General Electric Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 1, 1965

150 N.L.R.B. 1503 (N.L.R.B. 1965)

GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY 1503
' • CONCLUSIONS OF LAW'
11
1. Park is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
2. Respondent is a labor organization within the purview of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
3. Respondent has not engaged in the unfair ' labor practices alleged in the
complaint.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law and upon the
entire record in this case , it is recommended that the complaint herein be dismissed,
General Electric Company and International Union of Electri-
cal, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, Local 707,1 Peti-
tioner. Case No. 5-ISM--180. February 1, 1965
DECISION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION
On June 6, 1950, Internation Union of Electrical, Radio and
Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, Local 707, herein called the Union,
was certified as bargaining representative fora unit of production
and maintenance employees, with specified exclusions, at the Em-
ployer's Cleveland Wire Works plant, Euclid, Ohio.2 , Among the
exclusions were- engineers, firemen, oilers, apprentices, and helpers,
who have been, and are, represented by International Union of
Operating Engineers and As Locals 589, 589-A, and 589-B.3 .
On May 6, 1964, the Union filed a motion to clarify certification,
in which it-moved-the Board to find and declare'that work known
as hydrogen or hydrolene productiog unit is within the scope of
the unit for which it has been certified and should, be performed
by unit employees. On June 11, 1964, the Employer filed a state-
ment in opposition and requested that the motion -be denied. On
June,-12, 1964, Operating Engineers filed, a statement of position.
, On July 20, 1964, the Board issued an order directing hearing,
referring the matter to the Regional Director for Region 8 and
directing that a hearing be held for the purpose of taking testimony
on the issues raised by the Union's motion. A hearing was held
on September 10, 1964, before Hearing Officer Henry G. Gieser.
The Hearing Officer's rulings. made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Thereafter, the .]i m-
ployer and the Union. filed briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the
Board has 'delegated its powers in connection with this case to a
1 Name as amended at the hearing
'
2 Pursuant to Board Decision , 89 NLRB 726.
3 Pursuant to Board Decision, 43 NLRB 67, certifying Operating Engineers and Inter-
national Union of Firemen and Oilers jointly.
150 NLRB No. 138.
775-692-65-vol. 150-96
1504 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
three-member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Fanning
and Jenkins].
The Union is currently certified as the bargaining representative
of the following employees of the Employer :
All hourly rated production and maintenance employees and
cafeteria employees of the Employer's lamp department at the
Cleveland Wire Works plant, 1331 Chardon Road, Euclid, Ohio,
excluding electricians, clerical employees, laboratory employees,
engineers, firemen and their apprentices and helpers, oliers, dieti-
tians and cashiers, professional employees, guards, and supervisors
as defined in the Act.
International Union of Operating Engineers, Local Nos. 589,
589-A and 589-B, and International Brotherhood of Firemen and
Oilers, Local No. 52, are currently certified as the collective-
bargaining representative of the following employees of the
Employer :
Engineers, firemen, oilers, apprentices, and helpers, 'employed
in the engineroom and boilerroom, of General Electric Company,
Cleveland Wire Works plant, Euclid, Ohio, excluding supervisory
employees, the chief engineer, and foreman in the boilerroom.
At the time of the election in this case, May 25, 1950, and the
certification ,the work of producting, hydrogen, now known as the
hydrolene producing unit, was performed by members of the
production and maintenance unit. Sometime in 1954, the Employer
discontinued the manufacture of hydrogen from outside sources.
In 1962 the Employer resumed the manufacture of hydrogen in
a hydrolene producing unit that uses a process entirely different
from that previously employed. The earlier process used many
wet cells and the larger part of the job consisted of refilling them
with water. The present system, operating on a different principle,
employs a hydrolene plant and a hydrogen purification unit; the
equipment includes pumps, condensers, compressors, and heat ex-
changers. This equipment is located principally in the area where
the employees represented by Operating Engineers work, and
because it is largely automatic, does not require much of the time
of the engineers who currently perform it along with their other
duties.
In these circumstances we see no persuasive reason for granting
the motion. to clarify.
Accordingly, the Board having duly considered' the matter, it
is hereby ordered that the Union's motion for clarification be,
and it hereby is, denied..