Westinghouse Electric Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jul 12, 1960

128 N.L.R.B. 31 (N.L.R.B. 1960)

WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORP. (MANSFIELD DIVISION) 31
7 of the Act and discouraging membership in and activities for the above-named
labor organization , the Respondent has engaged and is engaging in unfair labor
practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) and (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.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Westinghouse Electric Corporation (Mansfield Division) and
Federation of Westinghouse Independent Salaried Unions,
Petitioner. Cases Nos. 8-RC-0774 and 8-RC-3810. July 1 2,1960
DECISION, ORDER, AND CLARIFICATION OF
CERTIFICATION
Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before a hearing
officer of the National Labor Relations Board. The hearing officer's
rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are
hereby affirmed.
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
Bean and Jenkins].
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 employees of
the Employer.
3. The Petitioner was certified in Case No. 8-RC-2774 for a unit of
all clerical employees at Employer's Mansfield, Ohio, plant, which
included salaried works production clerks, but excluded, among others,
hourly paid factory production clerks and engineering department
employees. In this case, Petitioner seeks to gain representation of
nine material controllers and a production coordinator. It requests a
clarification of the certified unit to include such employees or, in the
alternative, an election among the material controllers and production
coordinator whom it would represent in a separate unit or as part of its
existing unit. The Employer is opposed to any clarification of the
certification by the way of this proceeding, and contends that the
employees in issue do not constitute a separate appropriate unit.
As noted above, salaried works production clerks were part of the
certified unit. Their duties included the receipt of orders for renewal
parts and the performance of the necessary clerical work for procure-
ment of these parts, the execution of purchase orders to sources out-
side the plant, and performance of clerical duties involved in handling
foreign export orders. Since about 1958 the Employer has been en-
gaged in a plant reorganization, a result of which has been the elimina-
tion of the classification of salaried works production clerks and the
128 NLRB No. 9.
32 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
creation of two new classifications of salaried employees, namely, ma-
terial controllers and production coordinator. Some employees now
classified as material controllers previously worked as production
clerks. The production coordinator was formerly a salaried works
production clerk. The employees now classified as material control-
lers and production coordinator perform virtually the same functions
as were performed by works production clerks; the basic functions of
the job covered by the abandoned classification have been transferred
to the successor classifications without material change.
It is plain from the foregoing that a dispute exists between the
parties as to whether the production coordinator and the material con-
trollers are included or excluded from the unit for which the Petitioner
was certified by the Board, which question can best be resolved by a
clarification of the certification. For the aforementioned employees,
some of whom were included in the unit as works production clerks, are
shown by the record as salaried material coordinators and production
coordinator to be essentially successors to the duties and responsibili-
ties of the works production clerks, a classification which was part of
the certified unit before its discontinuance. Under all the circum-
stances, we shall dismiss the petition as such and, treating it in the
nature of a request by Petitioner to clarify the existing certification,'
hereby clarify the certification issued in Case No. 8-RC-2774 by hold-
ing that the material controllers and production coordinator are
included within its coverage.
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
i As for authority to proceed in this manner, see J. R Pepper, et al., d/b /a Bluff City
Broadcasting Co , 102 NLRB 102; The Daily Press, Incorporated, 110 NLRB 573; The
Bell Telephone Company of Pennsylvania , 118 NLRB 371.
George H. Braun, d/b/a Alamo-Braun Beef Company and
George Braun Packing Co.' and Amalgamated Meat Cutters
and Butcher Workmen of North America , AFL-CIO, Local
Union No . 171, Petitioner
George H. Braun, d/b/a Alamo-Braun Beef Company and
General Drivers & Helpers Local Union No. 657, affiliated
with International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen and Helpers of America , Petitioner. Cases
Nos. 03-RC-1509 and 03-RC-1517. July 12, 1960
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing 2 was held before
i The Employer' s name appears as amended at the hearing.
2 The Employer objected to consolidation of Case No. 23-RC-1509 with Case No.
23-RC-1517 and, for this reason , moved to dismiss the petition in the former case.
'Consolidation is a matter for administrative determination . As the Employer has failed
128 NLRB No. 6.