Westinghouse Electric Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 18, 1956

115 N.L.R.B. 1381 (N.L.R.B. 1956)

WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION 1381
:also contends that Darlington did not engage in surveillance be-
cause there was no mention of the meeting made to any employee
:afterward. However, Darlington did in their presence observe the
employees at the meeting, and did report the names of several em-
ployees to Gahris after leaving the meeting. Moreover, any impres-
sion that Darlington may have conveyed initially to the employees
that his presence was due to an invitation was immediately dispelled
when Darlington was told that he was not invited to this meeting and
was asked to leave. As for Gahris, he may not have specifically urged
the employees in his interviews with them to reject the Petitioner in
the election, but he did tell them of the disadvantages of having a
union, thereby clearly implying that they should vote against the
Petitioner.7
In view of the foregoing, we shall set aside the election and direct the
holding of anew election."
[The Board set aside the election held on September 20, 1955.]
[Text of Direction of Second Election omitted from publication.]
MEMBER RODGERS took no part in the consideration of the above De-
^cision, Order,'and Direction of Second Election.
? See Economic Machinery Company , supra.
s In view of our findings herein, we find it unnecessary to hold a hearing, as requested
by the Employer.
Westinghouse Electric Corporation and Westinghouse Salaried
Employees Association affiliated with Federation of Westing-
house Independent Salaried Unions, Petitioner . Case No.
4-RC-f791. May 18, 1956
DECISION AND ORDER
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before William Draper Lewis,
Jr., 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 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 rea-
sons:
115 NLRB No. 218.
1382 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Petitioner seeks to 'sever from the salaried- unit at the' Em=
plover's Lester, Pennsylvania, plant (South Philadelphia Works);
currently represented by the Intervenor, Local 107, United Electrical;
Radio & Machine Workers of America (Independent),1 a technical
group consisting of draftsmen, tool designers, technical assistants;
and inspectors. The UE contends that these are not technical em=
ployees and also that the Petitioner is not a traditional representative
of-such ,employees within the purview of the American Potash de=
cision2 The Employer and the International -Association of Ma=
chinists,3 take no position with respect to the appropriate unit.
The Board's records and a stipulation of the parties at the hearing
show that, as the result of several. elections during the period from
1937 to 1945, the UE became the certified representative for various
groups 'of hourly paid and salaried employees at the Employer's
plant here involved, and from 1947 to 1950 bargained for all these
employees on a single-unit basis. In 1950 the Employer filed rep-
resentation petitions alleging as appropriate separate units of hourly
paid employees, salaried employees, time-study, men; and- professional
employees. The UE opposed the separation into hourly paid and
salaried units, but the present Petitioner, represented as an Intervenor
by its parent federation, supported the Employer's position and,
sought to represent the broad salaried group, including -technicals,
by appearing on the ballot in an election which the Board directed
among the salaried employees.4 The Petitioner, however, was not
successful in the election and the TJE was certified as representative
of the salaried unit. In 1952, the Petitioner itself filed a petition
seeking to represent the salaried unit,5 but was again defeated in a
consent election by the UE. On August 12, 1955, the Petitioner filed
the present petition seeking to sever from the UE's salaried unit only
the technical employees.
Although initially seeking, in this proceeding, only a unit of drafts-
men, tool designers, and technical assistants, the Petitioner amended
its petition at the hearing to add inspectors to its unit request. ,Al-
ternatively, the Petitioner requests a single unit of inspectors and a_
single unit of draftsmen, tool designers, and technical assistants. If
neither its primary nor its alternative requests meet the Board's ap-
proval, the Petitioner expresses its willingness to represent these cate-
gories in any unit the Board finds appropriate.
We believe that the entire record, including the history of representa-
tion as disclosed by this and prior cases, clearly indicates that the
I Hereinafter referred to as UE.
s American Potash & Chemical Corporation, 107 NLRB 1418. In view of our decision
set forth hereinafter , we need not determine the technical status of each of the cate-
gories sought , nor the various other contentions raised by the parties.
8 The IAM was allowed to intervene on the basis of its showing of interest.
• Westinghouse Electric Corporation , 89 NLRB 8. -
s Case No. 4-RC-1679.
TEXAS PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY 1383
Petitioner's unit request here is based essentially upon the extent of
its organization, and that the Petitioner's purpose here is to obtain
eventual representation of the broader salaried unit. Thus the Peti-
tioner, which appears to have been established for the primary pur-
pose of representing employees of this Employer in salaried units, has
consistently asserted, in the representation proceedings above dis-
cussed, the appropriateness of a broad salaried unit in this plant and-
has sought to secure the representation of such a unit. Under all the
circumstances present here, we conclude that the Petitioner, having
failed to win the salaried unit=on two previous occasions, is now seek=
ing to gain it on a piecemeal basis. We do not believe that the purposes
of the Act would be effectuated if the Petitioner were permitted to
utilize the Board's severance policy to accomplish this result.
As we have concluded that the unit sought in this proceeding is
based essentially upon the extent of the Petitioner's organization, we'
find that such unit is inappropriate and shall therefore dismiss the
petition.
[The Board dismissed the petition.]"`x^;
Texas Prudential Insurance Company and Office Employees In-
ternational Union Local 27, AFL-CIO, Petitioner . Case No.
39-RC-990. May 18, 1956
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION, DIRECTION, AND ORDER
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election dated January
17, 1956, an election by secret ballot was conducted in this proceeding
on February 9, 1956, under the direction and supervision of the Re-
gional Director for the Sixteenth Region among employees of the
Employer in the unit found appropriate by the Board. Following
the election, a tally of ballots was furnished the parties. The tally
shows that there was 1 void ballot; that 43 votes were cast for the
Petitioner; that 40 votes were cast against the Petitioner; and that
there were 11 challenged ballots.
Thereafter the Regional Director investigated the .11 challenged
ballots, and, on March 14, 1956, issued and duly served on the parties
a report on challenged ballots and recommendations to the Board;
Both the Employer and the Petitioner thereafter filed exceptions
to the Regional Director's report, and the Employer filed a supporting
brief.
In his report the Regional Director made the findings and recom-
mendations indicated below-., .
The Regional Director found that the Petitioner challenged the,
ballots of three employees, Anthony -Scaperlanda, Jr.,- Julia Everett,.
115 NLRB No. 219.