General Electric Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 20, 1970

185 N.L.R.B. 13 (N.L.R.B. 1970)

GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY 13
General Electric Company and International Brother-
hood of Electrical Workers , AFL-CIO, Local No.
6, Petitioner. Case 20-RC-7245
August 20, 1970
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of
the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a
hearing was held before Hearing Officer David F.
Sargent. Following the hearing, and pursuant to Sec-
tion 102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board
Rules and Regulations and Statements of Procedure,
Series 8, as amended, the Regional Director trans-
ferred the case to the National Labor Relations Board
for decision. Thereafter, briefs were timely filed by
the Employer, the Petitioner,' and the Intervenor.2
The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's rul-
ings made at the hearing and finds that they are
free from prejudicial error. They are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, 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 labor organizations involved claim to repre-
sent certain employees of the Employer.
3. The Petitioner seeks an election in a single
unit of all production and maintenance employees,
including group leaders, employed by the Employer
at its operation at 3400 Wood Street, Oakland, Califor-
nia, excluding all of the clerical employees, profession-
al employees, salesmen, service engineers, guards, and
supervisors as defined in the Act. UE Local 1412
contends that the petition should be dismissed because
it is not coextensive with the existing multiplant unit
including the Oakland service shop for which it is
the recognized representative. The Employer and
IBEW assert that the appropriate unit in which an
election should be held is the separately certified
Oakland shop.
The facts show that in 1929, the San Francisco
service shop was established as a separate facility.
Its function was the repair and service of the heavy
apparatus line which included transformers, motor
generators, turbines, locomotives, switchgear, control
meters, instruments , and the manufacture of coils.
In 1955, the Oakland service shop was established
primarily to repair transformers for Pacific Gas &
Electric Company. This work had previously been
performed in San Francisco. The employees and part
of the equipment were transferred from San Francisco
to the Oakland shop. In 1957, the Oakland service
shop was moved to its present location on Wood
Street and its function was expanded to include the
repair of locomotives and electrical units used in
locomotives. This work was also previously performed
in the San Francisco service shop and the employees
and equipment accompanied the transfer to Oakland.
The San Francisco shop remained the dominant facili-
ty. The work there was more diverse, included opera-
tions not performed at the Oakland shop, and required
broader skills.
In 1966, the Employer decided to enlarge the Oak-
land shop, transfer all remaining operations from
San Francisco to Oakland, and close the San Francisco
shop. This move was essentially accomplished between
September 1, 1966, and April 1967. On September
1, 1966, the San Francisco facility occupied 34,000
square feet compared to 20,000 square feet in the
Oakland shop. It performed nearly three times the
amount of work in dollar volume. The San Francisco
shop employed nearly four times the number of pro-
duction and maintenance employees located in Oak-
land. Of the 15 Oakland production and maintenance
employees, 5 were originally from San Francisco and
49 of the 58 San Francisco shop employees transferred
to Oakland. After the transfer, 54 of the 63 production
and maintenance employees at Oakland had come
from San Francisco. All supervisors from the San
Francisco shop were transferred to the Oakland shop.
The transfer added new lines of work to the Oakland
operation that previously had been performed in the
San Francisco shop. Most of the equipment was moved
from San Francisco to Oakland and the transferred
employees performed at Oakland the same work they
had been performing at San Francisco under the
same supervision. The Oakland facility was enlarged
to approximately 44,000 square feet with all the pro-
duction and maintenance employees working within
the same area. At the time of the move in 1966,
and for the preceding 10 years, IBEW was the certified
representative of the employees at the San Francisco
service shop. At that time the Oakland service shop
employees were represented by UE Local 1412 under
a 1963 certification.
In view of these facts, we find that the consolidation
of the two service shops is comparable to a new
operation3 and that the petition herein gives rise to
a question concerning representation. In these circum-
stances of a new operation, the existing representation
question is unaffected by, and may therefore be inde-
Herein also called IBEW
United Electrical Radio and Machine Workers of America, Local National Car Loading Corporation, 167 NLRB 801, 802, Panda
1412, AFL-CIO, herein called UE Local 1412 Terminals, Inc., 161 NLRB 1215, 1223
185 NLRB No. 4
14 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
pendently resolved without regard to, UE's multiplant
unit contention." To hold, as the UE suggests, that
the employees from the San Francisco shop who
substantially outnumbered the Oakland employees,
must accept UE Local 1412 as their bargaining repre-
sentative would be inconsistent with the basic princi-
ples of the Act. We believe that influences disruptive
to industrial peace and a satisfactory bargaining rela-
tionship will be eliminated only if the conflicting
representation claims are resolved through the process-
es of a Board-conducted election.
4. For purposes of this proceeding, we find that
an election should be directed in the following unit
to determine whether the employees of the consolidat-
ed facility wish to be represented by the IBEW or
whether they wish to be represented by UE Local
1412:
All production and maintenance employees
including group leaders employed by the Employ-
er at its operation at 3400 Wood Street, Oakland,
California, excluding all of the clerical employees,
professional employees, salesmen, service engi-
neers, guards and supervisors as defined in the
Act.
[Direction of Elections omitted from publication.]
MEMBERS MCCULLOCH AND BROWN, concurring:
While we agree with our colleagues that the merger
of the San Francisco-Oakland shops has resulted in
a changed operation, we do not agree that the changes
are so substantial in the circumstances as to require
establishing a separate unit for the merged operation
in the event of a UE victory in the election directed
herein. If the UE does prevail in the election, we
would therefore include the merged operation, as
was the Oakland shop, within the bargaining unit
of GE employees whom UE represents on a multiplant
basis.
The record reveals that since the 1930's UE has
become bargaining representative for employees at
various plants of the Employer across the country.
Presently it represents approximately 16,500 General
Electric employees as the result of Board certifications
of the International and its constitutent locals.
'Compare General Electric Company, 180 NLRB No 162:
order to assure that all eligible voters may have the opportunity
to be informed of the issues in the exercise of their statutory right
to vote, all parties to the election should have access to a list of voters
and their addresses which may be used to communicate with them
Excelsior Underwear Inc., 156 NLRB 1236, NLR B v Wyman-Gordon
Company, 394 U S 759. Accordingly, it is hereby directed that an
election eligibility list, containing the names and addresses of all the
eligible voters, must be filed by the Employer with the Regional Director
for Region 20, within 7 days of the date of this Decision and Direction
of Election The Regional Director shall make the list available to all
parties to the election. No extension of time to file this list shall be
granted by the Regional Director except in extraordinary circumstances
Failure to comply with this requirement shall be grounds for setting
aside the election whenever proper objections are filed
Commencing in 1937, notwithstanding the separate
unit certifications, UE and the Employer have engaged
in multiplant bargaining in negotiating a series of
national agreements, including the recent 1970 agree-
ment. Since 1950, the agreements recited in their
preamble the identification of UE as a party to the
contract:
... acting for itself and on behalf of its below-
listed affiliated UE Locals, currently certified
as collective-bargaining representatives of Compa-
ny employees, which ratify this Agreement as
set forth herein and such other UE Locals as
may hereafter be certified as collective-bargaining
representatives of Company employees ...
With regard to the contractual coverage of newly
certified locations, the national agreements since 19506
provide that such coverage:
...shall, as of the date of certification, automati-
cally become effective as to such certified bargain-
ing representative and employees represented by
it, provided that the Union, or Local so certified
shall within 30 days thereafter, or within such
additional time as may be agreed upon between
the Company and the Union, ratify this Agree-
ment and cause to be delivered to the Company
evidence of ratification, the nature of which has
been mutually agreed upon.
The record shows that employees at a newly certified
location have never refused to ratify the national
agreement. However, if a local failed to ratify the
national agreement it could not negotiate a separate
agreement, but would be confined to the processing
of grievances until the expiration of the unratified
agreement at which time it would be represented
in the conference board and participate in the bargain-
ing process for a new contract.
The General Electric Conference Board, consisting
of elected delegates from each local union, was estab-
lished by UE in 1937, to control the negotiation
of the national agreement. Its function is apparent
from the procedure followed in the recently concluded
negotiations with the Employer, which parallels that
followed since 1937. Prior to the reopening of the
contract, a letter from the conference board was
sent to all locals asking each to notify the conference
board as to what changes, additions, and demands
they wished to make on the Employer in the forthcom-
ing negotiations. Upon receiving these proposals from
the various locals, the conference board met, consid-
ered all of the proposals, and selected those demands
which should be presented to the Employer. The
consensus list then was sent by the conference board
to the locals for their approval. After responses were
' Contained in the "Effective Date of Agreement" clause
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY 15
received the conference board submitted the demands
to the negotiating committee with instructions to
bargain on those proposals. During negotiations there
were periodic meetings of the conference board which
received reports from the negotiating committee on
the progress of the negotiations. When the conference
board was convened to vote on and rejected the
Employer's offer, it recommended that the locals like-
wise reject the offer and take a strike vote. The
locals did reject the offer and authorized a strike
in the event that the negotiating committee failed
to obtain an agreement satisfactory to the conference
board and the locals. The negotiating committee,
having failed to secure acceptable proposals issued
a strike call to all locals. During the strike,' there
were periodic meetings of the conference board. When
the negotiating committee reached a basis of agreement
which it felt that it could recommend to the conference
board, the latter was again convened. The conference
board approved the proposed settlement and referred
it to the locals for a vote. Each local sent the result
of the vote to the conference board which then sent
a letter to the Employer stating that the membership
had ratified the agreement.' This ratification is binding
on all locals regardless of their individual consent.
The comprehensive provisions included in the
national agreement made between UE and the
Employer, such as wages, working hours, vacations,
holidays, and a grievance and arbitration procedures,
are applicable to all locations involved. Matters of
individual plant concern dealing with local conditions,
such as the layoff and rehire procedure, have been
reserved for local bargaining. Such local agreements
cannot deprive employees of any benefits provided
for in the national agreements.
The conference board administers the national phase
of the grievance procedure set out in the national
agreements . When a grievance has been processed
through the first two steps of the grievance procedure
at the plant level, it is then referred to the conference
board which decides whether the grievance should
be pursued at the third step which is at the national
level. The conference board also administers the arbi-
tration provision of the national agreements . Concomi-
tantly , the Employer 's representatives at its headquar-
ters in New York handle third step grievances and
arbitration as well.
On these facts, we would find that the separately
certified units have been effectively merged into a
single multiplant unit.' A similar holding on substan-
tially similar facts involving the same employer and
the International Union of Electrical Radio and
Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, was made by the Board
in General Electric Company, 180 NLRB No. 162,
on January 28, 1970.10
Accordingly, should the UE be certified in the
present election, we would deem the San Francisco-
Oakland operation as within the multiplant unit as
was the Oakland plant previous to the San Francisco
transfer.
' The same procedure was followed during the only other national
strike that occurred in 1946
' Prior to 1950, the Conference Board had to deposit with the Employer
individual notices of ratification by each local covered by the national
agreement
' See General Motors Cadillac Motor Division, 120 NLRB 1215
° The Employer concedes in its brief that "The procedures and scope
of national bargaining, procedures for handling strikes, grievances and
arbitrations are generally similar in the two cases "