International Harvester Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 30, 1953

103 N.L.R.B. 1268 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

1268 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Determination of the Dispute
On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire
record in this case, the Board makes the following determination of
dispute pursuant to Section 10 (k) of the amended Act:
1. The operation of all front and rear screen projectors in the
studios of the Company's television station, WCBS-TV, New York
City, New York, is included in the bargaining unit presently repre-
sented by Theatrical Protective Union No. 1, International Alliance
of Theatrical Stage Employees and Moving Picture Machine Oper-
ators of the United States and Canada, AFL, and not in the bargain-
ing unit now represented by Radio and Television Broadcast Engi-
neers Union, Local 1212, International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, A. F. L.
2. Within ten (10) days from the date of this Decision and Deter-
mination of Dispute, Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., Radio and
Television Broadcast Engineers Union, Local 1212, International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, A. F. L., and Theatrical Pro-
tective Union No. 1, International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Em-
ployees and Moving Picture Machine Operators of the United States
and Canada, AFL, shall each notify the Regional Director for the
Second Region, in writing, of the steps it has taken to comply with
the terms of this Decision and Determination of Dispute.
INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER COMPANY , FARMALL WORKS and INTERNA-
TIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, AFL, PETITIONER
INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER COMPANY , FARMALL WORKS and LAW-
RENCE E. SHAW, EMPLOYEE-PETITIONER and UNITED FARM EQUrP-
MENT AND METAL WORKERS , LOCAL No. 109, FE-UE
INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER COMPANY , FARMALL WORKS as INTER-
NATIONAL UNION, UNITED AuroMOBILE , AIRCRAFT, AND AGRICUL-
TURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER. Cases
Nos.13RC-2995,' 13-RD-156, and 13-RC-3109. March 30, 1953
Decision, Order and Direction of Elections
Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, hearings were held before Raymond A. Jacobson and
Allen T. Haas, hearing officers. The rulings made at the hearings are
free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
1 This case is hereby consolidated with the other above-entitled cases , which have already
been consolidated.
103 NLRB No 11T.
INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER 'COMPANY 1269
Upon the entire record in these cases, the Board 2 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.8 The Employee-Petitioner asserts that UE,
which was the currently recognized collective-bargaining representa-
tive, is no longer the representative as defined in Section 9 (a) of the
Act.'
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9
(c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act .5
4. IBEW asserts, and the Employer agrees, that department 58 at
the Farmall plant, comprised of about 46 employees, is an appropriate
unit. UE opposes this position, in view of the collective-bargaining
history on an industrial basis. It appears, however, that department
58 is the electrical maintenance department and is comprised of a
nucleus of craft electricians, together with an inconsequential number
of unskilled lamp cleaners or washers. Pursuant to our customary
practice, we accordingly find that the requested unit may be appro-
priate if the employees so desire6
All interested parties except Carpenters are in substantial agree-
ment that all the remaining production and maintenance employees
at the Farmall plant, excluding those in departments 19, 27, and 57,1
constitute an appropriate unit. Carpenters asserts that Departments
56, 59, 60, and 65, being 4 of the 9 maintenance departments included
in the production and maintenance unit, constitute an appropriate
unit. These four departments include millwrights, welders, and oiler
beltmen in department 56; plumber steamfitters and a machine repair-
2 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 [ Chairman Herzog and
Members Houston and Murdock].
8 Tri-City Carpenters District Council , United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of
America, AFL, was permitted to intervene at the hearing. We are urged to reverse this
intervention on the ground that the showing of interest , having been acquired after the
date of the consent-election agreement, was Inadequate support for the intervention under
Lufkin Foundry d Machine Company, 83 NLRB 768 . In view of our rejection of Car-
penters' unit request on the merits, as hereinafter set forth, we find It unnecessary to pass
on this contention.
* The Employee -Petitioner filed a request to withdraw his petition , but on the next day,
before the Regional Director 's consent required by Section 102.52 of National Labor Rela-
tions Board Rules and Regulations , he revoked his request . Although he did not appear
at the hearing, no party argued that such fact was controlling , and we do not so regard It.
8 We find no merit in UE 's assertion that Its contract bare UAW 's claim, for the reason
that the contract excludes the employees alleged by UAW to constitute an appropriate
unit.
Because the Issues raised in Case No . 13-RD-156 will be necessarily resolved in the
elections hereinafter directed , we shall dismiss the petition in that case. Rose City
Tours, Inc., 92 NLRB 1254.
6 See Westinghouse Electric Corp„ 101 NLRB No . 108; Oregon Portland Cement Co„
92 NLRB 695.
. 7.Stipulated elections were held in these three departments In July 1952, pursuant to
petition for cxaft .severance elections ( Case No. 13-RC-2703 ). The elections were won by
UE, which thereafter was certified 'and made a contract Including them.
257965-54-vol. 103-81
1270 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
man in department 59; carpenters, painters, and bricklayers in depart-
ment 60; and sheet-metal workers and a welder in department 65.
The record shows that these four departments work interdependently
with the other maintenance departments. Pursuant to our customary
practice, we find the requested multicraft segment of the maintenance
departments an inappropriate unit .8
Accordingly, we find that all the employees in the electrical depart-
ment (department 58) at the Farmall plant, including lamp washers
or cleaners, and all the production and maintenance employees at the
Farmall plant, excluding guards, professional employees, and those in
departments 19, 27, 57, and 58, may constitute either 1 or 2 units appro-
priate for the purposes of collective bargaining, depending on their
desires as reflected in the elections hereinafter directed. If both
groups vote for UE, they will be taken as desiring to constitute a
single unit, which the Board in such event finds appropriate for the
purposes of collective bargaining; otherwise the Board finds separate
units appropriate.
5. UE argues that UAW should not be on the ballot, on the author-
ity of the Lufkin case (cited above), which excludes labor organiza-
tions whose representative interest is not established as of the date
of a consent-election agreement." However, UAW's showing of inter-
est does predate the consent-election agreement, and in addition it
interposed a representation claim on the day the consent-election
agreement was signed, and followed this up within 10 days by filing
its petition. It is thus clear that UAW had no intention of waiving
its interest. True, it refrained from participating in the negotiations
resulting in the signing and approval of the consent-election agree-
ment in late November 1952, although duly notified thereof. Consid-
ering all the circumstances, however, we are not satisfied that the
Regional Director's withdrawal of his original approval of the agree-
ment was an abuse of discretion. Accordingly we reject UE's
argument.
We likewise reject UE's request for another review of its request
for review of the Regional Director's withdrawal of his approval of
the consent-election agreement, for the reasons set forth in our order
of December 29, 1952.
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition in Case No. 13-RD-156 be,
and it hereby is, dismissed.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication in this
volume.]
See Nesco, Inc., 101 NLRB 147; Tin Processing Corp ., 96 NLRB 300.
e Although UAW put its claim before us by original petition rather than by intervention
in Case No. 13-RD-156, the Lufkin case is equally applicable . International Harvester
Co., Canton Works , 91 NLRB 487.