General Electric Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Oct 13, 1952

100 N.L.R.B. 1489 (N.L.R.B. 1952)

GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY 1489
of the second unit at the close of 1952, after which approximately 10
carpenters and 6 millwrights will stay on for 2 or 3 weeks in January
1953 to perform further work in connection with the "turning-over
operation." In accordance with their standard practice on other
projects, the Employers plan to recall from the immediate area of
Albright the same millwrights and carpenters, if available, com-
mencing in May 1953 for 3 months of work on a cooling tower for the
project. Immediately thereafter, work will begin on a final unit of
the Albright project, which will continue until October 15, 1954. It
is anticipated that there will be a steady increase in the number of
millwrights and carpenters employed thereon until the maximum of
35 to 40 carpenters and 15 millwrights is reached in July 1954.
It is clear from the foregoing that a substantial and representative
segment of the millwrights and carpenters is to be employed during
the balance of 1952. As it is also definitely planned to resume work on
the Albright project for about 11/2 years after the interval between
mid-January and early May 1953, we find that the employees herein
should be afforded an opportunity to select a collective bargaining
representative at this time.6 Accordingly, we hereby deny the Em.
ployers' motion to dismiss the petition herein.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
Cf. Donovan, James , Wismer & Becker, 93 NLRB 1562 ; Westinghouse Electric Corpora-
tion, General Electric Company, 88 NLRB 1502 . See also The Girdler Corporation (Dana
Proyect ), 96 NLRB 894.
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF ELECTRI-
CAL, RADIO AND MACHINE WORKERS, CIO, PETITIONER. Cases Nos.
2O-RC-1633 and 20-RC-1671. October 13, 195.
Supplemental Decision , Order, and Direction of Election
On May 16,1952, the Board issued a Decision and Order 1 dismissing
the petitions in the above-entitled cases upon the ground that the na-
tional agreement of the Intervenors 2 with the Employer, applicable
to the plants involved, was a bar to an election in this case. We there
held that the agreement was not rendered ineffective as a bar because
it contained a recognition and termination clause which allegedly
provided for termination upon certification of another representative,
as the language of the clauses was not clear and unmistakable and
1 99 NLRB 954.
7 United Electrical , Radio and Machine Workers of America ( UE) and Its Local 1412.
100 NLRB No. 166.
1490 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
therefore did not justify a construction of them as a waiver by the
parties of the Board's contract bar doctrine.
Thereafter, on August 1, 1952, the Petitioner filed a motion for re-
consideration of the Board's Decision, copies of which were served
upon the Employer and the Intervenors. On August 8, 1952, a re-
sponse was received by the Board from the Intervenors entitled "Op-
position by UE to IUE Motion for Reconsideration."
Upon reconsideration, for the reasons set forth in another case
which involved the same contract, employer, and unions,3 the Board
is now of the opinion that the national agreement is not a bar to this
proceeding. Accordingly, we shall vacate the Order of May 16,1952.
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 employees
of the Employer.
3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa-
tion of the 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 a single unit of all production and main-
tenance employees at the Employer's control and wire and cable plants
located at 1034 66th Avenue, Oakland, California, excluding guards,
clerical employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act. Alter-
natively, the Petitioner would agree to separate units for each of
the two plants at 66th Avenue, if the Board finds a single unit of both
plants inappropriate. The Employer urges that only a single unit of
the production and maintenance employees at both plants is
appropriate. The Intervenors contend that the appropriate unit
should include not only the employees at the 66th Avenue plants, but
also the employees at the Employer's transformer plant located at East
14th Street, Oakland, California.
In 1941 the Employer's operations in Oakland, California, known
as the Oakland Works, was located at 5441 East T4th Street. It
consisted of two principal product lines-the manufacture of induc-
tion motors and distribution transformers; there was also a mag-
netic wire operation. All operations were under a single manager.
As a result of a Board election in 1941, the Intervenors were desig-
nated as beginning representatives for all production, maintenance,
and warehouse employees at the Oakland Works.
In 1944 the Employer established an operation at 66th Avenue in
Oakland for the manufacture of cable for the U. S. Navy. In early
1948, the magnetic wire operation was moved to 66th Avenue and in
October 1948 the motor operation was moved from 14th Street to San
3 General El lectric Company, 100 NLRB 1318.
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY 1491
Jose, California. In January 1949 the Employer started the pro-
duction of control equipment at 66th Avenue. The Intervenors were
recognized by the Employer as bargaining representative for the em-
ployees at 66th Avenue and San Jose without Board certification.
During the entire period from 1941 to 1949, all the operations at
66th Avenue, 14th Street, and San Jose were part of the Oakland
Works and under a single manager. On June 6, 1950, the Intervenors
were certified as the result of a Board election as bargaining repre-
sentative of all production and maintenance employees of the Em-
ployer at 14th Street-and 66th Avenue.
Before June 30, 1950, the Employer's operations consisted of the
transformer plant at 14th Street, the motor plant at San Jose, the
wire and cable plant and the control plant at 66th Avenue. Each
of these plants had a superintendent in charge who was responsible
to the Oakland Works manager who, in turn, was responsible to the
vice president in charge of the apparatus department at the head
office. During this period the,management of the Oakland Works,
with offices at the 14th Street plant, conducted all labor relations
activities, the personnel office, and the payroll function for the 14th
Street plant and the 66th Avenue plants. All collective bargaining
meetings with respect to the three plants were held at the 14th Street
plant, with the Employer being represented by the assistant manager
of the Oakland Works, who was responsible for all collective bar-
gaining for the entire Oakland Works.
Beginning about June 30, 1950, the Oakland Works was reorgan-
ized and the motor plant was placed under a separate manager.4 On
August 1, 1950, the 14th Street transformer plant was placed under
a separate manager who is directly responsible to the general man-
ager of the distribution and transformer department at Pittsfield,
Massachusetts. On the same date, the 66th Avenue control plant was
placed under a single individual holding the title of engineer and
superintendent, who is directly responsible to the general manager
of the control department at Schenectady, New York. On November
1, 1950, the 66th Avenue wire and cable plant was placed under a sep-
arate manager who is directly responsible to the general manager of
the wire and cable department in Bridgeport, Connecticut.
As a result of the reorganization, the Oakland Works ceased to
exist; the positions of manager and assistant manager of the Oakland
Works were abolished. All responsibility for all functions formerly
carried on by the Oakland Works, including collective bargaining,
for the 14th Street plant and the 66th Avenue plants were transferred
to the newly appointed heads of those plants. The Employer on
November 2, 1950, established an accounting section at 66th Avenue
4 The motor plant is not involved in this proceeding.
227260-53-vol. 100-95
1492 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
and on April 18, 1951, a chief accountant was appointed for the wire
and cable and control plants. On June 18, 1951, the engineer and
superintendent of the control plant took over the personnel records
for that plant and he thereafter interviewed applicants for employ-
ment and hired them for that plant. Similar action was taken by,
and authority given to, the manager of the wire and cable plant.
The records had been kept previously at 14th Street. On July 9, 1951,
the payroll functions for the 66th Avenue plants were transferred
there from 14th Street. A paymaster was appointed for the wire and
cable plant and all payroll work for both the control plant and the
wire and cable plant was thereafter done at 66th Avenue instead of
at 14th Street. Personnel records and functions for the transformer
plant at 14th Street were, and are, kept and carried on at that plant.
After the reorganization, there were some 50 meetings with the
Intervenors at the transformer plant, all of which related solely to
conditions of employment at that plant. The Intervenors struck
this plant from October 1950 to April 1951. Although a number of
these meetings concerned other subjects, most of them dealt with the
Employer's incentive pay plan which was the direct cause of the work
stoppage. During all this time, no work stoppage occurred at the
other 2 plants and the regularly employed personnel came to work all
through the strike, although operations were affected to a limited
extent by lack of materials from the transformer plant. On February
27, 1951, the Employer gave notice to the Intervenors of its intention
to close the transformer plant. On March 29, 1951, the Employer
and'the Intervenors executed an agreement settling the strike and that
plant was reopened. As a result of this agreement, the Employer's
incentive wage plan was made applicable only to the employees at
14th Street.
After the reorganization, a meeting was held at 66th Avenue on
February 20,1951, at which the Employer was represented by subordi-
nates of the manager of the wire and cable plant and the engineer and
superintendent of the control plant. The subject of a seventh paid
holiday for the year 1951 was discussed and an agreement was negoti-
ated and executed with the Intervenors by the representatives of the
two plants which was made applicable only to the employees of the
wire and cable plant and the control plant. This was the first collective
bargaining meeting at management level at 66th Avenue. From the
testimony in the record, it appears that two meetings were held on
February 1, 1952, at 66th Avenue; one in which the representatives
of the wire and cable plant and the control plant participated jointly
with the Intervenors to discuss whatever problems the Intervenors
cared to bring up; and the other in which wages and job classifications
for the wire and cable plant only were discussed. There was no dis-
cussion concerning the transformer plant at, any of these-meetings.
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY 1493
The reorganization which was intended to decentralize the three
plants did not affect the content of any of the jobs of the employees,
nor did it affect their wage -rates (except that the-incentive wage plan
was established only for the employees of the transformer plant),
nor did it change production methods.
In view of the present nonintegrated character of the transformer
plant and that of the wire and cable and control plants, we are of
the opinion that a single multiplant unit of these plants is not now
appropriate. We do not agree with the Intervenors that, because of
the long history of multiplant bargaining, only a single multiplant
unit of the three plants is appropriate. While we place great weight
on collective bargaining history, we will not make it the determinative
factor in deciding the unit issue where, as here, new and significant
changes have occurred since the date of the Intervenors' certification
which dictate a contrary result .5
Having concluded that a single multiplant unit of the three plants
is inappropriate, we turn now to the question as to whether such a unit
is appropriate for the wire and cable plant and the control plant.
The control plant and the wire and cable plant are housed in one
building under one roof. The building is located about 11/2 miles
from the transformer plant. The control plant occupies about 38,000
square feet of space under lease from the wire and cable plant, which
occupies the balance of the space consisting of approximately 42,000
square feet. There is a row of offices between the two plants. There
are four entrances to the building. Two are used for shipping and
receiving; the other two are a common office and visitors' entrance
and a common factory employees' entrance. The time clock and time
cards are located at the factory entrance and shared in common by
all the employees. There is a single dispensary with a registered nurse
in charge to take care of all the employees. Similarly, there is one
rest room and dressing room for the male employees of both plants
and one for the females.
The water supply is shared jointly and is not metered separately to
the two plants; electricity for both plants is on one meter; compressed
air for the control plant is provided by the wire and cable plant; com-
mon janitorial and watchmen service is provided; and the super-
intendent of the wire and cable plant acts as security officer for both
plants. While personnel records are kept separately, there is but one
payroll for both plants; the payroll section prepares and distributes
paychecks for both plants ; and mail service for both is provided
through an employee of the wire and cable plant.
6 Thalhiiner Bros. Inc., 93 NLRB 726; Marshall Field & Co., 90 NLRB 1 ; Freuhauf
Trailer Company, 87 NLRB 589 ; General Electric Company ( Medford Plant ), 85 NLRB
150.
1494 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
There has been some interchange of employees between the control
plant and the wire and cable plant. Since 1950, there have been no
transfers or interchange between the wire-and cable and transformer
plants. Prior to the reorganization, there had been transfers between
the transformer plant and the wire and cable plant in cases of layoff.
In view of the foregoing, and particularly the fact that such collec-
tive bargaining as has been engaged in since 1950 between the Em-
ployer and the Intervenors with respect to these two plants has been
on a joint basis, and that none of the parties herein asserts the pro-
priety of three separate plant units, we are persuaded that a single
multiplant unit of the control and wire and cable plants is appropriate.
We find that the following employees constitute a unit appropriate
for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Sec-
tion 9 (b) of the Act:
All production and maintenance employees of the Employer at its
control plant and wire and cable plant, 1034-66th Avenue, Oakland,
California, including combination janitors and watchmen,° but ex-
cluding guards, clerical employees, and supervisors as defined in the
Act.
Order
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Order of the Board dated May 16,
1952, in this matter be, and it hereby is, vacated and set aside.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication in this
volume.]
MEMBERS MURDOCK and PETERSON took no part in the consideration
of the above Supplemental Decision, Order, and Direction of Election.
E All parties agree that these employees should be included in the unit.
GREAT ATLANTIC & PACIFIC TEA COMPANY ( NATIONAL BAKERY DIvi-
SION) and THOMAS J. GAFFNEY AND JOHN T. RAFTER, PETITIONERS
and LOCAL 484, BAKERY & CONFECTIONARY WORKERS INTERNATIONAL
UNION OF AMERICA , AFL. Case No. 2-UD-5. October 14, 1952
Decision and Direction of Election
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (e) of the National
Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before I. L. Broadwin,
hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing
are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
-100, NLRB No. 251.