Westinghouse Electric Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 9, 1957

118 N.L.R.B. 573 (N.L.R.B. 1957)

WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION 573
tial relation to trade , traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to
lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of
commerce.
IV. THE REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices,
it shall be recommended that the Respondent cease and desist therefrom and take
certain affirmative action which it is found necessary to effectuate the policies of
the Act.
It has been found that the Respondent, by inducing its employees to repudiate
in writing their union authorizations, by granting wage increases, and by threats
and interrogation, interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in violation
of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. It shall be recommended that the Respondent
cease and desist therefrom.
Inasmuch as Respondent's antiunion activities are not so extensive in manner
and scope and are not of such an aggravated character as to indicate an attitude
of general opposition to employees' rights, it will be recommended that Respondent
only be required to cease and desist from in any like manner interfering with,
restraining , or coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them
in Section 7 of the Act.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in
the case, the Trial Examiner makes the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Union herein is a labor organization within the meaning of Section
2 (5) of the Act.
2. Joslin Dry Goods Company is an employer, who at all times material hereto,
was engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act.
3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees in the exercise of
rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, Respondent Company has engaged in
unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce , within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
5. The Company has not committed the violations of Section 8 (a) (5) of the
Act, alleged in the complaint. It is recommended that the allegations of the
complaint setting forth said violations be dismissed.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Westinghouse Electric Corporation (Sturtevant Division) and
International Union of Electrical , Radio and Machine Workers,
CIO, Petitioner. Caiie No. 1-RC-f077. July 9,1957
DECISION AND ORDER
Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election
and the election held pursuant thereto, International Association of
Machinists, AFL-CIO, hereinafter called the Union, was certified on
April 25, 1951, as the collective-bargaining representative in a unit of
production and maintenance employees at the Employer's Hyde Park,
Massachusetts, plant, and South Boston, Massachusetts, warehouse,
excluding among others time-study men. On December 14, 1956, the
Union filed a motion for clarification of certification, requesting the
Board to find that the classification of layout-calculator is included in
the certified unit. On December 31, 1956, the Board issued a notice
118 NLRB No. 67.
574 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
to show cause why this motion should not be granted . On January
9, 1957, the Employer filed its answer thereto requesting that the
Union's motion be dismissed.
On January 25, 1957 , the Board issued an order directing a hearing
in this matter , and instructing the hearing officer to serve upon the
parties a report containing resolutions of the credibility of witnesses,
findings of fact, and recommendations as to the disposition of the
issues involved . The order also provided that, if no timely exceptions
were filed to the hearing officer's report, the Board would adopt the
recommendations of the hearing officer.
A hearing was held on February 28, 1957, before Robert E. Greene,
hearing officer . On April 9, 1957, the hearing officer issued and served
upon the parties a report, a copy of which is attached hereto, in which
he recommended that the Board deny the Employer 's motion to dis-
miss the Union's motion for clarification , and that the Union's certifi-
cate be amended so as to exclude the classification layout-calculator
from the appropriate unit. Thereafter, the Employer and the Union
filed exceptions to the hearing officer's report together with supporting
briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor
Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with
this case to a three -member panel [Chairman Leedom and Members
Murdock and Bean].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the hearing officer made at
the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the hearing
officer's report , the exceptions , the briefs , and the entire record in the
case, and hereby adopts the hearing officer's findings, conclusions, and
recommendations with the following modification.
. The hearing officer recommended that the classification layout-
calculator be excluded from. the unit .. This was a temporary job
classification which no longer exists . The employee performing the
duties of this position is now classified as time-study employee, class
C. He is part of the time-study department and is supervised by the
head of that department . Time-study employees are excluded from
the unit for which the Union is certified bargaining representative.
Accordingly , we perceive no reason for amending the certificate, but
find that , as a time-study employee , the disputed employee is excluded
from the certified unit.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Employer's motion to dismiss the
Union's motion for clarification , be,, and it hereby is, denied; and
IT IS HEREBY FOUND that the position classified as time-study em-
ployee, class C, is excluded from the unit for which the Union was
certified as bargaining representative on April 25, 1951.
WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION 5:75
HEARING OFFICER'S REPORT
On April 25, 1951, the National Labor Relations Board issued its Decision and
Certification of Representatives in the above-captioned matter wherein it certified
that Lodge 1790 of District 38 the International Association of Machinists, AFL,
hereinafter called I. A. M. had been selected by a majority of the employees of
the Employer in the following unit which the Board found to be a unit appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the
Act, as amended:
All production and maintenance employees at the Hyde Park, Massachusetts,
plant and the South Boston, Massachusetts, Warehouse of Westinghouse Electric
Corporation (Sturtevant Division), including plant clerical employees reporting
to the Works Manager, and excluding executives, other office and clerical
employees , erectors, timekeepers, time-study men, patternmakers, secretaries to
executives of the rank of general foremen or higher, manufacturing engineers,
tool designers , all other professional employees, guards, and supervisors as
defined in Section 2 (11) of the Act, as amended.
On December 14, 1956, the I. A. M. filed a motion for clarification of certification
as to the certification of April 25, 1951. The motion was based on a dispute between
the I. A. M. and Employer as to the unit placement of a job or employee classifica-
tion known as "layout-calculator." On December 31, 1956, the Board issued a
notice to show cause why the Board should not grant the motion of the I. A. M.
and include the classification layout-calculator in the certified unit. On or about
January 10, 1957, Employer filed its answer to notice to show cause in which it
contended that the classification here involved was properly a time-study job and not
within the 1. A. M. certified unit. Employer further contended in said answer that
the I. A. M. should not be heard to proceed by way of motion for clarification since
to grant such clarification in accord with the I. A. M.'s contentions would be to find
the Employer guilty of an unfair labor practice, presumably within the meaning of
Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act.
Thereafter, on January 25, 1957, the Board referred the matter to the Regional
Director for the First Region and directed that a hearing be conducted to receive
evidence on the issues involved. Pursuant thereto, said Regional Director issued
and served upon the parties a notice of hearing and designated a hearing officer.
Pursuant to said Order of the Board and notice of hearing, the hearing officer
makes this his report together with recommendations as to the disposition of the
issues involved.
Procedure
At the commencement of the hearing, the Federation of Westinghouse Independent
Salaried Unions was permitted to intervene without objection from any of the
otherparties.
Employer moved that the motion for clarification be denied on several bases:
first, that since no answer to the notice to show cause had been filed by the
I. A. M. and that a verified answer had been filed by the Employer, there was no
cause shown why the unit should be clarified; second, that the procedure on a
motion to clarify was improper since there was nothing to clarify and any favorable
action on that motion would be to add a new classification to the unit description;
and third, that the questions present were properly within the grievance procedure
set out in the contract between the I. A. M. and the Employer and not within the
province of the Board.
As to the first basis for Employer's motion, it was not contemplated that those
of the parties who felt that the motion for clarification should be granted should
make. answer thereto but only that those who felt that the Board should not grant
the motion should make answer. Issue as to the placement of the classification of
layout-calculator is joined by the motion for clarification itself and the Employer's
answer.'
As to the second procedural ground urged by the Employer for denial of the
motion , the Board, in the matter of Clarostat Mfg. Co.,' on the motion of counsel
for the petitioner therein, amended the unit formerly stipulated by the parties to be
appropriate by adding to that unit description two classifications.
'Subsequent to the hearing , Employer filed a motion to correct transcript which was
subsequently assented to by I. A. M. That motion is hereby granted . Also subsequent to
the hearing , Employer and I. A. M. filed briefs which have been duly considered by the
hearing officer.
I See Clarostat Mfg . Go., 105 I' LRB 20.
576 DECISIONS • OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
As to the third basis for Employer's motion, that the determination of the question
raised should properly be made under the grievance procedure of the contract rather
than by the Board, the I. A. M. argues that it is precluded by its contract with the
Employer from proceeding further under such grievance procedure, and in support
of that position the I. A. M. points to article XVIII of that contract, and specifically
to section F of that article, as it appears in I. A. M.'s Exhibit No. 6. Regardless of the
arbitrability of this dispute, by Section 9 (b) of the Act, the determination of the
composition of collective bargaining units is specifically allocated to the Board.
It is further suggested by Employer that the motion to clarify should be denied
since to determine it in accordance with the I. A. M.'s contentions would be to find
the Employer guilty of an unfair labor practice within the meaning of Section 8 (a)
(5). The Board does not require that the unfair labor practice procedure be
utilized in determining disputes of this character.
It is recommended that the Employer's motion to deny the motion for clarification
on the above procedural grounds be denied.
The Issues
Petitioner contends that the job classification is within the unit as to which it has
been certified, that though the job title has changed from layout man A to layout-
calculator, the content of the job is the same as it was at the time that the certification
issued.
It is the contention of the Employer that the job content of the newly established
classification of layout-calculator is different from that of layout man A or any
other classification within the I. A. M. unit and that the I. A. M.'s motion for
clarification should be denied.
The position of the Federation of Westinghouse Independent Salaried Unions is
in substance the same as the Employer's, that is, that the job content of the classi-
fication of layout-calculator is that of a time-study employee and that the motion
for clarification should be denied.
The Merits
There is very little if any substantial dispute among the parties as to the factual
situation which gave rise to this dispute, and the following recitation is for the most
part based upon uncontroverted and undisputed testimony.
The I. A. M. is recognized by the Employer and has been recognized by it for
some years as the bargaining representative for the unit described above, including
layout men of all classes. Layout men class A work with certain metal marking or
puncturing tools including punch pricks, hammers, scribers or scratch-ails, and di-
viders. With these tools they prepare from drawings or blueprints accurate templates
or patterns for use as setup gauges and checking templates for the guidance of
production employees in the manufacture of sheetmetal items for inclusion in Em-
ployer's products. This work of the layout men is performed in the production
areas of the plant, generally in the same area where the piece or item will eventually
be produced by the machine operator. The layout men are compensated at an
hourly rate and are subject to the supervision of the production department foreman.
Sometime in February 1956 the Employer purchased, and had installed in this
plant, certain new types of presses known as Weidemann turret punch presses. The
most efficient utilization of these new punch presses required a change in the method
of preparing guides to the machine operator in the performance of his functions.
Rather than using templates as such guides, coordinate charts are used. These
coordinate charts are prepared for an employee from detailed drawings with the
use of a modified Burroughs calculating machine. An example of such coordinate
chart introduced for illustrative purposes is contained in the record as I. A. M.'s
Exhibit No. 3. In the operation of the Weidemann type presses, the coordinate
chart replaces the template. The chart is held in position before the press operator,
as shown in Company's Exhibit No. 3, and from the figures and other information
appearing upon it, the operator sets his machine.
In the preparation of the coordinate chart, none of the metalworking tools used
by the layout man in the making of templates are used, the Burroughs calculating
machine being the only mechanical contrivance utilized. Unlike the layout man in
his work in preparing templates, the layout-calculator, in the preparation of a co-
ordinate chart, is concerned with the order or sequence of the operations to be
performed by the press operator and indicates on the chart that sequence. The
proper or improper establishment of the sequence of operations determines , in part,
the profit realized by the Employer in the operation.
Beginning about March 30, 1956, the installations of the Weidemann's being
complete, the preparation of the coordinate charts was assigned to an employee:
KNITGOODS WORKERS UNION 577
then classified as layout man A. During the first several weeks on this new
operation, the layout man was closely supervised and instructed in this work by
a member of the Employer's engineering staff, familiarizing him with the use of
the calculating machine and assisting him in adjusting himself to placing the
layout information on paper rather than on a metal template.
During this period when this method of operation was being installed, the
I. A. M. filed a grievance under its contract by which it sought to have the work
of the layout man preparing coordinate charts up-graded, but this grievance was,
withdrawn with the agreement that the Employer should be given more time
to study this new operation. The basis of the I. A. M.'s grievance was that the
new job required a higher grade of skill and knowledge than that required of layout
man A. Subsequently, the grievance was resubmitted, the I. A. M. at this time
contending that the job of layout-calculator required, in addition to the work
normally performed by a layout man, that the employees select the particular
machine on which the work was to be performed, determine the sequence of
operations, the ability to mentally visualize the work to be performed, the exercise
of independent judgment and further contended that, in its responsibilities, layout-
calculator compared with the responsibilities of time-study and methods employees.
The Employer disposed of this grievance by reclassifying the job of layout-
calculator to the classification of time-study and methods engineer, thus removing
it from the unit for collective bargaining represented by the I. A. M.3 and placing.
it for the purposes of collective bargaining within the unit represented by Federation
of Westinghouse Independent Salaried Unions. This reclassification became effective
on August 6, 1956.
On August 22, 1956, the I. A. M. filed a charge with the National Labor Relations
Board, First Region, Case No. 1-CA-2156, that this action of the Employer was,
violative of Section 8 (a) (1) (5) of the Act. This charge was withdrawn, the
case being closed by letter dated November 14, 1956. Thereafter, on December 14,.
1956, the instant motion for clarification was filed.
Testimony at the hearing as to the job layout-calculator shows that it is a salaried
position and that it is subject to the supervision of the Employer's divisional
industrial engineer who is charged with the administration of the Employer's,
time-study operation. The location of the operation has been removed from the
vicinity of the presses to a location occupied by time-study employees and by
certain clerical employees, some of which clerical employees are within the I. A. M.
unit. The present incumbent is classified as a method and time-study engineer C
and his normal progression from that classification would be through method
and time-study engineer B to time-study engineer A. He is in the process of being
trained for such progressions by attending classes which include instruction in the
taking of time studies, the calculation of time values from such studies, the
methodizing of jobs and the general operations of a method and time-study
engineer.
RECOMMENDATION
The hearing officer is convinced that the classification layout-calculator as it is set
out in this Record is a time-study classification. It is therefore recommended that
the unit found by the Board to be appropriate herein be amended by the addition
of the words "including layout-calculators" after the words "time-study men" as
they appear among the exclusions in the recital of the unit contained on the first
page of this Report.
3 See unit description above.
Knitgoods Workers Union , Local 155 International Ladies' Gar -
ment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO and Packard Knitwear, Inc..
Case No. 2-CC-407. July 10,1957
DECISION AND ORDER
On April 15, 1957, Trial Examiner Reeves R. Hilton issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondent Local 155 had engaged in and was engaging in viola-
118 NLRB No. 71.
450553-58-vol. 118-38