General Electric Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 23, 1961

131 N.L.R.B. 1302 (N.L.R.B. 1961)

1302 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
General Electric Company (River Works) and United Electrical,
Radio and Machine Workers of America, Local 201 (UE),'
Petitioner and Local 201, International Union of Electrical,
Radio & Machine Workers , AFL-CIO. Case No. 1-RC-5689.
June 23, 1961
DECISION AND ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR
CLARIFICATION OF CERTIFICATION
In 1953, the Board established the following three units among the
Employer's employees: (1) Office clerical employees; (2) production
and maintenance employees, including plant clerical employees; and
(3) laboratory and engineering assistants? After the elections in
these three units, Local 201, International Union of Electrical, Radio
& Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, herein referred to as IUE, was cer-
tified as the bargaining agent for each of the first two units, but no
union won the election which was held for the third unit. Since
then, IUE and the Employer have bargained collectively for the
employees in both the office clerical and the production and mainte-
nance units.
On July 8, 1959, United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers
of America, Local 201 (UE), herein referred to as UE, filed a peti-
tion seeking to represent the production and maintenance unit, and
IUE intervened on the basis of its contractual interest. At the hear-
ing and in a brief to the Board, IUE urged that the unit should in-
clude some of the employees in the categories of specialists, analysts,
technologists, laboratory technicians and engineering technicians,
factory training program students, and manufacturing training pro-
gram students, on the grounds that their duties had historically been
performed by employees included in the production and maintenance
unit until the Employer unilaterally created new categories subse-
quent to the election of 1953; that their work was similar to that cur-
rently performed by employees in that unit; and that the employees
in question were not within any categories excluded from the unit
but had been excluded by "company fiat." The Employer opposed
the inclusion of these employees in the unit. UE took no position
on this issue.
On March 9, 1960, after the close of the hearing and the filing of
briefs, all the parties entered into a stipulation for certification upon
consent election, agreeing that the appropriate unit consisted of:
1 United Electrical , Radio and Machine Workers of America, Local 201 (l7E), the
Petitioner in the original representation case, has not participated herein.
a Elections in the first two units were directed in General Electric Company (River
Works ), 107 NLRB 70, and in the third , in an unpublished amendment to that decision.
131 NLRB No. 159.
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY (RIVER WORKS) 1303
All production and maintenance employees including salaried
production clerks and other plant clericals of the Employer's
River Works Plants at Lynn, and Everett, Massachusetts, but
excluding laboratory and engineering assistants, office clerical
employees, commercial and sales employees other than clerical,
test engineers, confidential secretaries and stenographers and
employees who work on the confidential payroll, chief reception-
ist, confidential cashiers, planning, wage rate, methods and time-
study employees, draftsmen, draftsmen apprentices, designers,
detailers, tracers and trainees, wood and metal pattern makers
and their apprentices, professional employees, guards and super-
visors as defined in the Act.
The stipulation also contained the following provision :
In consideration of the mutual agreement herein and the ap-
proval thereof, the parties, for purposes of this election, waive
any rights to urge the elgibility of specialists, analysts, tech-
nologists, laboratory and engineering technicians, and training
program students, and employees in such classifications shall not
be eligible to vote... .
Subsequent to the election held on March 25, 1960, IUE was certified
on April 4 as the collective-bargaining representative of the unit
agreed to by the parties.
On February 6, 1961, less than a year after its certification in the
agreed unit, IUE filed a "Request for Clarification of Certification,"
asking the Board to include in the unit "certain employees, some of
whom are in the following categories as classified by the Employer."
The request then lists the categories set forth above whose inclusion
was in issue in the original proceeding, and raises the same arguments
IUE relied on in the original proceeding. The Employer has filed an
answer in opposition to request for clarification of certification, in
which it opposes the request on the grounds that it is an attempt to
evade the necessity of the statutory showing of interest for the cate-
gories of employees sought; that it seeks to include in a production
and maintenance unit technical employees who, the Board found,
should be in a separate unit; and that it is defective in failing to set
forth with certainty the individuals whose status it seeks to clarify
and will result in a "fishing expedition" by IUE. Thereafter, IUE
filed a response to the answer of the Employer in which it contends
that it reserved its right to clarify the unit in the stipulation; that
it does not seek to include employees who the Board determined be-
long in a technical unit, but, rather, employees in categories estab-
lished subsequent to the Board's decision who belong in the produc-
tion and maintenance unit; and that it is not engaged in a "fishing
1304 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
expedition" as the placement of many of these employees was specifi-
cally litigated in the hearing preceding execution of the Stipulation.
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 McCulloch and Members Leedom and
Brown].
Upon the entire record in the case, the Board finds :
On March 9, 1960, IUE stipulated to a unit which did not contain
the categories of employees it seeks by its present request although
it was fully aware of their existence, and indeed had argued for their
inclusion prior to executing the stipulation. Moreover, IUE ex-
pressly waived its rights to urge the eligibility of the employees in
these categories "for the purposes of this election." Accordingly, a
motion to clarify is not the proper method for adding the employees
in these categories to the existing unit. IUE should rather have filed
a representation petition seeking an election among the employees
in these categories to determine whether they desire to be added to
the present unit of production and maintenance employees.' We shall
therefore deny IUE's request for clarification of the certification.
[The Board denied the request for clarification of certification.]
3 General Electric Company, 127 NLRB 724; United Aircraft Corporation, 124 NLRB
392; General Electric Company, 119 NLRB 1233.
Georgia Rug Mill and Textile Workers Union of America, AFL-
CIO. Cases Nos. 10-CA-4430 and 10-CA-4457. June 27, 1961
DECISION AND ORDER
On March 8, 1961, Trial Examiner David London issued his Inter-
mediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the
Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor
practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and
take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the copy of the Interme-
diate Report attached hereto. He also recommended that certain other
allegations of the complaint be dismissed. Thereafter, the Respond-
ent and the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Intermediate Re-
port and supporting briefs.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3 (b) of the Act, the Board has
delegated its powers in connection with this proceeding to a three-
member panel [Chairman McCulloch and Members Leedom and
Brown].
The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner
at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The
131 NLRB No. 160.