AMF Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 2, 1971

193 N.L.R.B. 1113 (N.L.R.B. 1971)

AMF ELECTRO SYSTEMS DIVISION 1113
AMF Electro Systems Division , AMF Incorporated'
and International Union of Electrical , Radio and
Machine Workers, AFL-CIO-CLC and Its Local
804, Petitioners . Case 9-AC-30
November 2, 1971
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MILLER AND MEMBERS
FANNING AND KENNEDY
On March 3, 1960, Petitioner International was
certified as the collective-bargaining representative of
a unit of the Employer's employees following the
National Labor Relations Board's Decision and
Direction of Election in American Machine and
Foundry Company.2 On March 26, 1971, the Interna-
tional and its Local 8043 filed the present petition,
seeking certain amendments to the above-mentioned
certification.
On April 27, 1971, a hearing was held before
Hearing Officer Daniel J. Roketenetz for the purpose
of taking testimony with respect to the issues raised by
this petition . All parties appeared and participated at
the hearing . Following the hearing, on June 25, 1971,
the Regional Director for Region 9, pursuant to
Section 102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board
Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, issued
an Order transferring the case to the Board for
decision . Subsequently, the Petitioners and the
Employer filed briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
powers in connection with this case to a three-member
panel.
The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's
rulings made at the hearing and finds that no
prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are
hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, including the
briefs filed by the parties, the Board finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within
the meaning of the Act, and it will effectuate the
purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein.
2. The International and its Local 804 are labor
organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5) of
the Act.
3. In the decision cited, supra, the Board found the
following unit to be appropriate:
All technicians and model shop employees of the
i The name of the Employer appears in the caption as amended at the
hearing
2 126 NLRB 406
3 Local 804 is an amalgamated local (representing employees employed
by more than one employer) and has also represented the production and
engineering department of the Employer's Vanda-
lia, Ohio, plant, but excluding all production and
maintenance employees, professional employees,
plant and office clerical employees, guards, and
supervisors as defined in the Act.
Following certification, the International chartered
Local 756 to bargain jointly with the International on
behalf of the unit employees at the Employer's plant.
The first collective-bargaining agreement was be-
tween the International and Local 756, on the one
hand, and the Employer, on the other, and was
executed on July 1, 1960. In this agreement, as well as
in all subsequent agreements,4 these parties have
bargained concerning a unit of employees consisting
of:
All technical employees and factory clericals of
the Employer, defined between the parties as of
the date of this agreement, and employed by the
Employer at its Vandalia, Ohio plant excepting,
however, all guards, professional, office clerical,
supervisory, production and maintenance employ-
ees.
Thus, by agreement, the parties have included plant
clericals, a classification expressly excluded by the
Board, and have also included all technical employees
rather than only those technical employees employed
in the engineering department, likewise in contraven-
tion of the Board's decision.
In the instant petition, Petitioners request, inter alia,
that the Board amend the description of the unit
found appropriate in the decision cited, supra, to
coincide with the unit description contained in the
above-mentioned collective-bargaining agreements.
The Employer opposes, in part, on the ground that
expansion of the certified unit can be achieved only
by the filing of an RC petition.
Amendment of certification, by and large, is
intended to permit changes in the name of the
representative.5 It is readily apparent that Petitioners
here are seeking enlargement of the unit and have
selected the wrong vehicle to accomplish their
purpose.
There exists in this case a further basis for denying
the instant petition, inasmuch as we have previously
held that where the group or classification of
employees sought to be added to a unit existed at the
time the unit was certified, and these employees had
no opportunity to participate in the selection of the
collective-bargaining representative, their unit place-
maintenance employees employed by the Employer at its Vandalia, Ohio,
plant since before 1960.
4 The latest agreement between the Employer and the International and
Local 756 will expire on May 31, 1972.
5 Missouri BeefPackers, Inc., 175 NLRB No 179.
193 NLRB No. 162
1114 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ment raises a question concerning representation and
a petition to amend or clarify will be dismissed .6
We adhere to that view and conclude that the
petition here raises a question concerning the repre-
sentation of plant clericals and technical employees
employed in departments other than the Employer's
engineering department. These employees were em-
ployed by the Employer at the time of the 1960
election and certification, but were expressly excluded
from that unit. They should now be included only
after being afforded the statutorily provided election.7
6 Gould-National Batteries, Inc, 157 NLRB 679
7 Bedford Gear & Machine Products, Inc, 150 NLRB I
In the light of the foregoing, we need not reach the
other matters raised in the petition. The result we
arrive at here does not preclude Petitioners from filing
an appropriate representation petition.8
Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petition.
ORDER
It is hereby ordered that the petition filed herein be,
and it hereby is, dismissed.
8 We, of course, intimate no conclusions with respect to any of the
issues which might be raised in any such proceedings