Avco Corp.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 1, 1961

131 N.L.R.B. 921 (N.L.R.B. 1961)

AVCO CORP., ELECTRONICS & ORDNANCE DIV., EVENDALE 921
ton, and other agents whose names were unknown , interfered with the leaflet distri-
bution of Local 98.
3. On or about April 29, 1959, Respondents Ralston and Technical, through their
plant manager, Seymour Taubman, warned their employees to refrain from becoming
or remaining members of Local 98 or giving any assistance or support to it.
4.' On or about April 29, 1959, Respondents Ralston and Technical through their
supervisor, Lawrence Freer, threatened their employees with discharge and other
reprisals if they became or remained members of Local 98 or gave any assistance
or support to it.
5. On or about April 29, 1959, Respondents Ralston and Technical, through their
plant manager, Seymour Taubman, interrogated their employees concerning their
membership in, and activities on behalf of and sympathy in, Local 98.
6. On or about April 30, 1959, Respondents Ralston and Technical, through
their supervisor, Lawrence Freer, warned their employees against talking about
Local 98.
By said acts Respondents interfered with, restrained , and coerced , their em-
ployees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act.•
III. THE REMEDY
Having found that Respondents engaged in certain unfair labor practices , I shall
recommend that they cease and desist therefrom and that they take certain affirmative
action of the type conventionally ordered in such cases which I find necessary to
remedy and to remove the effects of the unfair labor practices and to effectuate the
policies of the Act. Respondents ' breach of the settlement agreement and the con-
tinuation of their unlawful conduct to defeat the employees in their right freely to
organize and to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing,
demonstrate the necessity for a broad cease-and-desist order, which I shall recom-
mend. Cf. Baltimore Luggage Co., supra.
Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the
case, I make the following:
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Locals 98 and 223 are labor organizations within the meaning of Section 2(5)
of the Act.
2. By interfering with , restraining, and coercing their employees in the exercise
of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, Respondents engaged in unfair labor
practices proscribed by Section 8(a) (1).
3. The aforesaid unfair labor practices having occurred in connection with the
operation of Respondents' business as set forth in section I, above, have a close, inti-
mate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several
States and substantially affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7)
of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Avco Corporation, Electronics and Ordnance Division , Evendale,
Ohio I and Electrical Factory Workers Union, Petitioner
Avco Corporation, Electronics and Ordnance Division , Evendale,
Ohio and District No. 50, United Mine Workers of America,
Petitioner. Cases Nos. 9-RC-4279 and 9-RC-416. June 1, 1961
DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Joe F. Odle, Jr., hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
'The name of the Employer appears as amended at the bearing.
131 NLRB No. 114.
922 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board 2 finds:
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
Act.
2. The labor organizations 3 named below claim to represent certain
employees of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of certain employees of the Employer within the meaning of Sec-
tion 9(c) (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act4
4. The Petitioner (UMW) and the IBEW claim that the em-
ployees comprising the historical bargaining unit currently repre-
sented by the IBEW constitute an appropriate unit.' The Employer
agrees generally with this position, except that it would exclude the
employees in the classifications set forth below on grounds that they
are either technicals or office clericals, and hence have interests dis-
similar to those of the production-maintenance employees included in
the bargaining unit.
It is undisputed that all the employees whom the Employer would
now exclude have been part of the unit here requested by the UMW
2Pursuant 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 [Members Rodgers, Leedom,
and Fanning].
3 Local Union No 1842, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO,
hereinafter referred to as IBEW, was permitted to intervene, on the basis of its current
contract with the Employer. The International Association of Machinists, Local Lodge
No. 729, AFL-CIO, hereinafter referred to as IAM, intervened solely for the limited pur-
pose of protecting its contract with the Employer, which does not cover the employees
involved herein. Petitioner in Case No 9-RC-4316, hereinafter referred to as UMW, at
first intervened in Case No. 9-RC-4279, but during the course of the hearing filed its own
petition, after which the two cases were consolidated
Subsequent to the hearing, Petitioner in Case No 9-RC-4279, hereinafter referred to
as EFWU, advised the -Board that it did not wish to participate and had no further interest
in the proceedings and requested that its name be withdrawn from the ballot. No other
party to these proceedings filed objections to this withdrawal. We shall therefore dis-
miss the petition filed by the EFWU in Case No. 9-RC-4279 with prejudice to its filing a
new petition for a period of 6 months from the date of this Decision, unless good cause
be shown why such petition should be entertained In the above circumstances, we need
not and have not considered the specific unit contentions of the EFWU. Nor do we need
to ,pass upon the Employer's contention that the EFWU is not a labor organization within
the meaning of the Act
4 The parties agree that a currently effective contract between the Employer and the
IBEW executed in 1959 for a 3-year period is no bar to this proceeding, since 2 years of
the agreement have expired.
s The record shows that the EFWU sought to include additional classifications of
hitherto unrepresented salaried clerical employees and that the Petitioner (UMW) in-
dicated its willingness to include these classifications in the unit should the Board direct
their inclusion. The IBEW and the Employer objected to the EFWU's request.
However, we find it unnecessary to determine the merits of any contention respecting
the hitherto unrepresented employees, as there is no labor organization here before us
which has a showing of interest among such unrepresented employees. Thus, the EFWU
has withdrawn from these proceedings, and we have administratively determined that
UMW has no showing of interest among them. We would not include unrepresented
employees in a historical unit without the conduct of a self-determination election, and
we would not conduct such an election where, as here, the labor organizations involved
have made no showing of interest among unrepresented employees sought to be added to
a historically represented unit The Zia Company, 108 NLRB 1134; The Mountain States
Telephone & Telegraph Co., 126 NLRB 676, 679; Du-Wel Decorative Company etc., 125
NLRB 31, 32; The Purdy Company, 123 NLRB 1630, 1682.
AVCO CORP ., ELECTRONICS & ORDNANCE DIV., EVENDALE 923
and IBEW since 1952, and that their duties have not changed. The
disputed categories are as follows.
A. The alleged technical employees
The Employer contends that employees classified as test equipment
builder (P:01) and analyzer radar and computer subassemblies
(M :03) are technical employees 6 We do not agree.
The record shows that both classifications of employees work
throughout the plant under the supervision of production foremen,
and that their work is essentially of a maintenance nature. Both do
certain testing work on' electronic instruments and devices with a view
to the maintenance of these instruments and devices in operating con-
dition. Both use such devices as voltmeters, ohmmeters, oscilloscopes,
and pulse generators in performing their tasks. While the testing
work of the M :03 employees is concerned with subassemblies of elec-
tronic equipment, that of the P :01 employees is concerned with elec-
tronic test equipment. In addition to the duties above described, the
M:03's make minor adjustments and alignments of major components
of electronic equipment, and the P :01's make repairs of test-equipment
failures and also construct or build certain electronic test equipment.
While the proper performance of the work tasks of both groups of
employees may require the exercise of special skills, the record fails
to show that use of independent judgment or discretion which distin-
guishes the technical employee from other employees under the Litton
Industries standards? Thus, the record indicates that, as a guide to
the performance of their testing assignments, M :03's are furnished
with prepared standardized data forms on which they are required
to record the results of the tests they make and which specify the ex-
act nature of the information desired. In constructing test equipment,
the P :01's are furnished with detailed diagrams and specifications
which they must follow and which are prepared by higher-rated tech-
nicians. And where P :01's are called upon to make repairs to equip-
ment, they do so in a context in which the source of the operating diffi-
culty has been determined by higher rated technicians. Moreover, in
the case of the P :01's the evidence shows that the Employer has re-
cruited employees so classified from the assembler-mechanical classi-
fication, and there is no evidence that the latter requires anything more
than mechanical rather than technical skills.
We conclude, on the record, that contrary to the Employer's con-
tention, the test equipment builders (P:01) and analyzers radar and
O The Employer also seeks a determination that test equipment repairmen ( 11,01)
should be deemed technicals , and therefore excluded . However, as the evidence shows
there are no employees presently employed in this category and the Employer has no
present intention of hiring any such employees , we shall make no determination as to the
unit placement of this classification . Thompson Ramo Wooldridge , Inc, 128 NLRB 236.
7 Litton Industries of Maryland , Incorporated, 125 NLRB 722.
'924 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
computers subassemblies (M:03) 'are not technical employees. We
therefore deny the Employer's request that they be now excluded from
the historic bargaining unit."
B. Plant clericals
Operator-clerical (B:01) : These employees have been included in
the contract under Section 2, the contract providing that "the term
`employee' or `employees' wherever used in this agreement shall mean
all hourly rated production, maintenance, inspection and factory
clerical employees. . . . [Emphasis supplied.] The Employer now
contends that although their duties have not changed, they are, in
fact, office clericals, and should no longer be included in the produc-
tion and maintenance unit.
These employees work in various production departments such as
the receiving and inspection; vendors' defective materials; receiving;
central stores; stockroom; production office, and factory control de-
partments. They perform such customary tasks of their classifica-
tions as filing, typing, coding, preparing reports, running errands, and
picking up such papers from other factory departments as receiving
and shipping papers, material movement records, and job time tickets.
All of them work under the supervision of production foremen or
superintendents, as the case may be, who also supervise production
workers. They are hourly paid and have the same working conditions
as the latter.
We find, contrary to the Employer, that operator-clericals (B:01),
are factory or plant clericals." Therefore, and as their inclusion in the
unit together with production-maintenance employees conforms to
established Board policy, we deny the Employer's request that these
employees be excluded from the historic unit.
We find that the following employees at the Employer's Evendale,
Ohio, plant constitute an appropriate unit for the purposes of collec-
tive bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (a) of the Act :
All hourly rated production, maintenance, inspection and factory
clerical employees, operator-clericals (B:01), test equipment builders
(P:01), and analyzers radar and computer subassemblies (M:03), but
excluding all toolroom employees, tool and die makers, modelmakers,
toolroom machinists, tool grinders, toolroom welders, tool inspectors,
machine repairmen, tool crib storekeepers, toolroom apprentices and
helpers, truckdrivers (interstate and local), timekeepers, timestudy
men, draftsmen, tool and die designers, test equipment designers, tech-
8 See General Electric Company, Pinellas Peninsula Plant, 127 NLRB 919; Ph,lco
Corporation, 110 NLRB 184
8 Lilliston Implement Company , 121 NLRB 868, 870, Thiokol Chemical Corporation,
Redstone Division , 123 NLRB 888, 890.
HIGHWAY TRUCK DRIVERS & HELPERS, LOCAL 107, ETC. 925
nical and safety engineers, quality control checkers-systems, systems
ahalyzers,10 foremen's confidential clerks, all technical trainees," first
aid personnel, all cafeteria employees, all salaried employees, office
clerical employees, professional employees, watchmen, patrolmen,
foremen, assistant foremen, foreladies, assistant foreladies, guards, all
other supervisors as defined in the Act.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
[The Board dismissed the petition filed by Electrical Factory Work-
ers' Union in Case No. 9-RC-4279, with a prejudice to its filing of a
new petition for a period of 6 months from the date of this Order,
unless good cause be shown why the Board should entertain such new
petition prior to the expiration of such period.]
10 The record shows that this classification has been excluded from the bargaining unit
and that the duties involved have not changed. All parties are agreed that this classifica-
tion should continue to be excluded. The Employer, however, wishes to change the name
of this classification from "systems analyzer" to "calibration engineer," to which change
the UMW and the IBEW object. As no issue has arisen concerning the unit placement of
this classification , we find it unnecessary to pass on the Employer's request.
11 The UMW and IBEW are willing to delete the limitation in the current contract, which
provides that no more than 10 technical trainees should be excluded from the unit. The
Employer agrees.
Highway Truck Drivers and Helpers, Local 107, International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs , Warehousemen and
Helpers of America , Independent and E . A. Gallagher & Sons.
Case No. 4-CC-121,p. June 2, 1961
DECISION AND ORDER
On July 21, 1960, Trial Examiner Louis Plost issued his Intermedi-
ate Report in this proceeding, finding that the Respondent Union had
not engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and
recommending that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety, as set
forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report attached hereto. There-
after, the General Counsel filed timely exceptions to the Intermediate
Report and a brief; and the Respondent filed a brief in support of
the Intermediate Report.
The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Inter-
mediate Report, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in
the case, and finds merit in the exceptions of the General Counsel.
Accordingly, the Board adopts the findings of the Trial Examiner
only to the extent that they are consistent with the following :
E. A. Gallagher & Sons, hereinafter referred to as Gallagher, is
engaged in the trucking business in Philadelphia and performs both
131 NLRB No. 117.