Raytheon Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 10, 1954

109 N.L.R.B. 1291 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

RAYTHEON MANUFACTURING COMPANY 1291
general `Offices'' of the Employer; and, (6) the relegation to the Em-
ployer and the Steelworkers international of the right to effectuate
changes in the basic or master agreements.24
If the majority decision herein presages, as we think it does, a
reversion to the Hygrade principle, we regard it as unfortunate, as it
is tantamount to making parties specifically state in their agreement,
or otherwise affirmatively express the fact, that they are bargaining
on a multiplant basis. While requiring a more explicit statement
by the parties in their contract as to the type of unit they are creating
would greatly facilitate Board determination as to their intent, we be-
lieve that it would have the concomitant effect of making the presence
or absence of such a statement a sine qua non for finding the existence
of a multiplant unit in derogation of the other equally-if not more
important criteria previously given considerable weight by the Board.
In view of the foregoing, and consistent with well-established Board
precedent, we would find that where, as here, there has been a sub-
stantial bargaining history on a multiplant basis, a unit limited to
employees of one plant is not appropriate for purposes of collective
bargaining.25 Accordingly, we would dismiss the petition herein.
' The Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, footnote 22, supra.
a Owens-Illinois Glass Company , 108 NLRB 947; Buckeye Oaf Company, Chemical Pulp
Division, 101 NLRB 30, 31; Hanovia Chemical and Manufacturing Company, 90 NLRB
650, 651 and cases cited therein.
RAYTHEON MANUFACTURING COMPANY and INDEPENDENT UNION OF
PLANT PROTECTION EMPLOYEES IN THE ELECTRICAL & MACHINE
INDUSTRY , PETITIONER. Case No. 1-RC-3587. September 10, 1954
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 George A. Sweeney,
hearing officer. 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 meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
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.
4. The Petitioner seeks to represent as a separate appropriate unit
all guards within the Employer's receiving tube division at its plants
109 NLRB No. 176.
1292 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
in Quincy and Newton, Massachusetts. The Employer and Inter-
venor, Raytheon Guards Association, contend that the only appro-
priate unit of guards is a unit which includes the guards employed
at all of the Employer's 14 plants within the State of Massachusetts.
Since 1946, the Intervenor has bargained for all of the Employer's
guards employed in Massachusetts, except those sought to be repre-
sented by the Petitioner, under successive collective-bargaining agree-
ments, the most recent of which is to terminate in December 1954.
The guards sought by the Petitioner have never been represented as
part of a guard unit.
Although the guards at all of the Massachusetts plants receive ap-
proximately the same salary and perform substantially the same
duties, the guards at any one plant have virtually no contact with the
guards at the other plants. The guards at each plant are under sep-
arate immediate supervision.
Upon the basis of the foregoing, we find that although a unit of
guards at all of the Massachusetts plants is the customary unit and
may be appropriate, the guards in the receiving tube division con-
stitute a residual group of employees who, alone, may also constitute
an appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining.
We shall therefore direct an election among the following em-
ployees : All guards employed within the Employer's receiving tube
division at its plants in Quincy and Newton, Massachusetts, excluding
all other employees, professional employees, and all supervisors as
defined in the Act.
If the majority of the employees in the above voting group vote for
the Petitioner, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to
constitute a separate appropriate unit, and the Regional Director
conducting the election herein is directed to issue a certification of
representatives to the Petitioner for the group, which the Board,
under such circumstances, finds to be a unit appropriate for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining. If a majority of the employees vote
for Intervenor Raytheon Guards Association,' they will be taken to
have indicated their desire to be part of the statewide guard unit, and
the Intervenor may bargain for them as part of such unit.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
MEMBER PETERSON took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Election.
1 Although Member Murdock agrees with the Board 's unit determination, he would not
place the Raytheon Guards Association on the ballot on the ground that it made no show-
ing of interest among the employees in the voting group, in accordance with the Board's
decision in Illinoe8 Cities Water Company, 87 NLRB 109.