Westinghouse Electric Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 19, 1957

118 N.L.R.B. 1043 (N.L.R.B. 1957)

WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION 1043
employed and the date of their separation from the service is specu
lative, we perceive no basis for excluding them from the voting group.
We shall accordingly direct an election in the following voting
group : All traffic, plant, and commercial employees of the Employer
at several places of business in Texas, including beginners, part-time
janitors and janitresses, the secretary to Vice President Oscar Burton,
the secretary to the plant superintendent, payroll clerks and employees
at exchanges at Kosse, Chandler, and Hico, Texas, but excluding com-
mercial representative cashiers, temporary employees, occasional em-
ployees, the secretary to the president, the secretary to Vice President
Morris S. Burton, all employees at Athens, Commerce, Cooper, and
Kaufman, Texas, professional employees, corporate ofCicers,14 watch-
men, guards, and all supervisors as defined in the Act.i5
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
14 The chairman of the board , the president , vice presidents , general manager , secretary-
auditor, treasurer, assistant treasurer, and assistant auditor.
15 The Employer would exclude the wire chief at Stephenville. As the record shows that
this person has the authority to discipline, to grant time off, and assign people working
under him to various crews, we find he is a supervisor and exclude him from the voting
group,
Westinghouse Electric Corporation and Sharon Westinghouse
Employees Association , affiliated with Federation of Westing-
house Independent Salaried Unions, ' Petitioner. Cases No's. 6-
RC-1807 and 6-RC-1808. August 19,1957
DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Herbert Schutzman, 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 meaning of the
Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9
(c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
4. The Petitioner seeks to sever from an existing production and
maintenance unit at the Employer's Sharon Works two groups of
salaried employees : (1) Employees of the tool engineering depart-
ment, including stenographers, designers, draftsmen, and clerks; and
1 The name of the Petitioner appears as corrected at the hearing.
118 NLRB No. 135.
1044 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
(2) employees of the traffic department, including clerks, stenogra-
phers, typists, and yardmasters. It prefers to have these employees
added to the unit of salaried employees which it now represents. In the
alternative, however, it is willing to represent them in a separate unit,
in two separate units, or in any unit found appropriate by the Board.
The Intervenor, International Union of Electrical, Radio and Ma-
chine Workers, AFL-CIO, and its Local Union 617, contends that
the petitions should be dismissed because the units sought are inappro-
priate. It also requests dismissal on the ground that the Petitioner is
not a union that traditionally represents the type of employees in-
volved in this proceeding. The Employer takes the position that there
should be 2 units at the plant, consisting respectively of all salaried
employees and all hourly paid employees; it favors the Petitioner's
request for severance of the 2 salaried groups from the production and
maintenance unit as a step in that direction.
The Employer is a corporation engaged in the manufacture and
sale of electrical equipment, supplies, and appliances in various States.
At its Sharon Works at Sharon, Pennsylvania, the only plant involved
in this proceeding, it has over 8,000 employees.
In 1940, in a case involving the same plant,' the Board found, in
accordance with an agreement of the unions involved, including the
Petitioner herein, that two separate units were appropriate : one con-
sisting of all hourly paid employees and certain specified salaried em-
ployees,' the other, of all salaried employees not included in the hourly
paid unit. In subsequent cases in 1944 and 1950,' the Board again
found the hourly paid unit appropriate. Since 1940 the Petitioner has
represented the salaried unit; and since 1950 the Intervenor has rep-
resented the hourly paid unit.5 At the present time there are approxi-
mately 2,000 salaried employees in the Petitioner's unit and 5,600
hourly paid employees and 540 salaried employees, including the 2
groups involved herein, in the Intervenor's unit.6
In support of its petitions, the Petitioner contends that the salaried
employees it now seeks to represent are office clerical rather than plant
clerical employees, and that they are functionally more closely allied
2 Westinghouse Electric and Manufacturing Company, Sharon Plant, 19 NLRB 344.
8 This unit was described as "all hourly paid employees of the Company with the addition
of Otto J. Manse [instructor of machinist apprentices], Albert Molnar [tool designer],
Alice P. Joyce [inspectors' stenographer], salaried inspectors, employees in the Production
Department [salaried production clerks and other plant clerical employees], and em-
ployees in the Stores and Shipping Department with the exception of those in the Purchas-
ing Department but excluding supervisory employees." The Board noted in its decision
that this unit included all production and maintenance employees and other employees
whose work was closely associated with the manufacturing process.
Westinghouse Electric and Manufacturing Company, Sharon Works, 54 NLRB 1184,
and Westinghouse Electric Corporation, 89 NLRB 8.
8 The Intervenor does not urge its current contract with the Employer as a bar to this
proceeding.
6 The other salaried employees in the Intervenor's unit are general clerical workers, pro-
duction clerks, and inspectors.
WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION 1045
to, and have a greater community of interest with, the employees in
the salaried unit than the employees in the Intervenor's unit. The
Intervenor opposes severance of the two groups sought on the grounds
that the tool engineering department is a heterogeneous collection of
employees, including some who might be classified as craftsmen and
others who are plant clericals, and that the traffic department em-
ployees are only a segment of the clerical employees in the shipping de-
partment. We turn therefore to a consideration of the evidence as to
these two groups.
The employees in the tool engineering department are engaged in
the designing of equipment and tools to be used in the manufacturing
process. There are two sections of the department, under separate
immediate supervision and located in different parts of the plant. One
section designs tools for the manufacture of distribution transformers;
the other for the manufacture of power transformers. Except for this
distinction, the work in the two sections is similar . The distribution
transformer section is located on the fourth floor of the main office
building, which also houses many of the general offices of the plant.
The power transformer section is in an office area of another building.
Each section is under the supervision of a tool superintendent, who is
responsible to the manager of plant layout. There are 16 employ-
ees in the department, including 5 class A tool designers, 2 class B
tool designers, a tool specialist, a detail draftsman, a Weideman
press operator, 2 information writers, 3 typists, and a secretary-
stenographer.
The tool designers prepare designs for tools; they do no work in
the toolroom where the tools are manufactured.' They work from
production drawings, using draftsmen's tools. Their contacts are pri-
marily with engineers and supervisors, but they are occasionally con-
sulted by toolroom employees. Except for the fact that they design
tools rather than the Employer's products, their work is similar to
that of the production draftsmen who are in the Petitioner' s unit, and
they have the same skills. Because of contractual arrangements be-
tween the Employer and the Intervenor, under which preference in
filling vacancies is given to employees within the unit, most of the
tool designers have come from the toolroom, which is in the Inter-
venor's unit. According to the Employer, however, although some
knowledge of toolmaking is necessary for tool designing, actual tool-
room experience is not essential , and during World War II many
production draftsmen were transferred to tool designing. The tool
specialist works on the development and tryout of new techniques or
new ideas under the direction of the superintendent of tools. He
performs his duties in the superintendent's office, but has occasion
7 Formerly the tool designing function was in the same department as the toolroom.
Since 1943, however , the two departments have been separate.
1046 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
at times to go on the plant floor in connection with the tryout of tools.
His contacts are largely with supervision. The detail draftsman takes
layout work prepared by the tool designers and completes the details
for manufacturing purposes. The Weideman press operator makes
punch sheets giving longitudinal and lateral dimensions for locating
holes in sheet metal. He works from production drawings prepared
by the product engineers. The information writers write up informa-
tion for manufacturing purposes and issue requisitions for the purchase
of material from the bill of material on the design. The secretary
stenographer and typists perform the usual duties of employees in
these classifications. Upon the above facts, and the record as a whole,
we find that the tool designers, the tool specialists, the detail drafts-
men, and the Weideman press operator are technical employees, and
that the information writers, typists, and secretary-stenographer are
office clerical employees.
The employees in the traffic department deal with the routing of
incoming and outgoing materials. They include 9 clerical employees
and 2 yardmasters. The clerical employees include a traffic specialist,
2 senior traffic clerks, 2 junior traffic clerks, a clearance clerk, 2
billing clerks, and a stenographer. These employees arrange and
pay for transportation, handle damage claims against carriers, and
bill customers for shipping costs. They are located in an office on
the second floor of one of the buildings, immediately over the shipping
department. Since 1946 or 1947, they have been under the general
supervision of the manager of purchases and traffic, who also has
supervision of all purchasing, stores, shipping, receiving, and receiv-
ing inspection employees. Their immediate supervisor is the assistant
traffic supervisor, who reports to the traffic section supervisor, and
through him to the supervisor of traffic and shipping.'
In the course of their duties the traffic department employees deal
with shipping orders which they receive from the shipping depart-
ment, which is in the Intervenor's unit, but they also work closely
with the purchasing, sales, order service, and accounting departments,
all. of which are in the Petitioner's unit. Because of the contractual
provisions regarding the filling of vacancies, the traffic clerks have
for the most part been recruited from the Intervenor's unit, particu-
larly the shipping department. Experience in that department,
however, is not necessary to qualify for appointment; knowledge of
the work is acquired on the job or by attendance at a traffic school.
As the clerical employees in the traffic department work in an office
area of the plant, under separate immediate supervision from the
8 Another group of employees , referred to as traffic clericals , work on the shipping floor,
under the supervisor of the shipping department, who reports to the traffic section super-
visor. These employees, however, apparently are not considered part of the traffic depart-
ment, and the Petitioner does not seek to represent them.
WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION 1047
production and maintenance employees, we find, as the Petitioner
contends, that they are office clericals.
The yardmasters work with a joint crew, sponsored by four
railroads, which spots cars and does switching within the plant.
Although the Petitioner requests the inclusion of the yardmasters, it
stated on the record that if the Board feels that they do not properly
belong in the same unit with the clerical employees who make up the
rest of the traffic department, it is willing to exclude them. As there
is no evidence that the yardmasters are office clerical employees, we
shall exclude them from the voting group set forth below.
In opposing the petitions, the Intervenor relies principally on the
fact-that the two groups involved have in the past been included in
the hourly paid unit. But although the Board frequently considers
bargaining history as a factor in unit determinations, it is not conclu-
sive when other considerations are present.' Here the Board made
its original unit determination on the basis of a stipulation of the
parties. Since that time, however, the Employer has made organi-
zational changes affecting the employees involved. Thus, while tool
designing was originally in the same department with the toolroom,
which was and still is a part of the hourly paid unit, it is now in a
separate department; and the traffic department has been put under
the same general. supervision as the purchasing department, which
has at all times been excluded from the hourly paid unit.
On the record now before us, it is clear, as we have found, that
the tool engineering department is composed of technical and office
clerical employees, and that the traffic department employees, with the
exception of the yardlnasters, are all office clericals. As it is contrary
to Board policy to include office clericals in a production and mainte-
nance unit," or to include technical employees when any party objects
to their inclusion," we do not believe that the history of bargaining
should be given conclusive weight in this case.
The Petitioner seeks to add the tool engineering and traffic depart-
ment employees to the unit of salaried technical and office clerical em-
ployees it now represents. As these employees, whole the Petitioner
seeks to sever from the existing production and maintenance unit, ap-
pear to be the only technical and office clerical employees in the plant
who are not now included in the Petitioner's salaried unit, we find
that they may properly be represented as a part of that unit.12 As
0 International Smelting and Refining Company , Raritan Copper Works, 106 NLRB 223.
10 Mission Appliance Corporation , 108 NLRB 176.
11 Hancock Electronics Corp ., 116 NLRB 442 ; Humble Oil and Refining Company, 115
NLRB 1485 ; Pollock Paper Corporation , 115 NLRB 231.
12 The Board will not ordinarily include technical employees in the same unit with office
clerical employees if objection is raised to their inclusion by any of the parties . Barrett
Division, Allied Chemical d Dye Corporation, 116 NLRB 1649; Otis Elevator Co., 116
NLRB 262 . Here, however, the Intervenor does not base its objection to the unit sought by
the Petitioner on that ground.
1048 DECISIONS ' OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
previously noted, however, the Intervenor also contends that the peti-
tions should be dismissed on the ground that the Petitioner is not a
union which traditionally represents the type of employees involved
in this proceeding. It argues that the Board's decision in Anwrican
Potash and Chemical Corporation 13 requires such traditional status
for severance of the technical and office clerical employees here sought
by the Petitioner. The American Potash decision makes no reference
to technical employees and we see nothing in the Board's discussion of
the craft severance problem in that case suggesting that the intent of
that decision was also to announce a Board rule for the severance of
technical employees in the future. The Board has consistently granted
severance to technical employees in the past without regard to the
nature of the union seeking to represent them. Continuation of this
practice now is no more than consistent with the Board's long standing
recognition of the more distinctive community of interest in condi-
tions of employment among technical employees than among crafts-
men. It is for this reason that the Board excludes technicals from a
larger bargaining unit whenever any party objects to their inclusion 14
while refusing to exclude craftsmen on mere request.15 We therefore
find no merit in the contention that the Petitioner in this case is dis-
qualified from representing the technical and clerical employees.
However, in view of the historical pattern of bargaining for these
employees, it would not be consistent with Board policy to permit the
requested merger without first granting this group an opportunity, by
means of a separate election, to express their desires on this question."B
We shall therefore direct an election in the following voting group :
All technical and office clerical employees of the tool engineering and
traffic departments at the Employer's plant at Sharon, Pennsylvania,
including tool designers, tool specialists, the Weideman press operator,
the detail draftsman, information writers, the stenographer-secre-
tary, and typists in the tool engineering department, and the traffic
specialist, traffic clerks, billing clerks, the clearance clerk, and the
stenographer in the traffic department, but excluding yardmasters and
all supervisors as defined in the Act.
If a majority of the employees in the voting group vote for the Pe-
titioner, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to be included
in the unit now represented by the Petitioner, and the Regional Di-
rector conducting the election directed herein is instructed to issue a
certification of results of election to the Petitioner to such effect. In
the event a majority do not vote for the Petitioner, these employees
'a 107 NLRB 1418.
11 Hancock Electronics Corp., supra.
16 Associated Cooperatives , Inc., 112 NLRB 1012.
try Wisconsin Electrical Power Company, 107 NLRB 1204; Western Electric Company,
Inc., 108 NLRB 396; Westinghouse Electric Company, 81 NLRB 337.
WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION 1049
shall remain a part of the existing unit and the Regional Director will
issue a certification of results of election to such effect.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
MEM13ER RODGERS, dissenting :
I do not agree with the majority in declining to apply the criterion
adopted by the Board in American Potash and Chemical Corp., supra,
that the union seeking severance be the one which traditionally repre-
sents the type of employees sought for purposes of separate representa-
tion. Precisely the same reasons which persuaded the Board to adopt
that criterion in cases involving craft and departmental severance are
applicable to a case such as the instant one where severance of technical
employees is sought. In American Potash the Board took cognizance
of the disruptive economic and social conditions that result from
subdividing plantwide units into smaller units and weighed that con-
sideration in the light of the right of employees to organize along craft
or departmental lines. In permitting severance to smaller groups, the
Board sought to strike a reasonable balance by granting severance
elections, not indiscriminately, but only when it was clear that the
smaller groups were distinctly craft or traditionally departmental in
character, and were sought by a union traditionally devoted to their
special problems. The Board's purpose was to make certain that its
craft severance policy would not be misused to establish extent-of-
organization units or for fragmentizing plantwide units, and that
where severance was accorded the basic considerations for severance
were observed.
It is clear to all who are familiar with the Board's processes that
the policy generally with respect to the severance of technical em-
ployees has, for all intents and purposes, paralleled the policy with
respect to the severance of craft and departmental employees. To
create a distinction between the two is to lose sight of the basic premises
that underlie the severance doctrine. In my opinion, it is highly
tenuous to justify, as the majority has done, the disparate treatment
of technical employees vis-a-vis craft and departmental employees on
the ground of a "more distinctive community of interest in conditions
of employment among technical employees than among craftsmen."
Indeed, if the degree of community of interest is to be the measuring
rod, the logic seems misplaced in view of the high degree of cohesive-
ness of craft groupings in the industrial world, and their highly dis-
tinctive community of interests which gave rise, in the first instance,
to the recognition of their separate status. In brief, I feel that the
creation of distinctions without a difference such as this one can only
serve to make Board policies more incomprehensible when the direc-
tion we take should be toward greater clarity and simplicity.
1050 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
For these reasons, I would apply the traditional union test to the
severance of technical employees, and since the Petitioner is admittedly
not a union which traditionally represents technical employees, I
would dismiss the petition.
Graver Construction Company and Teamsters, Chauffeurs &
Helpers Local 79, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America , AFL-CIO,
Petitioner
Paul Smith Construction Company and Teamsters, Chauffeurs &
Helpers Local 79, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America , AFL-CIO,
Petitioner
Cleveland Electric Company and Teamsters , Chauffeurs &
Helpers Local 79, International Brotherhood of Teamsters,
Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America , AFL-CIO,
Petitioner
Diversified Builders, Inc. and Teamsters, Chauffeurs & Helpers
Local 79, International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen & Helpers of America, AFL-CIO, Petitioner
B. B. McCormick & Sons and Teamsters, Chauffeurs & Helpers
Local 79, International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen & Helpers of America , AFL-CIO, Petitioner
Patrick Air Force Base Contractors Association , Petitioner and
Teamsters , Chauffeurs & Helpers Local 79, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs , Warehousemen & Help-
ers of America , AFL-CIO. Cases No. 1f-RC-128, 1f-RC-130,
12-RC-131, 12-RC-135, 12-RC-146, and 12-RM-5. August 19,
1957
DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS
Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before
Martin Sacks, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the
hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.'
1. Patrick Air Force Base Contractors Association, hereinafter
referred to as the Association, Paul Smith Construction Company,
'Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the
Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three -member panel
[ Chairman Leedom and Members Bean and Jenkins].
The Union 's request for oral argument is denied as it does not appear to be necessary in
the light of the record and briefs.
118 NLRB No. 146.