Barker and Williamson, Inc.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 14, 1951

97 N.L.R.B. 562 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

562 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
BARKER AND WILLIAMSON , INC. and LOOAL 165 , INTERNATIONAL
UNION OF ELECTRICAL , RADIO AND MACHINE WORKERS, CIO, PETI-
TIONER. Case No. 4-RC-1220. December 14, 1951
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 Julius Topol, 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 Reynolds 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 organizations involved 1 claim to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
3. The UE contends that a collective bargaining contract effec-
tive from August 23, 1950, to August 23, 1952, bars the instant peti-
tion. The Petitioner contends that this contract is not a bar because,
inter alia, a schism in the membership of the Intervenor at the Em-
ployer's shop creates a doubt as to the continued representation by
the Intervenor of the employees involved herein. The Employer
takes no position on the contract bar issue.
The UE is an amalgamated local whose members are employed in
several shops located in the vicinity of Camden, New Jersey, and
Bristol, Pennsylvania. Each shop, however, enjoys a considerable
amount of individual autonomy. Each has its own chief steward and
five other stewards who are empowered by the local's constitution
with the responsibility of conducting regular shop meetings, to ad-
minister the contract and process grievances. The contract in question
which covers only the Employer's employees, was executed and nego-
tiated by the shop stewards who were merely assisted by the UE local's
business agent.
The record reveals that on June 15, 1951 (the Friday before the
UE's regular shop meeting), an organization meeting was held of
those employees of the Employer who wished to disaffiliate from the
UE and to affiliate with the Petitioner. A chairman and secretary
were elected by the 51 employees who attended the meeting. Another
meeting of this group, attended by 42 employees, was held on June 28
further to explore the disaffiliation movement. On July 10, 1951,
Local 134, United Electrical , Radio and Machine Workers of America ( hereinafter UE)
was permitted to intervene on the basis of a current contract with the Employer.
97 NLRB No. 79.
BARKER AND WILLIAMSON, INC.- 563
pursuant to a provision of the UE's constitution, a petition, signed
by about 40 employees who were members of the UE (more than the
percentage required by the UE's constitution) was presented to the
chief steward, requesting that a special meeting be held on July 16,
1951, to take a vote on whether the shop should disaffiliate from the
UE and affiliate with the Petitioner. The chief steward refused to
call such a meeting, ignored the petition, and instead put out a notice
-reminding the employees that a regular UE shop meeting would be
held on July 19, 1951.
Thereupon on July 13, the UE members who were adherents of
the disaffiliation movement distributed notices to all the employees
of the Employer stating that a special meeting would be held on
July 16, 1951, for the express purpose of discussing and acting upon
a resolution of disaffiliation from the UE and affiliation with the
Petitioner.
The meeting so advertised was held on July 16, and attended by
approximately 46 employees of the Employer. The record establishes
that although there were about 245 employees in the unit, 46 was at
least equal to the average attendance at UE meetings in the past. At
this meeting, after due discussion, a resolution was unanimously
adopted to disaffiliate from the UE and affiliate with the Petitioner.
The record reveals that the UE then held its regular monthly meet,
ing, 3 days later, on July 19, 1951, attended by the usual complement
of employees, none of whom were associated with the disaffiliation
group. Neither at this meeting nor at any subsequent UE meetings
has mention been made of the special meeting of July 16 and no
resolutions concerniiig disaffiliation or retraction of the prior action
taken has been made. However, the Petitioner, subsequent to a spe-
cial disaffiliation meeting, has also continued to hold regular well-
attended meetings, and on July 19, 1951, the Petitioner notified the
Employer of the disaffiliation vote and later sent the Employer cards
from 125 employees revoking their previously existing checkoffs.
At the hearing the Intervenor introduced documents containing 214
signatures, allegedly obtained between July 22 and the hearing in
September, requesting the Employer to resume the checkoff on behalf
of the UE. Subsequently at the hearing, the Petitioner introduced
sheets of paper containing the signatures of 185 employees allegedly
obtained between September 11 and September 19, 1951, expressing
employee support of the disaffiliation from Local 134, UE and their
support of its affiliation with Local 165, IUE-CIO.
The Employer has notified the parties that it would continue to
recognize the UE, as contracted, until such time as it is directed to do
otherwise by the proper tribunal, but would hold all monies obtained
by the checkoff in escrow until the question of proper representation
564 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
was settled. The Employer has however refused to bargain with the
UE, pursuant to a wage reopening agreement in their current con-
tract, giving as its reason its doubt as to the UE's majority repre-
sentative status.
These facts, in our opinion, warrant the application of the schism
doctrine set forth in the Boston Machine 2 case. The employees of the
of the Employer constitute an autonomous unit of the amalgamated
local,' and the disaffiliation movement was as broad as the contract.
unit.' This movement finally culminated in a formal meeting for the
express and previously publicized purpose of voting on the question
of disaffiliation at which time the motion to disaffiliate was carried.
Both unions continue to exist and each claims it is the representative
of the employees. Each union has presented documents- (the revoca-
tions of the checkoff s, the subsequent reinstatements thereof, and the
petitions expressing support of the disaffiliation) which purport to
demonstrate allegiance to itself. Taken together these circumstances
convince us that the normal bargaining relationship between the
Employer and the UE has become a matter'of confusion and uncer-
tainty. Under these circumstances, to find that the 1950 contract con-
stitutes a bar to an immediate election would seriously impede, rather
than encourage, the practices of collective bargaining at the plant.
We find that the contract is not a bar to a present determination of
representatives.'
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 appropriate unit :
At the hearing the parties agreed, in general, to the appropriateness
of a production and maintenance unit. The only disagreement per-
tains tQ certain so-called "research and engineering" employees. The
Petitioner would include certain of these employees, but exclude others,
while the Employer would exclude all of these employees.6 All of
them have been excluded from the unit since 1947 when the Intervenor
was certified following a consent election.
The Employer, a manufacturer of electronic equipment, at its Bristol
plant, herein involved, makes all the requisite parts of a complete
communication system, and fits them into a truck or trailer according
to specifications of the Army Signal Corps, the major customer of the
Employer's products. All of the employees whose status is in dispute
work in the research and engineering department which is headed by
2 89 NLRB 59, See also Fitzgerald Mills Corporation, 95 NLRB 948.
3 See J J. Tourek Manufacturing Co., 90 NLRB 5.
4 Cf. Harris Products Company, 96 NLRB 812.
5 In view of our finding above it becomes unnecessary to consider the Petitioner 's further
contention that the contract contains an illegal union-security clause.
6 The Intervenor took no position on this issue.
BARKER AND WILLIAMSON, INC. 565
a chief engineer, whose shares equal responsibility with the plant man-
ager responsible for all production and assembly operations. The de-
partment is responsible for the interpretation of basic contracts and
their specifications, the preparation of all manufacturing drawings
necessary for the production units, the maintenance of quality control
throughout production, trouble shooting, and testing and adjusting
all the finished equipment, which is then subject to a final test by
Army Signal Corps inspectors present at the plant.
The work of the research and engineering department, which is
,now staffed by approximately 50 employees, is divided as follows:
(a) Twenty-one employees perform "quality control" work
throughout the plant.
(b) Thirteen employees perform final electrical testing of individual
units or parts of the receiving and transmitting sets.
(c) Ten employees perform final tests of the entire set to determine
whether it operates in accordance with specified standards.
(d) Five employees are assigned, as needed, to the project engineers
in order to make special investigations and tests.
(e) One employee is permanently assigned to the laboratory for
maintenance of electrical instruments.
The employees in group (a) observe or inspect the workmanship
and mechanical construction of the equipment as it is being produced.
The employees in group (b), through the use of electrical testing
equipment, observe or inspect the ability of the individual units to
perform electrically, and two employees of group (a) work with group
(b) to check the quality of construction and workmanship of the units
being electrically tested. Group (c) employees test the completed
communication equipment to insure that it transmits and receives mes-
sages in the expected manner.
The Petitioner seeks to include only the group (a) employees in the
unit, alleging that these employees perform work similar to inspectors
in production plants, and that the Board has always included this
category of employee within the production and maintenance bargain-
ing unit. It would, however, exclude the employees in groups (b)
through (e).
On the record as a whole, however, we conclude that while the em-
ployees in groups (d) and (e) are highly technical employees' with
interests diverse from those of the production and maintenance em-
ployees, as well as those of the other employees in the research and en-
gineering department, the same may not be said of the employees in
groups (a), (b), and (c). The employees in these three groups per-
form similar work, receive the same hourly pay as the production and
maintenance employees, and share the same employee facilities and
benefits. Even though they are under separate supervision, the record
fails to indicate that any greater skill, educational training, or ex-
986209-52-vol. 97-37
566 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
perience is required of these three groups than that of the average
production employee in this particular plant. Furthermore there is
nothing in the record to show that their inspection duties involve any
greater discretion or responsibility than that of the usual production
inspector whom the Board normally includes in production and main-
tenance bargaining units. We thus find no merit either in the Pe-
titioner's contention that only group (a) employees should be included
in the unit, nor in the Employer's contention that all of research and
engineering employees should be excluded. We shall include em-
ployees in groups (a), (b), and (c) in the unit.?
We find that all production and maintenance employees employed
at the Bristol plant of the Employer, including the employees of the
engineering and research department who perform "quality control"
duties, electrical testing and final testing of radio sets, but excluding
all other employees of the research and engineering department, office
and clerical employees, watchmen, foremen, assistant foremen, work-
ing foremen, and all other 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.'
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.] _
' Although the unit as certified in 1947 excluded all research and engineering employees,
that unit, as noted above , was based on a consent election and is not determinative.
8 At the hearing the Petitioner stated that they were desirous of representing any addi-
tional employees of the research and engineering department found to be properly included
within the unit. The Petitioner's showing is sufficient for the broader unit, herein found
appropriate.
COLUMBIA BROADCASTING SYSTEM, INC., AND COLUMBIA BROADCASTING
SYSTEM, INC., OF CALIFORNIA 1 and NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROAD-
CAST ENGINEERS AND TECHNICIANS, CIO, PETITIONER 2
COLUMBIA BROADCASTING SYSTEM, INC. and MOTION PICTURE FILM
EDITORS, LOCAL 776 OF THE INTERNATIONAL ALLIANCE OF THEATRICAL
STAGE EMPLOYEES AND MOVING PICTURE MACHINE OPERATORS OF THE
UNITED STATES AND CANADA, AFL, PETITIONER. Cases Nos.
13-RC-1888 and 21-RC-1983. December 17, -951
Decision and Direction of Elections
Upon separate petitions duly filed, hearings were held in Case No.
13-RC-1888 before I. M. Lieberman, hearing officer, at Chicago, Illi-
I The Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., of California is a wholly owned subsidiary of
The Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc For purposes of this decision , we shall treat the
two corporations as one employer.
2 The name of the Petitioner in Case No . 13-RC-1888 appears as amended at the hearing.
97 NLRB No. 81.