Westinghouse Electric Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 6, 1961

133 N.L.R.B. 1 (N.L.R.B. 1961)

Westinghouse Electric Corp . ( Naval Reactors Facility) and
Eastern Idaho Metal Trades Council , AFL-CIO, Petitioner
Westinghouse Electric Corp . (Naval Reactors Facility ), Peti-
tioner and Eastern Idaho Metal Trades Council , AFL-CIO.
Cases Nos. 19-RC-1036, 19-RC-1069, and 19-R111-321. Septem-
ber 6, 1961
SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER
On September 17, 1952, after an election conducted pursuant to a
Decision and Direction of Election,' the Board issued a certification
of representatives in Case No. 19-RC-1036 in which it certified the
Eastern Idaho Metal Trades Council, AFL-CIO, herein called the
Union, as the collective-bargaining representative for all employees
at the Employer's submarine thermal reactor near Arco, Idaho, in-
cluding plant clerical employees, but excluding office clerical em-
ployees, professional employees, draftsmen, technicians, cafeteria em-
ployees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. On June 16,
1960, the Union filed a motion for clarification requesting that the
certified unit be clarified. On July 21, 1960, the Board remanded this
case to the Region for a hearing on the motion for clarification. A
hearing on the motion was held on August 18 and 19, 1960. The
Union, through its motion, seeks to have the Board determine that
certain employees, heretofore classified as technicians,2 and excluded
from the unit, are in fact not technical employees and are therefore
included in the unit. The Employer, in its opposition to the Union's
motion, contended that the employees in issue are in fact technical
employees and should remain excluded from the unit. Alternatively,
the Employer contends that even if the Board finds some of the tech-
nicians not to be technical employees, they may not be added to the
existing unit without first being given a self-determination election.
During this same period of time, the Union, relying on the language
of the unit description in the certification, also requested that the
Employer bargain with it for inspectors, production coordinators, and
all other employees which the language of the certified unit descrip-
tion does not specifically exclude. Like the technicians, these em-
ployees have not been covered by the collective-bargaining agreements.
x Not published in NLRB volumes.
a In 1952, in excluding technicians from the unit, the parties entered into the following
stipulation :
(3) The parties stipulate to the following definition of the term "technician"
An employee who has attained a high degree of technical, scientific or laboratory skill,
through formal education and training, who exercises independent judgment in carry-
ing out assignments of design, interpretation of design, test procedures, accumula-
tion and interpretation of test and scientific data, installation and operation of test
equipment, as well as the direction of such work.
133 NLRB No. 6.
624067-62-vol. 133-2 1
2 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
The Employer refused to comply with the Union's request on the
ground that the prior exclusion of these employees from the historical
bargaining unit precluded their inclusion in the unit without a self-
determination election.
On October 3, 1960, the Employer, in an attempt to secure such an
election among the unrepresented employees, filed its petition in Case
No. 19-RM-318. Included in the unit description were all those un-
represented employees within the Union's demands, excluding all
other employees.
The Employer maintained its position that all of the "technicians"
were technical employees who could not be included under any circum-
stance. The Employer requested alternatively that if the Board were
to find, in connection with the Union's pending motion for clarifica-
tion that any of the technicians were not technical employees, they
should be included in the self-determination election, as they could not
be placed in the existing unit without participating in such an elec-
tion. At the same time, the Employer also requested the Board to
remand the Union's motion for clarification of the status of the tech-
nicians to the Regional Office for consolidation with the Employer's
petition in Case No. 19-RM-318, so that the status of all disputed em-
ployees might be resolved in a single proceeding.
At the time the Employer requested the Board to remand the
Union's motion for clarification the hearing on the motion had been
completed and the record transferred to the Board. On October 21,
1960, the Regional Director dismissed the petition in Case No.
19-RM-318. The Employer did not request the Board to review this
dismissal. Thereafter, on November 7, 1960, the Employer filed its
petition in Case No. 19-RM-321. In this petition, the Employer de-
scribed as the unit those employee classifications in the unit covered
by its collective-bargaining agreements with the Union. All of the
disputed unrepresented employees, and all other employees, were ex-
cluded. The Employer does not contest the majority status of the
Union in the contractual unit, but in effect is seeking a Board deter-
mination that the technicians and other unrepresented employees
either do not belong in the unit, or should be included in the unit only
after a self-determination election.
As Case No. 19-RM-318, which was one of the proceedings which
was the subject of the Employer's motion for consolidation, is there-
fore no longer pending, the motion to remand and consolidate is hereby
denied. However, in view of the similarity of the issues raised by
Union's motion for clarification, to those raised by the Employer in
Case No. 19-RM-321, we hereby consolidate the Union's motion with
Case No. 19-RM-321, for purposes of this decision only.
We agree with the Union that the Employer's petition in Case No.
19-RM-321 should be dismissed. The Employer does not question the
HOT SHOPPES, INC. 3
Union's majority status among the employees in the unit petitioned
for and does not seek an election in such a unit. We shall therefore
dismiss the petition in Case No. 19-RM-321.
We also agree, however, with the Employer's contention that the
employees in the disputed classifications may not now be added to
the existing bargaining unit without a self-determination election .3
It is clear from the bargaining history that these employees have been
unrepresented and excluded from the bargaining unit, and many of
them have been so excluded since the very beginning of the bargaining
relationship in 1952. Accordingly, we shall deny the Union's motion
for clarification .4
As we do not have before us any petition for an election among the
disputed, unrepresented employees, and in view of our determination
that these employees may not be added to the existing unit without
such an election, we find it unnecessary at this time to rule on the
Employer's further contention that the alleged technical employees
could not properly be included in any production and maintenance
unit because of their technical status.
[The Board denied the request of Eastern Idaho Metal Trades
Council, AFL-CIO, for clarification of certification.]
[The Board dismissed the petition of Westinghouse Electric Corpo-
ration in Case No. 19-RM-321.]
CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH and MEMBER LEEDOM took no part in the
consideration of the above Second Supplemental Decision and Order.
$ See Ethyl Corporation, 118 NLRB 1369, 1370.
FWD Corporation, 131 NLRB 404 ; and Ethyl Corporation , ibid . footnote 2.
Hot Shoppes , Inc. and Local 71, Transportation Terminal, Inter-
plant and Commissary Food Employees Union, AFL-CIO,
Hotel and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders Interna-
tional Union, AFL-CIO
Hot Shoppes, Inc. and National Caterers of New York, Inc. and
Local 71, Transportation Terminal , Interplant and Commis-
sary Food Employees Union , AFL-CIO
Hot Shoppes, Inc. and National Caterers of New York, Inc. and
Local 295, International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauf-
feurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America. Cases Nos
2-CA-783, 2-CA-7349, and 2-CA-73594. September 7, 1961
DECISION AND ORDER
On February 27, 1961, Trial Examiner William F. Scharnikow
issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, find-
133 NLRB No. 8.