Westinghouse Electric Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 1, 1957

117 N.L.R.B. 520 (N.L.R.B. 1957)

520 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
between agricultural and nonagricultural pursuits. -Accordingly, we
find that since the employees in-this case spend upwards of 70 percent
of their time during the year in nonagricultural employment, they are
properly included in the unit found appropriate."
Accordingly, we find that the following employees at the Employer's
Watsonville, California, processing plant constitute an appropriate
unit for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9. (b) of the Act: All production and maintenance employees,
excluding office clerical employees, guards, and supervisors as defined
in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
To the extent that Clinton Foods, Inc., supi `e, and subsequent cases are inconsistent
with this decision, they are hereby overruled . We find it unnecessary to lay down a general
rule in this case as to what proportion of time spent in nonagricultural work is necessary
for inclusion in the unit.
Westinghouse Electric Corporation and Local 68, International
Union of Operating Engineers , AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case No.
2-RC-8403. March 1, 1967
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 Julian J. Hoffman,,
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 named below claim to represent certain
employees of the Employer.'
- 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the represen-_
tation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section
9 (c) (1) and Section 2 •(6) and (7) of the Act.
The Intervenor moved to dismiss contending that its current con-
tract with the Employer is a bar to the petition for the unit of power=-
house employees sought by the Petitioner. The Employer takes no
position on this issue.
The Intervenor has been the bargaining representative of the Em.
ployer's -production and maintenance employees including the em-
ployees sought herein for a number of years. The last contract,
effective -through October 14, 1956, and containing a provision for,
1Local 410, International Union of Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers, AFT CIO,'
herein called Intervenor , was permitted to intervene on the basis of its contract with the-
Employer covering the employees herein involved.
117 NLRB No. 71.
WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION 521
automatic annual renewal absent written notice to terminate 60 days
:before the termination date, was extended on March 20, 1956, through
October 14, 1960. The Mill B date of the contract on which the auto-
matic renewal would have become operative was August 16,1956. The
petition herein was filed the day before, on August 15, 1956.
The Intervenor argues that the petition was untimely filed because
the Employer had no notice of the filing of the petition prior to the
automatic renewal or Mill B date of that contract. We do not agree.
'As the petition herein was filed the day before the Mill B date, it was
timely filed in accord with well-established Board precedent 2 The
fact that the Employer did not have knowledge of the petition prior
to the Mill B date is without controlling effect. While notification
to an employer of the filing of a petition within the period provided
-by the contract may be desirable, we are of the opinion that the timely
-filing of a petition is sufficient to prevent automatic renewal of an
'existing contract from constituting a bar to an investigation and certi-
,fication of representatives.' Furthermore, the March 10, 1956, exten-
sion agreement -constitutes a premature extension of the earlier contract
and as such is not a bar to the petition filed timely with respect to the
original contract.' Accordingly, we deny the Intervenor's motion.
4. The Petitioner seeks to sever a unit of powerhouse engineers from
the existing production and maintenance unit at the Employer's lamp
base manufacturing plant in Belleville, New Jersey. The Intervenor
opposes severance on the ground that-the unit sought is inappropriate
and would destroy the traditional bargaining pattern at this plant.
The employees sought are-classified as watch engineers, first class.
They tend boilers, check water levels and burners, tend and maintain
.air compressors , electric generators, and related equipment. They
work in a separate powerroom located in the central part of the plant
and occasionally work on equipment related to power service in other
parts of the plant. They are required to be licensed by the State.
While these employees work under the same supervision, have the
same general conditions of employment, and receive the same benefits
as other employees, they do not interchange jobs with-other employees
and other employees do not work in the powerroom. In addition, the
.Petitioner is a union which traditionally represents powerhouse em-
ployees.
Under these circumstances; and on the entire record, it is clear that
-the watch engineers, first class, constitute a functionally distinct
2 Wyman-Gordon Co., 117 NLRB 75 ;. Rathbun Molding Corporation, 116 NLRB 1002;
. Bethlehem Pacific Coast Steel Corporation, 114 NLRB 1197.
• s Portland Lumber Mills, 56 NLRB 1336. Cf. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., at al., 116 NLRB
186, wherein notice to the contracting parties was required. However, that case involved
a newly negotiated and executed contract and is distinguishable from the instant case
which involves an automatically renewable contract.
4 Wyman-Gordon Co, supra; Stubntitz Greene Corporation , 116 NLRB 965; Congoleum-
Nairn, Inc., 115 NLRB 1202.
522 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
group of employees with related duties and interests of the sort which
the Board has consistently found may be severed from an existing
production and maintenance unit if they so desire, despite a bargain-
ing history on a broader basis.'
Accordingly, we find that the following employees may constitute a
unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the
meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act:
All watch engineers, first class, employed by, the Employer in the
powerroom at its Belleville, New Jersey, plant, excluding all other
employees, guards, professional employees, and supervisors within
the meaning of the Act.
If a majority vote for the Petitioner they will be taken to have
indicated their desire to constitute a separate appropriate unit, and
the Regional Director conducting the election directed herein is in-
structed to issue a certification of representatives to the Petitioner for
the unit described in paragraph numbered 4, which the Board, under
such circumstances, finds to be appropriate for purposes of collective
bargaining. In the event. a majority do not vote for the Petitioner,
these employees, shall remain a part. of the existing unit and the
Regional Director will issue a certification of results of election to
such effect.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
5 Botany Mills , Inc., 115 NLRB 1497; American Bosch Arma Corporation, 115 NLRB
226; Industrial Rayon Corporation, 107 NLRB 1518. Also see Westinghouse Electric
Corporation, 108 NLRB 556.
Sears Roebuck and Co . and Office Employees International Union,
Local 130, AFL-CIO, Petitioner . Cases Nos. 14-RC-2987 and
14-RM-135. ill arch 4, 7957
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND CERTIFICATION
OF REPRESENTATIVES
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election issued herein on
July 12, 1956,1 an election was conducted on August 10, 1956, under
the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Four-
teenth Region, among the employees in the unit heretofore found
appropriate. Upon the conclusion of the election, the parties were
furnished a tally of ballots. The tally showed that of the approxi-
mately 63 eligible voters, 54 cast ballots, of which 26 were for the
Petitioner, 15 were against the Petitioner, and 13 were challenged.
On August 30, 1956, the Employer filed timely objections to the
election. As the challenged ballots were sufficient in number to affect
1 Not reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions and Orders.
117 NLRB No. 73.