Sylvania Electric Products, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 24, 1953

103 N.L.R.B. 989 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

SYLVANIA ELECTRIC PRODUCTS, INC . 989
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and the entire record in the
case, I make the following :
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. American Federation of Hosiery Workers is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. All of Respondent's production and maintenance employees at its plant
in Humboldt, Tennessee, excluding office and clerical employees, professional
employees, technical employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act,
constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within
the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
3. At all times since February 20, 1950, American Federation of Hosiery
Workers has been and now is the exclusive representative of all employees in
the aforesaid unit for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning
of Section 9 (a) of the Act. 1
4. By refusing on February 20, 1950, and thereafter, to bargain collectively
with American Federation of Hosiery Workers as the exclusive representative of
its employees in the aforesaid appropriate unit, the Respondent has engaged
in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8 (a) (5) and (1) of the Act.
5. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exer-
cise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has en-
gaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8 (a) (1) of the Act.
6. By discriminating in regard to the hire and tenure of employment of Kath-
ryn Clark, thereby discouraging membership in American Federation of Hosiery
Workers, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices
within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) and (1) of the Act.
7. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices within the
meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
8. The Respondent has not engaged in unfair labor practices by discharging
Warren C Boothe and Bessie K. Beasley.
[Recommendations omitted from publication in this volume.]
SYLVANIA ELECTRIC PRODICTS, INC. and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION
OF MACHINISTS, AFL, PETITIONER and LOCAL 614, INTERNATIONAL
UNION OF ELECTRICAL, RADIO AND MACHINE WORKERS, CIO. Case
No. 4-RC-1848. March ,2.4,1953
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 Harold X. Summers,
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are
free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed 1
:'At the hearing IUE--CIO moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that the Peti-
tioner is "fronting" for a noncomplying organization of employees known as the "Workers
Committee ." The record shows that, although the committee has engaged in some
103 NLRB No. 91.
990 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
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 Styles and Peterson].
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. The Petitioner, International Association of Machinists, AFL,
herein called IAM, seeks to represent a unit of all production and
maintenance employees at the Employer's Third Street plant, Wil-
liamsport, Pennsylvania, excluding engineers, engineering technicians,
dIaftsmen, designers, professional employees, office clerical and office
employees, outside mail messengers, armed guards, executives, mon-
itors, and supervisors within the meaning of the Act. The Inter-
venor, Local 614, International Union of Electrical, Radio and Ma-
chine Workers, CIO, herein called IUE-CIO, contends that a local
supplemental agreement between the Employer and IUE-CIO con-
stitutes a bar. IUE-CIO also contends that a series of agreements
resulting in a strike settlement bar a present determination of
representatives.
The Employer is engaged in the manufacture of radio and elec-
tronic equipment and products, and operates 36 plants throughout
the continental United States. At the Williamsport plant the Em-
ployer employs approximately 280 employees in the production and
maintenance unit. This unit was represented by the United Electrical,
Radio and Machine Workers of America, UE, from April 1945 to
May 1950. Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election issued
May 26, 1950, Local 614, IUE-CIO, was certified on July 19, 1950,
as bargaining representative for the production and maintenance em-
ployees at the Williamsport plant. On September 11, 1951, the Em-
ployer and IUE-CIO executed a master agreement covering 6 plants,
including the Williamsport plant, effective from that date until Sep-
tember 11, 1952. In August and September 1952, the Employer and
IUE-CIO began negotiations with respect to a new master agreement.
While these negotiations were pending, and before agreement was
reached, the Employer and IUE-CIO, on October 3, 1952, executed a
local "supplementary agreement." On October 6,1952, the IUE-CIO
called a strike at each of the 6 plants.
organizational activity for the Petitioner , demand for recognition was made by the Peti-
tioner and all application cards submitted in the showing of interest were in the name
of the Petitioner . Moreover , there is no evidence that the Petitioner would not be the
actual representative of these employees , or that it is acting in behalf of a noncomplying
local . We, therefore , deny the motion to dismiss . Tin Processing Corporation , 80 NLRB
1369 ; Modern Upholstered Chair Company, Inc., 84 NLRB 95.
SYLVANIA ELECTRIC PRODUCTS, INC . 991
On October 17, 1952, a petition for decertification of the IUE-CIO
was filed by a group of employees at the Williamsport plant (Case No.
4-RD-85).
On October 21, 1952, a back-to-work movement began. On Novem-
ber 15, 1952, the Employer and IUE-CIO executed a series of agree-
ments consisting of a new master agreement, a strike-settlement
memorandum, and agreement settling certain unfair labor practice
charges (Case No. 4-CA-788), and a consent-election agreement in the
decertification proceeding. On November 17, 1952, all employees re-
turned to work.
On November 18, 1952, the Regional Director formally approved the
consent-election agreement as well as the agreement settling the un-
fair labor practice charges.
On November 28,1952, the petitioners in the decertification proceed-
ing (Case No. 4-RD-85) requested the Regional Director to approve
withdrawal of the decertification petition, and on December 8, 1952,
the Regional Director approved its withdrawal.
In the meantime, on December 2, 1952, the IAM filed the present
petition.
On December 13, 1952, the IUE-CIO appealed to the Board from
the Regional Director's action permitting the withdrawal of the peti-
tion. The Board by letter dated December 19,1952, denied the appeal,
and sustained the Regional Director's action.
The IUE-CIO urges as a bar the local supplemental agreement of
October 3, 1952. The record shows that this agreement was executed
while the parties were still in the process of negotiating a new master
agreement, and that the negotiations broke off when the IUE-CIO
called a strike on October 6, 1952. The October 3, 1952, local supple-
ment, which contained no provision as to wages, but provided only as
to certain collateral local matters which had no substance except as
read in conjunction with the master agreement they were supposed to
supplement, provided, inter alia, that it "may be altered, revised, or
eliminated due to conflicting agreements incorporated into the master
agreement" as a result of the negotiations then pending. It was not
until November 15,1952, when the strike was settled that the Employer
and IUE-CIO signed a new master agreement. That agreement pro-
vided, inter alia, that
As of the date of the execution of this agreement the .. .
[Williamsport plant is] involved in NLRB proceedings. In the
event the IUE-CIO local union involved wins ... the NLRB
representation [election] to be conducted pursuant to consent-elec-
tion agreements this day executed by the parties, and is certified by
the NLRB as the bargaining representative, the unit represented
992 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
by such bargaining representative shall be deemed initially cov-
ered by this agreement.
It is clear from the foregoing that the October 3 local supplemental
agreement was intended by the parties only as a supplement to the
master agreement which was not executed until November 15, 1952.
As the master agreement specifically provided that the Williamsport
plant was to "be deemed initially covered by this agreement" only in
the event the IUE-CIO won the election and was recertified by the
Board, and as such election never took place, we find that the local
supplemental agreement does not constitute a bar to a present deter-
mination of representatives.2
IUE-CIO urges, however, that the Regional Director was without
authority to permit the withdrawal of the decertification petition, and
that, even assuming that he acted within the proper authority, the
Board was nonetheless required to proceed with the election. As
already indicated, the Employer and IUE-CIO executed contempo-
raneously with their strike-settlement memorandum,3 a consent-elec-
tion agreement in the decertification proceeding (Case No. 4-RD-85)
and a master agreement in which coverage of the plant involved here
was conditioned on the IUE-CIO winning the election in that pro-
ceeding, and being "recertified by the Board." The petitioners in the
decertification proceeding were not parties to the settlement agreement
and their request to withdraw their petition was approved by the
Regional Director 4 We are of the opinion, as we were when the mat-
ter was before us on appeal, that the Regional Director acted within
his authority in approving the withdrawal of that petition .5 The
decertification proceeding having been effectively terminated, there
was, contrary to the IUE-CIO's contention, no proceeding pending in
which the election contemplated by the strike-settlement memorandum
could be held. Under these circumstances, we find no merit in IUE-
CIO's contentions.6
We find that a question affecting commerce exists concerning the
representation of these employees of the Employer, within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the amended Act.
4. The appropriate unit :
We find, in accordance with the agreement of the parties, that the
following employees of the Employer constitute a unit appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Sec-
tion 9 (b) of the Act :
2 Associated Transport , Inc., 93 NLRB 1564.
s IAM, the Petitioner herein, was not a party to any of the agreements in connection
with the strike settlement.
4 Although the IUE-CIO contends that it never received formal notice of the Regional
Director 's action, the record shows that it received notification by wire.
0 See Lufkin Foundry & Machine Co ., 83 NLRB 768.
6 See Lloyd Corporation, Ltd., 87 NLRB 631.
OWENSBORO PLATING COMPANY 993
All production and maintenance employees at the Employer's Third
Street plant, Williamsport, Pennsylvania, excluding engineers, engi-
neering technicians, draftsmen, designers, professional employees,
office clerical and office employees, outside mail messengers, armed
guards, executives, monitors, and supervisors within the the meaning
of the Act.
5. Although the Employer requested that the eligibility date be
fixed as of the payroll date nearest to that of the date of the hearing,
it advanced no reason for departure from the Board's usual .practice
of determining eligibility to vote by reference to the payroll period
immediately preceding the issuance of the direction of election. We
shall, therefore, adhere to the usual provision for determining voting
eligibility in this proceeding.'
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
'7 American. Shuffleboard Company, et at., 85 NLRB 51, 52.
ROBERT C. MATLOCK, D/B/A OWENSBORO PLATING COMPANY and UNITED
AUTOMOBILE WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL, PETITIONER. Case No.
9-RC-1816. March 04, 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 Alvin Schwartz, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.,,
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-mem-
ber panel [Chairman Herzog and Members Styles and Peterson].
Upon the entire record in this case, the Boarc' finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in the plating, chemical processing,
and acid cleaning of metals at its plant in Owensboro, Kentucky.
In 1952, the Employer did business with the General Electric Com-
pany, the Westinghouse Electric Company, and the U. E. Anderson
Company, all of whom are conceded to be in interstate commerce, in
the amount of $64,566. In 1952, the Employer did business with
the General Electric Company in the amount of $58,158, and in the
month of January 1953, in the amount of $4,950. The Employer's
business with the General Electric Company is on defense materials.
I The petition and other formal papers were amended at the hearing to show the correct
name of the Employer.
103 NLRB No. 97.