Westinghouse Electric Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 28, 1955

114 N.L.R.B. 1515 (N.L.R.B. 1955)

WESTINGITOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION 1515
2. Drake-Fuller, Griffin, and Columbia are employers within the meaning of
Section 2 (2) of the Act
3. Drake-Fuller, Griffin, and Columbia are persons within the meaning of Section
2 (1) and Section 8 (b) (4) (A) of the Act.
4. The Union is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of
the Act.
5. By restraining and coercing employees in the exercise of certain rights guaran-
teed in Section 7 of the Act, the Union has engaged in and is engaging in unfair
labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (b) (1) (A) of the Act.
6. By causing Griffin to discriminate in regard to the hire and tenure of employ-
ment of certain employees and by maintaining and enforcing certain practices re-
specting the clearance of employees as a condition of employment, the Union has
attempted to cause Griffin and other employers to discriminate in regard to hire and
tenure of employment within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) of the Act, and has
thereby committed and continued to commit unfair labor practices within the mean-
ing of Section 8 (b) (2) of the Act.
7. The foregoing unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Westinghouse Electric Corporation (Sunnyvale Plant ) and Inter-
national Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 786, AFL-
CIO.' Case No. 20-PC-2908. December 28, 1955
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before L. D.
Matthews, Jr., hearing officer of the National Labor Relations Board.
The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from pre-
judicial 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 organizations involved claim to represent employees of
the Employer.
3. No 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, for the following
reasons:
The UE contends that no question concerning representation exists
on the ground, inter alia, that the petition was filed less than a year
after its certification. The Petitioner and IUE disagree, relying on
the Westinghouse Electric Corporation case.' It appears that UE
i The AFL and CIO having merged subsequent to the hearing in this proceeding, we are
amending the identification of the affiliation of the Unions.
2 Local 1008, United Electrical , Radio & Machine Workers of America ( UE), herein
called UE , and International Union of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, herein called IUE,
intervened in this matter . We find no merit in the UE's opposition to the intervention of
SUE because of an alleged inadequacy of showing . Showing is an administrative matter
not litigable by the parties . Moreover , we are satisfied as to the sufficiency of IUE's
card-showing.
3 WVestinghouse Electric Corporation, 110 NLRB 872.
114 NLRB No. 239.
1516 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and Employer entered into an agreement , designated supplement VI
to the national agreement, covering inter alia the production and
maintenance employees of the Sunnyvale Plant of the Employer,
which was executed on July 24, 1954, and effective July 1, 1954, for
a period of 151/2 months until October 15, 1955, subject to automatic
renewal. UE was certified on December 27, 1954, to represent the
employees of the Sunnyvale production and maintenance unit. By
letter dated August 15, 1955, UE sent timely notice of desire to modify
to the Employer in accordance with the provisions of the agreement.
On October 6, 1955, within the certification year, the petition herein
was filed.
As held in the Centr-O-Cast case,4 absent unusual circumstances we
do not consider a petition timely that is filed during a certification
year. We find no unusual circumstances in this matter. The West-
inghouse and Ludlow Typograph I cases are inapplicable because they
involve situations where an agreement is entered into within the certi-
fication year and not prior thereto, as in the instant matter. Accord-
ingly, we shall dismiss the petition herein. In view of our disposition
of this matter it is unnecessary to decide other issues raised by UE.
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
MEMBER BEAN took no part in the consideration of the above De-
cision and Order.
* Centr- O-Cast & Engineering Company, 100 NLRB 1507.
5 Ludlow Typograph Company, 108 NLRB 1463.
Aeronca Manufacturing Corporation and International Union,
United Automobile , Aircraft and Agricultural Implement
Workers of America (UAW, AFL-CIO).' Case No. 9-RC-2586.
December 28,1955
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 Orville E. Andrews , hearing
officer. The hearing officer 's rulings made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.'
' The AFL and CIO having merged subsequent to the hearing in this proceeding, we are
amending the identification of the affiliation of the Unions accordingly.
2 Aeronca Independent Union, herein called the Intervenor , was permitted to intervene
in this proceeding on the basis of its contractual interest in the employees whom the
Petitioner seeks to represent.
We hereby affirm the hearing officer 's refusal to permit the Petitioner to litigate the
Intervenor 's compliance status in this proceeding . See General Furniture Corporation,
109 NLRB 479; Coca-Cola Bottling Company of Louisville, Inc., 108 NLRB 490.
The hearing officer referred to the Board the motions of the Employer and the Inter-
venor to dismiss the petition on the grounds that there is a contract bar and that the
114 NLRB No. 240.