General Electric Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board DecisionsNov 16, 1953

107 N.L.R.B. 70 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

70 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY (RIVER WORKS)and OF- FICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, AFL, and AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TECHNICAL ENGINEERS, AFL i and UNITED ELECTRICAL, RADIO AND MACHINE WORKERS OF AMERICA (UE),Z Petitioners. Cases Nos. 1- RC-3312 and 1-RC-3315. November 16, 1953 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Sidney A. Co- ven, hearing officer . The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby af- firmed. 3 Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds: 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the mean- ing of the Act. 2. The labor organizations involved claim to repre sent cer- tain employees of the Employer. 3. The IUE-CIO urges its contract with the Employer as a bar to this proceeding. The Employer takes no position. The AFL and the UE invoke the application of the Board's prema- ture extension doctrine. On September 15, 1951, the IUE-CIO and the Employer exe- cuted a national agreement to continue " in full force and ef- fect to and including the 15th day of September 1953 and from t Herein, jointly called the AFL, separately called Office Employees and Technical Engi- neers. 2 Herein, the UE 3Over the objections of the Employer and the Intervenor -Local 201, International Union of Electrical , Radio & Machine Workers , CIO, herein IUE-CIO--the hearing officer granted the motion of the Technical Engineers to intervene as joint petitioner in Case No. 1-RC-3312 and to amend the petition therein to include, rather than exclude, laboratory and engineering assistants . In its brief, the IUE - CIO argues that the Board 's well-established policy of allowing joint petitioners should not be continued in view of the changes in the National Labor Relations Act, as amended , in comparison with the Wagner Act, especially in Section 9. We recognize that Section 9 (c) now reads in terms of a labor organization used in the singular in all provisions except 9 ( c) (1) (B). We are however enjoined by the enacted rules of statutory construction to hold that "words importing the singular include and apply to several," "unless the context indicates otherwise ." 1 U. S. C. A. Â§ 1; see Barr v. United States, 324 U S. 83. As we find nothing in the language of the Act or in the legislative history relating to the changes noted which indicates otherwise , we shall continue to entertain joint petitions. The motion to amend merely enlarged the requested unit to include employees the Board might include in the requested unit and was therefore permissible . See Charleston Shipyards, Inc., 97 NLRB 379. The hearing officer revoked a subpena issued on the request of the IUE-CIO to compel the Employer to produce employment records of salaried employees within the unit requested by the AFL for the purpose of showing the number of salaried employees who had worked on hourly rated jobs within the present combined production , maintenance, and clerical unit. The IUE-CIO now requests that the Board direct a subpena to issue in the terms originally requested or to accept the offers of proof that this percentage exceeds 30 percent As the fact that some of the office employees were originally production workers is not relevant to the propriety of their continued inclusion with production workers , we hereby deny the request for a subpena . See Rutherford Garment Company , Inc., 100 NLRB No. 8 (not reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions). 107 NLRB No. 21 GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY (RIVER WORKS) 71 year to year thereafter unless modified or terminated." The provisions for modification and termination provided for no- tice to the other "not more than 60 days and not less than 30 days before September 15, 1953," making July 15, 1953, through August 15, 1953, the "Mill B" period. The present pe- titions were file July 13 and 15; the motion to amend was made on August 5. In June 1953, the Employer renegotiated a series of national agreements, including those of the UE, the IUE-CIO and the Technical Engineers . On June 16, 1953, the Employer and the IUE executed a supplemental agreement which amended the 1951 contract to extend the contract from June 1, 1953, to June 1, 1954, and from year to year thereafter unless modified or terminated as provided. Under the premature extension doctrine, a petition which is timely filed with respect to the "Mill B" date of the original contract is not barred by the extended contract." Although re- cognizing that the present petitions are timely under this rule, the IUE-CIO contends that the present petitioners are estopped from regarding their petitions as timely by the fact that they also renegotiated their own national agreements with the Em- ployer at the same time and therefore had knowledge of the re- opening of the present contract. The Board however has made an exception to the premature extension doctrine only where, as in Raytheon Manufacturing, 5 the petitioner actually partici- pated in the negotiation of an extended contract and accepted the benefits under such a contract. We therefore find 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.' 4. The appropriate units: The AFL seeks to sever a unit of all salaried and office clerical employees, including laboratory and engineering as- sistants, at the Employer's River Works, located in Lynn, Everett, and, because of lack of space in Lynn, at 150 Cause- way Street, Boston, Massachusetts. The UE seeks a single overall production, maintenance, and salaries office andcleri- cal unit, such as is encompassed under the present certifica- tion and current contract. T 4E. g , Westinghouse Electric Corporation, 106 NLRB 1233, Rheem Manufacturing Company, 100 NLRB 564. SRaytheon Manufacturing Company, 98 NLRB 785 and 1330. See the discussion therein of the reasons for this doctrine. 6In view of our finding herein, we find it unnecessary to pass upon the other grounds urged for finding the contract not to be a bar. `7 The certification does not specifically include, although the contract does, those employees who were moved from Lynn, because of lack of space, to Boston. When proper facilities are constructed, these employees will again be returnedtoLynn Although these employees did not vote in the 1951 election, both the Employer and the IUE-CIO have treated them as covered by the contract. The sole ground on which the UE would exclude them from any unit determina- tion now is their omission from the earlier certification. As they are regarded as part of the River Works, we shall include them, at this time, in any River Works unit determination. 72 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The AFL, the Employer, and the UE agree that the salaried and office clerical unit may be appropriately severed from the historically established combined unit. However, the Employer contends that the laboratory and engineering assistants are either professional or technical employees and should be ex- cluded from the salaried and office clerical unit. The Employer also urges that the Board direct a separate election among the "plant clericals" to permit them to determine whether they wish to be included with the production and maintenance em- ployees, as in the past, or with the office clerical employees. The IUE-CIO contends that only the present overall combined unit is appropriate. Both the IUE-CIO and the UE urge that the history of col- lective bargaining, based upon Board certifications, should be determinative of the unit problems in this case. From 1918 to 1934, the employees were represented in the plants by geogra- phical sections of the plants, without regard to crafts. In 1934, the National Labor Board conducted, by consent, an election among all employees in the plant. Since then, contracts have been on a plantwide basis, including office and clerical employ- ees with production and maintenance employees, but excluding after 1944, the patternmakers ( see 58 NLRB 57 and 104 NLRB 603) and, after 1950, the planning, methods, and wage-rate em- ployees (see Cases Nos. 5-RC-136 and 138). The historical unit was most recently affirmed when the Board, pursuant to a consent election in Case No. 1-RC-2301, on November 13, 1951, certified the IUE-CIO as exclusive representative in the combined unit. The propriety of the inclusion of the office and clerical employees has never before been questioned by any party. However, the Board has consistently held that a history of collective bargaining based upon Board certification which have resulted from consent elections, conducted upon the ba- sis of units stipulated by the parties to be appropriate and not upon a Board determination on the merits of the unit are not binding upon the Board.' Although the Board is reluctant to disturb the contract unit or units established as a result of collective bargaining and desires to give recognition and weight to a satisfactory bar- gaining history effectively evincing the intent of the parties, it does not accord conclusive weight to a history which is re- pugnant to established Board policy respecting the composi- tion and scope of bargaining units. As the interests and work- ing conditions of office clerical employees differ substantially from those of the production and maintenance employees, we shall, in accord with well-established Board policy exclude them from the production and maintenance unit.' 8Illinois Cities Water Company, 87 NLRB 109; Peoples Life Insurance Company, 72 NLRB 1406. 9International Smelting and Refining, Raritan Copper Works, 106 NLRB 223; National Cash Register Company, 95 NLRB 2; Kohler Company, 93 NLRB 398. We regard the fact that the Board has consistently excluded office clericals from units it has determined to be appropriate as a relevant distinction from the question of the propriety GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY (RIVER WORKS) 73 The hourly paid production followers, the general clerks assigned as foremen's clerks, and the clericals who work in the factory areas are clearly plant clericals. The Employer requests that such employees be permitted to determine whether they desire to be included in the salaried office clerical unit or in the hourly paid production and maintenance unit. When plant clericals have been excluded from the bargaining history covering production and maintenance employees, the Board has granted them the opportunity to voice their desire for or against representation in the production and maintenance unit. 10 However , even when there is no bargaining history, the Board will not include both plant and office clerical employees in a single bargaining unit.11 As the present plant clericals have been represented in a unit with production and mainte- nance employees, we shall continue to include them in that unit.15 The Employer also contends that the engineering and labo- ratory assistants should be granted the righttoa self-determi- nation election on the ground that they are either professional or technical employees. The Board has already decided that such employees at other plants of the Employer are clearly technical employees, 19 and the present record contains de- scriptions of the skills, training, and tasks of the engineering and laboratory assistants in this plant which appear identical with those of similar classifications of employees in other plant. The Board has in the past granted the type of unit re- quested by the AFL when there is no objection to the establish- ment of the single combined unit. m When, however, as here, objection is in fact made, the Board recognizes the difference in the interests, background, and functions of technical em- ployees and those of clerical employees, and establishes such groups in separate units. is Although the AFL seeks to include the laboratory and engineering assistants in a clerical and technical unit, the record indicates that neither the Technical Engineers nor the Office Employees seeks to represent them separately. 16 We shall direct that separate elections by secret ballot be held in the following units, which we find appropriate for pur- of continued inclusion of such groups as the Board has consistently included absent a request for separate representation. Accordingly, contrary to the IUE 's contention, we do not consider the present question identical with that in American Potash & Chemical Corporation, Case No. 21-RC-3017, et al. 10 Truscon Steel Company, 98 NLRB 331. "Donovan Construction Company, et al., 105 NLRB 704. 12 International Smelting and Refining Company, Raritan Copper Works, supra. 19General Electric Company, 105 NLRB 921 and 103 NLRB 403. 14General Electric Company, 89 NLRB 726, 760. 15 General Electric Company, 103 NLRB 403. The instant record, however, does not indicate whether there are any other technical employees who would not appropriately be included in such a unit. is The AFL asked that the Board sever the Technical Engineers and the Office Employees in the event that the Board found that the technical employees were properly excluded from the clerical unit. Accordingly, we hereby grant that motion 74 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD poses of collective bargaining under Section 9 (b) of the Act, at the Employer's River Works with plants in Lynn, Everett, and Boston, Massachusetts, excluding from each group all other employees , professional employees , guards, and super- visors as defined by the Act: 1. All office clerical employees. 2. All production and maintenance employees, including plant clerical employees , laboratory , and engineering assist- ant s. [Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.] AMERICAN BROADCASTING COMPANY, A DIVISION OF AMERICAN BROADCASTING-PARAMOUNT THEATERS, INC. and NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROADCAST EM- PLOYEES AND TECHNICIANS, CIO, Petitioner. Case No. 21-RC-3107. November 16, 1953 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Norman H. Greer, hearing offices. The hearing officer ' s rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds: 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the mean- ing of the Act. 2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain employees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representation of employees of the Employer within the mean- ing of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The Petitioner seeks to represent a unit of all office clerical employees ., at the Employer's Los Angeles and Hollywood, California, offices. The Employer seeks dismissal of this petition on the ground that a single unit of these em- ployees is inappropriate because there are as many as eight separate and distinct "units " in the proposed unit, each of which has a different community of interest. The Employer refers to the following of its employees in its Los Angeles and Hollywood offices : ( 1) secretaries ; ( 2) telephone operators; (3) continuity acceptance and literary rights department em- ployees; ( 3) accounting department employees ; ( 5) "production employees";2 (6) personnel department employees; (7) TV 'The Petitioner referred to these employees as office and clerical. These employees are all plainly office , rather than plant, employees . Pursuant to our recent policy of discon- tinuing this term of "office and clericals," we will designate these employees as office clericals . See D. M. Stewart Mfg. Co. 102 NLRB 461. 2 TV production analyst, assistant to the TV engineering director and the TV music librarian. 107 NLRB No. 20.