William R. Whittaker Co. Ltd.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Feb 28, 1951

93 N.L.R.B. 520 (N.L.R.B. 1951)

520 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
prior to the service of the charge on March 17, 1949. The charges alleged
violation of Section 8 (a) (1) in the statutory language and the complaint and
bill of particulars , which framed the issues in this proceeding , detailed the
specific conduct alleged to violate Section 8 (a) (1). The failure of the
charge to particularize the conduct in question was without prejudice to the
Respondent.12
IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE
The activities of the Respondent, set forth in Section III, above, occurring
in connection with the operations of the Respondent described in Section I,
above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and com-
merce among the several States, and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening
and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce.
V. THE REMEDY
I have found that the Respondent has violated Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act.
It is my opinion, upon the entire record in this case, that the commission in
the future of such acts and of other unfair labor practices may be anticipated
from the Respondent's conduct in the past. I shall therefore recommend that
the Respondent cease and desist from such conduct, and from in any other manner
infringing upon the rights guaranteed to its employees in Section 7 of the Act.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case,
I make the following :
CONCLUSIONSpOF LAW
1. Local No. 422, international Woodworkers of America, C. I. 0., is a labor
organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act.
2. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing its employees in the exercise
of the rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged
in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a)
(1) of the Act.
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting
commerce within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommended Order omitted from publication in this volume.]
12 See Cedartown Yarn Mills , Inc., 84 NLRB 1; Cathey Lumber Company, 86 NLRB 157;
Lily-Tulip Corporation, 88 NLRB 892.
WILLIAM R. WHITTAIcER Co. LTD. and INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED
AUTOMOBILE, AIRCRAFT AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF
AMERICA, CIO, PETITIONER. Case No. 21-RC-1592. February
28, 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 James W. Cherry, Jr,, hear-
ing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are
free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
93 NLRB No. 74.
WILLIAM R . WHITTAKER CO. LTD. 521
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 [Chairman Herzog and Members Reynolds and Murdock].
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
employees 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 appropriate unit :
The Petitioner requests a unit composed of all production and
maintenance employees with the usual exclusions at the Employer's
plant located on Citrus - Avenue, Hollywood , California , and known
as the Whittaker Division-of the William R. Whittaker Co. Ltd. The
Employer opposes a single plant unit and contends that a two-plant
unit embracing the employees of both the Whittaker Division and the
Saval Division plant, located at East 51st Street, Los Angeles, Cali-
fornia, is the only appropriate unit. The two plants are about 12
miles apart.
The Employer is engaged in the design and manufacture of air-
craft valves and accessories , cameras, and photographic supplies. In
April 1950 , the Employer purchased the assets , liabilities , and good
will of Saval , Inc., which operated the East 51st Street plant. Fol-
lowing the merger, the Saval , Inc., employees were continued in the
same positions which they held before the purchase by the Employer.
There is no union presently recognized by the Employer for either
plant. Prior to the merger, in January 1945 , the Board had certified
the International Association .of Machinists for a production and
maintenance unit at the Saval plant .1 However, no contract was
consummated due to the great number of layoffs which followed. In
1949 a consent election for a production and maintenance unit was
held at the Whittaker plant , but no union was certified ? In October
1949 the United Electrical , Radio & Machine Workers of America
filed a petition for a production and maintenance unit for the Saval
plant, which petition was subsequently dismissed.3
The record discloses certain facts which support the Employer's
contention that only a two-plant unit is appropriate. Thus, certain
types of products are manufactured and processed in one plant and
assembled and finished in the other . Moreover, since the merger, the
' Saval Co , No 21-R-2582.
2 W2lltam R Whittaker Co. Ltd, No 21-R-3861.
ZSvval Coeporatlon , No. 21-RC-1007.
522 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Employer has applied the same over-all personnel policy to both
plants which are under the administration of a personnel manager
who maintains a portion of his staff at each plant. The same general
safety regulations and rules of conduct apply to both plants. Cer-
tain employee benefits such as, dividend bonus, vacations, paid holi-
days, group insurance, hospitalization, and severence pay, are granted
equally to the employees of both plants.
On the other hand, many factors exist which indicate the appropri-
ateness of a single plant unit. Thus, a distinction in products is indi-
cated by the fact that the Whittaker plant specializes in motor valves,
while the Saval plant produces mainly valves of the hydraulic type .4
Moreover, most of the basic manufacturing of products at the Whit-
taker plant is performed by outside vendors while the Saval plant has
its own production facilities. Each plant does its own hiring,5 firing,
and processing of grievances. It also conducts its own purchasing and
is responsible for its own accounts 6 Furthermore, each has its own
engineering staff and machine shop, keeps its own time records, and
is subject to its own supervisory personnel.7 The Employer main-
tains a separate seniority system which is primarily on a departmental
basis in each plant. There is no interchange of employees.
Although certain of the foregoing factors indicate that a two-plant
unit would be feasible, they are not so compelling as to require our
holding only a two-plant unit appropriate. Other factors, herein-
above referred to, support a finding that a single plant unit, as re-
quested by the Petitioner, is appropriate. In view of these considera-
tions, including (a) the fact that there is no history of collective
bargaining; (b) that no union seeks a certification for a two-plant
unit (c) that the plants are under immediate separate supervision
with local autonomy in the matter of hiring, firing, and processing of
grievances; and (d) the fact that the geographically separated plants
are maintained as distinct divisions s with practically no interchange
of employees, we conclude that a unit confined to the employees of
the Whittaker plant is appropriate.'
Due to the differences in types of products , the plants are subject to different types of
inspection , the Whittaker plant being subject to a more detailed type than the other.
5 Hiring is done at each plant , except that whenever needed applicants may be sent to
the other . Different newspapers are also used to advertise for help at each plant.
6 Expenses for field representatives outside of California are charged one-half to each
plant. Although the payroll department serves both plants, the pay checks at Saval clearly
indicate that they are issued by the Saval Division.
7 Except for one foreman who serves the metal finishing departments of both plants, the
foremen of the several departments report to the managers of their respective plants.
8In addition to the fact that the personnel of the Saval plant have not been affected
by the merger , the Employer 's personnel manager testified to the effect that different pay
checks were used in the Saval plant in order to bolster the morale of the employees in that
plant , thus indicating the desire of the Employer to maintain the individuality of that
division.
9 Southland Manufacturing Company, 91 NLRB No. 38.
W. S. TYLER COMPANY 523
We find that all production and maintenance employees,10 employed
at the Employer's Whittaker Division plant at Citrus Avenue, Holly-
wood, California, excluding office and clerical employees, guards, pro-
fessional employees,"- and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute
a unit appropriate for 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.] -
10 The Employer 's representative introduced considerable evidence , apparently designed
to prove that certain groups of employees should be excluded from the production and
maintenance unit on the ground that they are composed of skilled craftsmen . He con-
ceded, however, that this contention was probably premature and stated that the Employer
would not press for the exclusion of such employees at this time. As no - union is seeking
to represent these alleged crafts separately , we shall not determine their craft status at
this time and shall include them in the unit. Boeing Airplane Company, 86 NLRB 368;
Western Picture Frame Co., 93 NLRB No. 52.
11 The Union stated at the hearing that the engineering department should be excluded
from the unit apparently upon the ground that the employees therein constitute a pro-
fessional group. The Employer indicated that the engineers should be included. The
record is not clear concerning the professional status of the engineers . However, if the
engineers are, in fact , professional employees , they shall be deemed exeluded ,under this
category.
W. S. TYLER COMPANY and LOCAL 215, INTERNATIONAL MOLDERS AND
FOUNDRY WORKERS UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, A. F. L., PETITIONER.
Case No. 8-RC-103. February 28,1951
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 Bernard Ness, hearing officer.
The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prej-
udicial 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. The question concerning representation :
The Petitioner, which has represented for 50 years the Employer's
core makers, molders, and their apprentices, all of whom work in the
foundry, now seeks a unit composed of all production and mainte-
nance employees in the foundry, excluding core makers, molders, and
their apprentices, and all other employees.' The Employees Council
1 The Petitioner does not indicate whether or not it wishes eventually to add these
employees to the unit which it already represents and which is covered by a contract
expiring in July 1952.
93 NLRB No. 70.