Westinghouse Electric Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Sep 29, 1953

106 N.L.R.B. 1218 (N.L.R.B. 1953)

1218 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
rector recommended . Accordingly, the Petitioner ' s objections
to conduct allegedly affecting the results of the election are
hereby overruled.
However , as the challenged ballots in this case are sufficient
in number to affect the results of the election, we shall direct
that the Regional Director investigate such challenges and
prepare and cause to be served upon the parties a report on
challenged ballots , setting forth the facts revealed by the
investigation and his recommendation thereon.
[The Board directed that, as part of the investigation to
ascertain representatives for the purpose of collective bar-
gaining with the Employer, the Regional Director for the
Fourth Region shall investigate these challenged ballots and
serve upon the parties a report on challenged ballots.]
Member Murdock took no part in the consideration of the
above Supplemental Decision and Direction.
WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION and INTERNA-
TIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, AFL, Petitioner.
Case No. 6-RC - 1330. September 29, 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 Sidney
Lawrence, 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 mean-
ing of the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to re-present
certain employees of the Employer.'
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the
representation of employees of the Employer within the mean-
ing of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The parties are in general agreement that the production
and maintenance unit which is presently represented by the UE
is appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining. The
Petitioner and the UE oppose any change in that unit. The IUE
1 The hearing officer properly granted motions to intervene which were made by Local 601,
United Electrical , Radio & Machine Workers of America ( UE), herein called the UE, the
presently certified bargaining representative , and by Federation of Westinghouse Independent
Salaried Unions , herein called the Federation , and International Union of Electrical, Radio
& Machine Workers, CIO, herein called the IUE. Although the UE and the Federation are
parties to current collective-bargaining agreements covering the employees involved in this
proceeding, none of the parties has asserted that either of these contracts constitutes a bar
to a present determination of representatives.
106 NLRB No. 200.
WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION 1219
would add to it 18 salaried clerical employees who work in the
plant proper. The Employer on the other hand would exclude
them as well as salaried inspectors, salaried clerks in the
shipping and receiving department, and salaried cafeteria
employees, which categories are included in the present bar-
gaining unit.
In the 1950 Board proceeding, which resulted in the out-
standing certification of the UE, the Board considered and
rejected the Employer's present contention that salaried em-
ployees, as such, should be excluded from the bargaining unit. 2
As there is no showing that the duties of salaried inspectors,
salaried clerks in the shipping and receiving department, and
salaried cafeteria employees have changed in any respect
since the earlier proceeding, we perceive no reason for
altering the contractual unit.'
The IUE seeks to add to the existing bargaining unit the
following plant employees whom the parties to the earlier
proceeding agreed to exclude: The 11 production clerks, the 2
record clerks, the material expediter, the time clerk, the
general duty clerk, the plant stenographer, and the plant
typist. The production clerks, the record clerks, and the mate-
rial expediter are supervised by the production supervisor.
The time clerk is supervised by the accounting department in
the Employer's main office but works in the plant proper
collecting timecards on production jobs for piece-rate opera-
tions. The plant typist, who is supervised by the industrial
engineer , performs routine clerical duties in the production
area office. The general duty clerk and the plant stenographer
also work in that office. The former keeps files and daily
records and runs errands for the plant foreman. The latter
does routine stenographic work for the foreman and the plant
manager . There is no showing on the record that any of the
employees whom the IUE seeks to add to the bargaining unit
exercise supervisory authority or perform other than the
routine duties of the usual plant clerical employees. As their
working conditions associate them closely with the production
employees, we shall, in accordance with established policy,
include them in the production and maintenance unit.4
In view of the foregoing we find that the following employees
employed by the Employer at its Nuttall plant, 200 McCandless
Avenue, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, constitute a unit appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of
Section 9 (b) of the Act: All production and maintenance em-
ployees, including group leaders, shipping and receiving em-
2 Westinghouse Electric Corporation, 89 NLRB 8.
3 The cafeteria employees, who have been covered by the UE's contracts since 1950, were
not specifically mentioned in the Board's unit finding in the earlier proceeding. However, as
we reject the only reason advanced for the exclusion of any of the employees the Employer
seeks to remove from the existing contractual unit, namely, their mode of payment, we shall
follow the established unit in this respect and include all nonsupervisory cafeteria employees
in the unit herein found appropriate
4See General Electric Company, 106 NLRB 364, and the cases cited therein.
322615 0 - 54 - 78
1220 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
ployees, cafeteria employees , testers, truckdrivers , inspectors,
plant production clerks, plant record clerks , material ex-
pediters , plant time clerks, plant general duty clerks,, and
plant stenographers , but excluding office clerical employees,
engineers , salaried employees other than inspectors and
employees in the cafeteria and shipping and receiving depart-
ment, guards , professional employees , and supervisors as
defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election5 omitted from publication]
5 Federation of Westinghouse Independent Salaried Unions has not been included in the
Direction of Election as it indicated at the hearing that it did not wish a place on the ballot.
M c K E S S O N & ROBBINS, INCORPORATED and RETAIL,
WHOLESALE & DEPARTMENT STORE UNION, CIO, Peti-
tioner. Case No. 9-RC-1955. September 29, 1953
SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION , ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF
SECOND ELECTION
Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election issued
herein on June 30, 1953 ,1 an election by secret ballot was
conducted on July 23 , 1953 , under the direction and supervision
of the Regional Director for the Ninth Region, among employees
in the unit found appropriate by the Board . Following the
election , a tally of ballots was furnished the parties. The tally
shows that of 21 eligible voters , 20 cast ballots , of which 4
were for the Petitioner and 16 were against the Petitioner.
On July 27, the Petitioner filed timely objections to the
election . The Acting Regional Director investigated the ob-
jections , and on August 12, 1953 , issued and duly served upon
the parties his report on objections to election , in which he
recommended that the objections be sustained and that the
Board set aside the election . The Employer filed timely excep-
tions to the Acting Regional Director ' s report on objections
to election.
Having duly considered the matter , the Board finds as fol-
lows:
On July 15 , 1953 , the Regional Office mailed standard
notices of election to the Employer. Because the Employer
did not receive these notices , it posted notices of election which
it had from a previous Board election . The sample ballot which
was posted as a part of the notice of election , however, was
the standard sample ballot used in union - authorization elections.
We find that under these circumstances the employees were
not properly apprised of the issue in the election , and that
there is substantial doubt as to whether proper election
1 Not reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions.
106 NLRB No. 202.