an independent contractor.
The Employer's logging operations are carried on some 50
miles from the mill site at Dinuba. Each operation is separately
107 NLRB No. 9.