Underwood Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

May 29, 1952

99 N.L.R.B. 416 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

416 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
other hand, a majority of the professional employees vote against
inclusion, they will not be included with the nonprofessional em-
ployees. Their votes on the second question will then be counted to
decide whether or not they desire to be represented by the Union in
a separate professional unit. If a majority in either the professional
unit alone, the nonprofessional unit alone, or the combined unit vote
for the Union, the Regional Director conducting the elections directed
herein is instructed to issue a certification of representatives to the
Union for such unit or units.
[Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication in this
volume.]
UNDERWOOD CORPORATION (PACIFIC DISTRICT ) and INTERNATIONAL
UNION OF ELECTRICAL , RADIO AND MACHINE WORKERS, CIO, PETI-
TIONER . Case No. 20-RC-1678. May 29, 1952
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 David Karasick, 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-member
panel [Members Houston, Murdock, and Styles].
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 organization involved claims to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. The Employer moved that the petition be dismissed on the ground
that subsisting contracts with the Associated Service Department
Employees of U. E. F., herein called the Association,, constitutes a
bar to this proceeding. The Petitioner opposed the motion on the
grounds of defunctness and schism in the ranks of the Association,
and on the further ground that the contracts were about to expire.
We find merit in the last stated ground, and need not therefore con-
sider the other reasons in opposition to the motion. As the contracts
offered as a bar expired on May 1, 1952, we find that they do not con-
stitute a bar to the petition. - The motion to dismiss the petition is
hereby denied.
'No appearance at the bearing or request for intervention was made by anyone in
behalf of the Association.
99 NLRB No. 77.
UNDERWOOD CORPORATION 417
We find that a question affecting commerce exists concerning the
representation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of
Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Employer manufactures, sells, and services typewriters and
other office and business machines on a Nation-wide scale, and for
administrative purposes has divided its operations into six districts.
In turn, these districts are subdivided into regions and branches. The
Petitioner seeks to represent in a single unit all service employees
in the Pacific District which comprises 11 of the Nation's westernmost
States and parts of 3 others 2 The Employer contends that because
of the vastness of the district, the great distances between its regions,
and because past bargaining assertedly has been on a regional and
branch basis, only such units are appropriate. The Petitioner indi-
cated its willingness to represent separate regional units if the Board
finds a single district-wide unit inappropriate. The parties also differ
as to specific inclusions and exclusions discussed below.
The Pacific District contains 10 regions, each with a main office at
Butte, Montana; Denver, Colorado; El Paso, Texas; Los Angeles, San
Francisco, and San Diego, California; Portland, Oregon; Salt Lake
City, Utah; and Seattle and Spokane, Washington. Los Angeles,
Portland, Salt Lake City, San Francisco, and Seattle have one or
more branches within their respective regions. The Phoenix, Arizona,
branch in the Los Angeles region, and the Sacramento, California,
branch in the San Francisco region had formerly been regions, but
had been reduced to branch status during the war period. Head-
quarters for the Pacific District are in San Francisco.
The regions and branches are operating units of the district for
sales and service of the Employer's products in their localities, and
administrative arms for the application of the Employer's business
and labor relations policies. These policies are established at the
Employer's national headquarters in New York City whence they are
channeled to the local regional and branch units through the district
headquarters in San Francisco. Thus, labor policies formulated by
the Employer's personnel manager in New York City are communi-
cated to the manager of the Pacific District who then imparts the poli-
cies to the regional and branch managers and sees that they are
uniformly administered.
While the Employer asserted that the regions autonomously conduct
their business and personnel activities, the record shows that such inde-
pendence as they are permitted may be exercised only within the limits
of the foregoing policies. The district manager is the superior to
whom the regional managers report, and he has overriding authority
2 Included in the district are Washington, Oregon, California, Nevada, Idaho, Montana,
Wyoming, Utah, Arizona, New Me:dco, Colorado, and parts of Nebraska, Kansas, and
Texas.
418 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
in matters pertaining to local labor policies as more fully explicated
below in the discussion of the bargaining history. The regions and
branches recruit employees locally and have authority to hire and dis-
charge subject to approval at the district level which is generally; auto-
matic. Similarly, all other changes in employees' status are initiated
locally, but clearance and approval must first be obtained from the dis-
trict so that final approval in these matters at New York City is re-
duced to a formality.
The Pacific District also operates as a focal point for transfer of
equipment from one region to another to insure the availability of
the Employer's products at regions where they are needed immedi-
ately. For this purpose the district maintains a central inventory of
accounting machines in the district. The district maintains a train-
ing school at San Francisco exclusively for the service employees in
its regions. Employees in all other of the Employer's districts are
sent for training to the Employer's school at Hartford, Connecticut.
The manager of the Pacific District testified that the district is further
distinguished from other districts by the fact that its geographic
boundaries form a natural division.
All service employees in the district have similar skills and duties
and are readily interchangeable. While interchange between branches
within regions is not uncommon, there are only infrequent instances
of interchange between servicemen of different regions in the district.
Such interchange or permanent transfer may be accomplished' with-
out loss of seniority. Servicemen in the regions and branches gen-
erally work in their home offices or in the areas adjacent to their offices,
but the accounting machine servicemen travel throughout the entire
regions in which they work.
Regional or branch units within the Pacific District might well
be appropriate, particularly in view of the distances separating them,
the degree of local autonomy which they may exercise and the infre-
quent interchange of service employees between regions. On the other
hand, there are factors pointing toward the appropriateness of a dis-
trict-wide unit. These are the facts : That the district is an administra-
tive subdivision of the Employer's operations; the similarity of skills,
duties, and working conditions referred to hereinafter for all service
employees in the district; and the several elements of centralization
including the fact that the district is headed by a manager who im-
poses uniform operating and labor relations policies for the entire
district.
We shall consider all these factors in the light of the following bar-
gaining history.
The Association was formed in 1941 as an independent union to
represent the service employees of the district in bargaining with the
Employer. In a representation petition filed that year with the Board,
UNDERWOOD CORPORATION 419
the Association requested a single district-wide unit of service em-
ployees, but subsequently the Association agreed to submit to the
Employer's insistence that these employees be represented in separate
regional units, and withdrew the petition. Thereupon, the parties
came to terms and in 1942 executed separate contracts for each of the
12 regions in the district except San Diego in which the Association
did not represent a majority. In 1943, as a result of a cross-check in
the regions, it was determined that the Association had lost its ma-
jorities in Denver, Phoenix, and Spokane, but had gained a majority
in San Diego. Accordingly, separate contracts were executed that
year for the regions represented by the Association. In 1944, upon
a showing of majority in Phoenix, a contract was again executed for
that region. In 1946 or 194:7 and in 1950 the Association's majorities
were reestablished in Spokane a-d Denver, respectively, and separate
contracts were thereupon executed for these regions. Thus, the last
contracts between the Employer and the Association, dated May 23,
1950, consist of separate documents for each of the district's 10 regions
and for the Phoenix and Sacramento branches which, as noted above,
had formerly been regions.
Bargaining between the Employer and the Association has always
been at San Francisco. There have never been negotiations at the
regional or branch levels. The Employer has repeatedly been repre-
sented in bargaining by its attorney who acted upon advice from the
Employer's New York headquarters. The manager of the district has
also attended bargaining conferences, but his function was limited to
furnishing information to the attorney. The Association also has
been represented by its attorney plus the Association officers.3 No
local manager from any of the regions or branches ever attended or
in any manner participated at the bargaining sessions." Similarly,
no representatives from the individual regions and branches partici-
pated in bargaining in behalf of the service employees in these locali-
ties. Although the Association members in the regions customarily
advised the Association officers by mail as to their bargaining views
in advance of negotiations, the Association attorney and officers had
full authority to conclude agreements in behalf of all district service
employees without their advice or consent.
Upon agreement as to terms by the negotiators at the periodic
bargaining sessions, the Employer customarily prepared separate
documents embodying these terms for the appropriate regions and
branches. These documents were then simultaneously signed by the
district manager for the Employer, and by the president and secre-
'The Association appears never to have had a constitution or bylaws . Because the
District headquarters are located in San Francisco , it became the Association 's practice
to choose its officers from the membership in that area.
* It seems evident from the record that none of the regional or branch managers have
ever had any part in concluding bargaining terms for the employees under them.
420 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tary-treasurer of the Association for the latter. During the period
1942 to 1946 the local regional and branch managers signed the par-
ticular contracts for their operating units, and a shop committee in
each region likewise signed its particular contract. Beginning, with
the 1947 contracts, signatures by the local managers and shop com-
mittees were eliminated, and the contracts henceforth were signed
only by the district manager and the Association officers .5
Except for differences in wage scales for some of the regions based
on cost of living indices, and special holidays recognized by the Em-
ployer for its employees in certain States of the district, terms and
working conditions for all service employees in the district achieved
through bargaining have been identical. The 1950 contracts elimi-
nated the several wage scales and set up one scale for the coastal re-
gions, and another uniform scale for the inland regions. Before 1944
not all, though most, contracts had the same beginning and expiration
dates, but since then all contracts have been identical in these as well
as other respects.
The Employer contends that because of its repeated insistence be-
fore agreement as to the several bargaining contracts that the appro-
priate units be limited to the regions or branches,6 the Association's
submission to these demands, and the signing of separate contracts
for regions or branches, a pattern of bargaining has been established
on a regional and branch basis. The Petitioner, on the other hand,
took the position at the hearing that the above-related facts indicate
that bargaining was keynoted by the negotiation of one contract for
all service employees in the district thereby establishing a pattern of
bargaining for these employees in a district-wide unit.'
There are, as the Employer contends, certain external indicia of
regional and branch bargaining. We are satisfied, however, that the
factors supporting a conclusion that bargaining has in substance been
on a district-wide basis outweigh these indications. In the circum-
stances of this case, we regard the apparent agreement of the parties to
bargain for multiple units as the superficial observance of a condition
which was nullified by the actual bargaining conduct of the parties.
Apart from the formalities involved in the verbalization as to separate
units, and the reduction of the bargaining terms to separate, albeit
uniform, contracts, the mechanics of bargaining and the resultant
"Except for the San Francisco region, no other regions or branches in the district
appear to have formed their own locals. The San Francisco local was abandoned in 1949.
While there seem to have been shop committees at the local,levels during the first years
of the Association's existence, they too appear to have been discontinued.
6 The Employer concedes that there was no discussion regarding this issue in the negp-
tiation of the last contracts in 1950, but asserts that the understanding of the parties n
this point was sufficiently clear to obviate the necessity of discussion.
7 Charles It. Chester , president of the Association in 1946 and an executive board member
since then , testified that during negotiations discussion centered on only one contract.
UNDERWOOD CORPORATION 421
agreements in essence preserved the character of single unit bargain-
ing. The recurrent negotiation at one time and place of agreements
for all service employees in the district by negotiators for each side
whose power to make binding commitments did not depend upon the
advice, consent, or ratification of the regions, branches, or employee
groups on these levels, the nonparticipation by local representatives
in any phase of bargaining, the consummation of virtually identical
terms for all service employees in the district, and the exclusive sign-
ing, at least since 1947, of all contracts by the district manager for
the regions and branches and the Association's officers for all the serv-
ice employees in the district, convinces us that the real spirit and effect
of the bargaining was along the lines of a single district-wide unit,
and not on the basis of multiple regional and branch units." We find
that the bargaining history between the Employer and the Association
has established a fixed pattern of bargaining on the basis of the district
as the appropriate unit, and that the service department employees
of the Employer's Pacific District may appropriately be represented,
in accordance with the Petitioner's primary request, in a single dis-
trict-wide unit.
There remain for consideration the specific inclusions or exclusions.
The Employer would exclude from the appropriate unit as supervisors
individuals classified as mechanical supervisors, delivery and shipping
supervisors, and parts stock clerk supervisors. The Petitioner con-
tends that they are rank-and-file employees and should be included
in the unit. As the record contains unrefuted testimony that they
have authority effectively to recommend the hiring and discharge of
employees, we find that these individuals are supervisors within the
meaning of the Act and shall exclude them from the unit.
We find that all service department employees of the Underwood
Corporation in its Pacific District excluding the instructor of the
Pacific District Service School, secretaries of branch service managers,
branch, service managers, assistant branch service managers, service
supervisors, mechanical supervisors, delivery and shipping super-
visors, parts stock clerk supervisors, and all other supervisors within
the meaning of the Act constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes
of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the,
Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
g Basalt Rock Company, Inc., 96 NLRB 1058 ; Bethlehem-Fairchild Shipyard , Incor-
porated, 58 NLRB 579; cf . Holland Furnace Company, 95 NLRB 1128 , where the Board
held that there had not in fact been Nation -wide bargaining in that case despite the
execution in the past of a Nation-wide contract , and found appropriate a unit lesser
in scope.
215233-53-28