Radio Corp. of America

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 9, 1945

63 N.L.R.B. 235 (N.L.R.B. 1945)

In the Matter Of RADIO CORPORATION OF AMERICA, RCA VICTOR Divi-
SION and UNITED ELECTRICAL, RADIO & MACHINE WORKERS OF
AMERICA, CIO
In the Matter of RADIO CORPORATION OF AMERICA, RCA VICTOR Divl-
SION and RADIO COMMUNICATIONS ASSEMBLERS UNION, INC.
Cases Nos. 2-R-5479 and 2-R-5495, respectively.Decided August 9,.
19/5
Mr. Daniel Baker, for the Board.
Mr. J. M. Clifford, of Camden, N. J., for the Company.
Mr. John F. X. Landrigan, of Bayonne, N. J., for the Assemblers.
Mr. David Scribner, by Mr. Frederick R. Livingston, of New York
City, Mr. Walter Berry, of Newark, N. J., and Miss Doris Lewis, of
Harrison, N. J., for the UE.
Mr. Sidney Grossman, of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon separate petitions duly filed by United Electrical, Radio &
Machine Workers of America, CIO, herein called the UE, and by Radio-
Communications Assemblers Union, Inc., herein called the Assemblers,
each alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen concern-
ing the representation of employees of Radio Corporation of America,
RCA Victor Division, Harrison and Jersey City, New Jersey, herein
called the Company, the National Labor Relations Board provided for
an appropriate consolidated hearing upon due notice before Cyril W.
O'Gorn an, Trial Examiner. Said hearing was held at Newark, New
Jersey, on June 22, 194:5. The Company, the UE, and the Assemblers
appeared and participated. All parties were afforded full oppor-
tunity to be heard, to examine and cross-examine witnesses, to intro-
duce evidence bearing on the issues, and to file briefs with the Board.
At the hearing, the Company moved to dismiss the petitions on the-
grounds that no question concerning representation has arisen, that
Board agents had allegedly assisted the organizational campaign of
63 N. L. R. B., No. 35.
235
236 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
the UE, and that the UE had utilized this proceeding as part of its
organizational drive. The Trial Examiner reserved ruling for the
Board, and rejected the Company's offer to prove that Board agents
had assisted the UE in its organization of the Company's employees.
Subsequent .to the hearing, the Company renewed its motions to dis-
miss and also moved to reopen Case No. 2-C-5534 for the purpose of
adducing additional evidence therein and securing a determination
upon the merits, and to consolidate Case No. 2-C-5534 with the instant
proceedings.' The Company also requested oral argument.
On July 20, 1945, the Board issued an order reopening the record
and authorizing the Regional' Director to conduct a further hearing
in Cases Nos. 2-R-5479 and 2-R-5495 for the purpose of securing evi-
dence as to the alleged misconduct of one of its Field Examiners, as
included in an offer of proof made by the Company at the original
hearing. Pursuant to a request made by the UE, subsequent to the
original hearing, the Board further ordered that evidence be adduced
with respect to the alleged supervisory status of certain employees.
The further hearing was held upon due notice at Newark, New Jersey,
on July 26, 1945, before William R. Ringer, Trial Examiner. The
Company, the UE, and the Assemblers appeared and participated,
and were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and cross-
,examine witnesses, and to introduce evidence bearing on the issues.
At the hearing the Company renewed its motions hereinabove set forth.
The Trial Examiner reserved ruling thereon for the Board. In part,
for the reasons set forth in Section III, infra, the motions are denied.
The Trial Examiner also reserved ruling upon a motion by the UE
to sever the issues with respect to the alleged misconduct of Board
agents from the other issues here involved. The UE's motion is here-
by denied. The Trial Examiners' rulings made at both hearings
are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. All parties
were afforded an opportunity to file briefs with the Board. The Com-
pany's request for oral argument is denied.
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following :
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY
c
Radio Corporation of America, a Delaware corporation, maintains
plants in various sections of the United States. We are here concerned
with its Harrison, New Jersey, plant, where it is engaged in the manu-
i As a result of charges filed by the UE on May 27, 1944, a complaint was issued on
February 6, 1945, alleging 8 (1) and ( 2) violations under the Act, but was withdrawn
after hearing on June 5 , 1945 Subsequently , on June 25, 1945, the UE filed charges
alleging 8 (1), (3), and (4) violations under the Act; and on August 1, 1945, filed a waiver
of any right or privilege to urge such alleged violations as a basis for objections to any
election which may be held in the instant proceedings.
RADIO CORPORATION OF AMERICA 237
facture of radio tubes and electronic devices, and with its warehouse
in Jersey City, New Jersey. The Company uses copper, steel, nickel,
aluminum, and other raw materials in the manufacture of its prod-
ucts. During the past year, its purchases of raw materials for use at
its Harrison, New Jersey, plant, were approximately in excess of
$500,000 in value, of which 50 percent was secured from sources out-
side the State of New Jersey. During the same period, finished
products manufactured by the Company were approximately in excess
of $500,000 in value, of which 50 percent was shipped to points out-
side the State of New Jersey.
We find that the Company is engaged in commerce within the
meaning of the National Labor Relations Act.
II. TIIE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America, affiliated
with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, is a labor organization
admitting to membership employees of the Company.
Radio Communications Assemblers Union, Inc., unaffiliated, is a
labor organization admitting to membership employees of the Com-
pany.
ITI. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
On March 10, 1945, the Assemblers addressed a letter to the Coin-
pany requesting therein recognition as the bargaining representative
of certain of the Company's employees, and on the same day filed its
petition. The Company, by letter dated March 12, 1945, refused to
accord recognition to the Assemblers until certified by the Board in
an appropriate unit. The UE filed its petition herein on March 12,
1945. Thereafter, on June 11, 1945, the Company extended an invi-
tation to both unions to present their membership cards for the pur-
poses of a cross-check. The UE refused to participate; however, the
Assemblers submitted its cards, and, upon the strength of its repre-
sentation evidence, was accorded recognition by the Company as the
bargaining representative of the Company's production and main-
tenance employees.
The Company refuses to recognize the UE as the representative of
its employees and contends that no question concerning representation
has arisen in view of the recognition accorded the Assemblers. We
do not agree. The recognition accorded the Assemblers by the Com-
pany cannot have the effect of resolving the representation issue which
the two rival labor organizations have clearly raised in this proceed-
ing. As Ave stated in Hatter of American-Marsh Pumps, Inc. 2 the
Act does not permit an employer to designate which of two rival labor
2 59 N . L. It. B 1084.
238 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
organizations shall be the representative of its employees. Conse-
quently, we find that, at the very least, the Company's premature
recognition of the Assemblers does not preclude a present determina-
tion of representatives.
The Company further contends that an election at this time is
inappropriate because certain alleged misconduct of a Field Examiner
of the Board would now prevent the employees from exercising their
right freely to choose their own bargaining representative. We have,
considered the evidence adduced at the -reopened hearing with respect
to this issue. It does not sustain the charges made by the Company
as to the conduct of the Board's Field Examiner. Accordingly, we-
find that the Company's contention is without merit.
A statement of a Field Examiner for the Board, introduced inta
evidence at the hearing, indicates that the UE and the Assemblers
each represents a substantial number of employees in the unit it claims
to be appropriate 3
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Company, within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
We find, in substantial accord with the agreement of the parties,,
that all production and maintenance employees at the Company's
Harrison, New Jersey, plant, and its Jersey City, New Jersey, ware-
house, excluding office and clerical employees, plant-protection em-
ployees, employees engaged on "The Prudential Project," technical
and professional employees, foremen and all or any other supervisory
employees with authority to hire, promote, discharge, discipline, or
otherwise effect changes in the status of employees, or effectively rec-
ommend such action,' constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes-
'The Field Examiner reported that the UE submitted 2,158 cards and the Assemblers
submitted 1,650 cards as evidence of their representation in the alleged appropriate unit
estimated by the Company to consist of from 3 ,600 to 3,900 employees
As part of its motion to dismiss the petitions for the reason that no question concerning
representation has arisen, the Company contended that the UE did not submit at the
hearing evidence that it represented a majority of the Company's employees The Com-
pany has evidently misconstrued the basis for the requirement of a showing of union
representation The submission of cards is an administrative expedient adopted by the
Board to determine for itself whether or not a question of representation has arisen
Proof of a majority status is not required to raise a question concerning representation
it is only necessary to establish to the satisfaction of the Board that the petitioning union
represents a substantial number of employees in the unit found to be appropriate. See
Matter of Petersen if Lytle, 60 N. L R . B 1070 Nor , as contended by the Company and
the Assemblers , is it necessary for the Field Examiner to check the cards against a com-
pany pay roll , particularly where , as here , the Company refused to furnish prior to the
hearing a pay-roll list of employees against which a check of the cards could be made.
See Matter of Bakelite Corporation, 60 N L. R. B 315 . Inasmuch as the representation
of the UE's interest in the Company 's employees is substantial , we find no merit in the
Company's contention that the UE has utilized this proceeding as part of its organiza-
tional drive.
4 Falling within the above definition of supervisory employees are group leaders and
instructor supervisors whom the parties , at the further bearing, agreed to exclude.
RADIO CORPORATION OF AMERICA 239
of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 ( b) of the
Act.°
Y. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
We shall direct that the question concerning representation which
has arisen be resolved by an election by secret ballot among the eni
ployees in the appropriate unit who were employed during the pay-
roll period immediately preceding the date of the Direction of
Election herein, subject to the limitations and additions set forth in
the Direction c
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National Labor
Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act,
and pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of National Labor Relations
Board Rules and Regulations-Series 3, as amended, it is hereby
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representa-
tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Radio Corpora-
tion of America, RCA Victor Division, Harrison and Jersey City,
New Jersey, an election by secret ballot shall be conducted as early as
possible, but not later than thirty (30) days from the date of this
Direction, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Di-
rector for the Second Region, acting in this matter as agent for the
National'Labor Relations Board, and subject to Article III, Sections
10 and 11, of said Rules and Regulations, among the employees in the
unit found appropriate in Section IV, above, who were employed dur-
ing the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of this Direc-
tion, including employees who did not work during said pay-roll
period because they were ill or on vacation or temporarily laid off,
and including employees in the armed forces of the United States who
present themselves in person at the polls, but excluding any who have -
since quit or. been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or
reinstated prior to the date of the election, to determine whether they
desire to be represented by United Electrical, Radio & Machine
Workers of America, CIO, or by Radio Communications Assemblers
Union, Inc., for the purposes of collective bargaining, or by neither.
MR. GERARD D. REILLY took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Election.
5 The Company requests that the unit be confined to hourly paid production and main-
tenance employees . The record indicates that a few employees in the appropriate unit
are salaried , adherence to the Company ' s request would mean therefore the exclusion of
such employees . Since the method employed in remunerating employees ordinarily affords
no basis for determining the scope of our unit finding, we discern no reason for acceding
to the Company ' s request.
The parties agreed, and we find, that part-time employees who work 24 hours per•week
or less and employees temporarily employed for the duration of the summer are ineligible
to participate in the election.