Alpha Corp. of Texas

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 13, 1961

130 N.L.R.B. 1292 (N.L.R.B. 1961)

1.292 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Alpha Corporation of Texas and Lodge 952 , International Asso-
ciation of Machinists , AFL-CIO,1 Petitioner . Cases Nos. 16-RC-
2765 and 16-RC-2766. March 13, 1961
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, hearings were held before Thomas P. Sheridan, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearings are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel [Members Rodgers, Leedom, and Fanning].
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 certain em-
ployees of the Employer•.2
3. The IUE contends that the employees of Alpha, at the Richardson
plant, which the IAM seeks to represent, are an accretion to the unit
which it represents at Richardson and that a contract between it and
Alpha's parent, Collins, effective from July 1, 1960, to August 31, 1961,
is a bar to this proceeding, and at the hearing, moved to dismiss the
petition.
As stated previously 3 IUE represents Collins production and main-
tenance employees at Richardson. IAM and the Employer deny that
the contract is a bar.
On January 16, 1960, Collins, Alpha, and IUE signed an agreement
in which the parties agreed that Alpha, as successor to a portion of
Collins' business, was a party to the agreement between Collins and
IUE and recognized that IUE was entitled to represent employees of
Alpha engaged in fabrication and installation of systems in convey-
1 The Employer and Petitioner are hereinafter referred to as Alpha and IAM.
2 At the hearing , International Union of Electrical , Radio and Machine Workers ' of
America, AFL-CIO, and its Local 787, herein called IUE , was permitted to intervene on
the basis of an alleged card showing and contract interest. The IAM objected to and
moved to revoke the intervention , contending that the cards presented by IUE are
fraudulent and that the contract on which IUE relies does not cover the employees in-
volved . We have been administratively advised that the IUE has no valid showing of
interest . However , the record shows that during 1959, Alpha decided to move part of
its manufacturing plant from Addison , Texas, to leased space in a plant owned by its
parent, Collins Radio Company , herein called Collins , at Richardson, Texas. In December
1959, IUE, which represented some Collins employees at Richardson , notified Collins and
Alpha that it considered the work to be performed by Alpha at Richardson, covered by
the Collins-IUE contract . On January 16, 1960 , Collins, Alpha, and IUE signed an
agreement in which, inter alia, Alpha agreed that "the above named union [IUE] is
entitled to represent employees of the corporation ." On the basis of the foregoing, we
find that IUE was properly permitted to intervene to protect its interest , if any, in the
unit sought.
$ See footnote 2, supra.
130 NLRB No. 135.
ALPHA CORPORATION OF TEXAS 1293
ances other than aircraft at Richardson.4 On July 1, 1960, Collins
and IUE executed the contract here asserted as a bar.5 On July 22,
1960, Alpha, Collins, and IUE signed an agreement superseding the
January 16, 1960, agreements between the same parties. The new
agreement stated that the parties would be bound by the Board decision
in a case pending before its with regard to the unit placement of
Alpha employees at the Richardson plant. This agreement contains
the following contingencies :
1. The parties will abide by the National Labor Relations
Board's decision in Case Number 16-RC-2660 now pending before
the Board.
2. In the event the Board decides said Case 16-RC-2660 to the
effect that the work involved in said case and the subject of said
letter is to be done by the International Association of Machinists,
the letter and agreement will be mutually rescinded.
3. In the event the Board decides said Case 16-RC-2660 that
the work involved is to be done by the I.U.E., then and in that
event:
(a) If Collins Radio Company, Texas Division, does said work,
then and in that event the work will come under the collective
bargaining agreement between Collins Radio Company and the
I.U.E. dated July 1, 1960.
(b) In the event said work, or any portion thereof, is done by
Alpha Corporation, then and in that event Alpha Corporation is
not a party to the Collins Radio I.U.E. agreement and a separate
collective bargaining agreement covering employees so engaged
will be entered into between Alpha and I.U.E. on substantially
the same terms and conditions as the Collins Radio Bargaining
Agreement. It is understood that any such agreement shall be-
come effective only after the date on which all of such work is
relocated from Alpha's Addison Airport facility to its Richardson
plant, which date must remain indefinite. Alpha will in good
faith and with reasonable diligence provide for this relocation
giving first consideration to its performance obligations under
outstanding commitments to customers.
As, at the time of the hearing in the Alpha case referred to in the
agreement, Alpha had no employees at Richardson, the Board did not
determine the unit placement of Alpha employees at Richardson.'
The record shows that on July 11, 1960, certain Alpha employees
who worked at the Alpha, Addison, Texas, plant, were transferred to
4 This is a unit which IAM seeks to represent herein.
5 The contract is not signed by any representative of Alpha, Alpha is not referred to
in the agreement, and no reference is made to Alpha employees.
6 Alpha Corporation, Transportable Systems Division, 128 NLRB 309.
7 Alpha Corporation, supra, footnotes 13, 14.
1294 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Richardson. Since that time Alpha has supplemented its Richardson
labor force with other Addison employees and new hires. No Collins
employees have been hired by, Alpha or transferred from Collins to
Alpha. At Richardson, in the unit sought by Petitioner IAM, Alpha
manufactures and assembles prototype transportable huts containing
electronic equipment. Collins employees at Richardson assemble
printed circuits, electrical subassemblies, electrical and mechanical
assemblies, and perform inspection, testing, and stock activities.
Collins is separated from Alpha by a fence. Each operation has its
own supervisory hierarchy, each. maintains its own payroll and book-
keeping records, and there is no employee interchange between the
two corporations.
On the basis of the foregoing we find that Alpha's Richardson plant
is. not an accretion to the Collins plant, and that, consequently, the
IUE contract with Collins is inapplicable to the operation sought by
the Petitioner. As there is no other basis absent a finding of an accre-
tion for holding the contract or agreement to be applicable to the
employees sought by the Petitioner,8 we find that neither the July 1,
1960, contract nor the July 22, 1960, agreement are a• bar and that a
question affecting commerce exists concerning the representation of
employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9(c) (1)
and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. Furthermore, as the IUE's
contract does not cover any of the employees in the requested unit, and
as it has made no other valid showing of interest among these em-
ployees, we find that it has no standing to. challenge the appropriate-
ness of the requested unit nor to appear on the ballot in the election
directed below.'
4. The IAM seeks to represent only the employees of the transport-
able systems division of the Employer at its Richardson, Texas, plant.
The Employer, in requesting an immediate election, did not question
the appropriateness of the unit.10 The Employees sought comprise
one of the Employer's eight divisions and are separately supervised.
They perform substantially-the. same type of work as those in the
.Petitioner's certified unit at the Employer's Addison, Texas, plant,
and, unlike other employees engaged only in production manufactur-
ing work, are engaged in preproduction or prototype model work.
8 Thus , the July 1 contract does not apply to Alpha or its employees as neither is
referred to in the contract. As for the July 22 agreement, its coverage of Alpha em-
ployees was predicated upon a Board determination that certain work should be done by
IUE-a determination the Board- never made. Consequently, neither of the agreements
was by its terms intended to apply to Alpha employees at the Richardson establishment.
B Cf. Essex Wire Corporation, 130 NLRB 450; A.M. t F. Products, 10i; NLRB 1074.
footnote 2.
1o Further, it should be noted that following the original hearing in this proceeding,
the Employer entered into a consent-election agreement with the Petitioner for an election
among the employees in the requested unit . No such election was held , however , in view
of the IUE 's claim, herein found to be without substance , that the requested employees
were an accretion to its existing contractual unit.
THE YOUNGSTOWN SHEET AND TUBE COMPANY 1295
Under these circumstances, we find that the following employees con-
stitute a unit appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining within
the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act : it
All electricians and mechanics, stockmen, and other employees in
the transportable systems division of the Employer's Richardson,
Texas, plant, engaged in the fabrication and installation of electronic
systems in transportable systems, excluding office clerical employees,
draftsmen, radio technicians, laboratory technicians, janitors, build-
ing maintenance employees, professional employees, guards and
watchmen, and supervisors as defined in the Act.12
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
"In view of our finding herein we deem it unnecessary to pass upon the alternate re-
quest of IAM that its certification in Case No . 16-RC-2660 be clarified by extending it
to the employees sought therein.
At the hearing , the manager of the installations division of the transportable division.12
referred to the electricians and mechanics included in the unit as electrical technicians
and mechanical technicians . The Employer' s director of industrial relations testified,
however , that the Company had not established a classification for any of the employees
involved . In any event , though the record shows that the included employees are skilled
workers, there is no showing that they are technical employees within the meaning of
the Board 's definition of that term. See Litton Industries of Maryland, Incorporated,
125 NLRB 722.
The Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company and United Steel-
workers of America, Local 1011 and Sidney A. O'Neill. Cases
Nos. 13-CA-3490 and 13-CB-846. March 14, 1961
DECISION AND,ORDER
On October 14, 1960, Trial Examiner Thomas F. Maher issued his
Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that
the Respondents had not engaged in the unfair labor practices al-
leged in the complaint and recommending that the complaint be dis-
missed in its entirety, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate
Report attached hereto. Thereafter, the General Counsel filed excep-
tions to the Intermediate Report and a brief in support thereof.
Exceptions were also filed by the Respondent Company together with
a brief in support thereof and in .support of other findings, conclu-
sions, and recommendations of the Trial Examiner. The Respondent
Union has filed a brief in support of the Intermediate Report.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board
has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-
member panel [Members Rodgers, Leedom, and Jenkins].
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed.
The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the
Intermediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record
130 NLRB No. 139.