Radio Corp. of America

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 26, 1958

121 N.L.R.B. 633 (N.L.R.B. 1958)

RADIO CORPORATION OF AMERICA 633
their other duties permit. As it appears that any guard duty per-
formed by safety inspectors is sporadic 4 and as their authority to
enforce safety regulations does not make them guards within the
meaning of the Act,' we find that the safety inspectors , like the fire-
men, are not guards and we shall exclude them from the unit'
We find that the following employees at the Employer's Lake
Charles, Louisiana, plant constitute a unit appropriate for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b)
of the Act
All guard sergeants and guards , excluding all other employees and
supervisors as defined in the Act
5 The Employer opposes an immediate election , and contends that
the petition should be dismissed , on the ground that as a result of the
construction of new plant facilities in which it is engaged the plant-
protection department may be changed , and the unit may be altered
and become nonrepresentative At the hearing and in its brief, the
Employer was unable to state with exactitude what changes would be
made and admitted that the nature of the changes in the plant-protec-
tion department are speculative Moreover, it appears from the rec-
ord that the additional facilities under construction at the time of
the hearing will be in operation before the election is held herein In
these circumstances we find no merit in this contention and shall direct
an immediate election
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
s See Barrett Dersaon, AZted Chemui,ii d Dye Gorporatson , 116 NLRB 1649, 1652,
footnote 5
5 McDonnell Aircraft Corporation, 109 NLRB 967, 968-969
6 In view of our finding herein, it is unnecessary to determine whether, as the Employer
contends, the safety inspectors are supervisors or technical employees
Radio Corporation of America and United Electrical , Radio and
Machine Workers of America (UE), Ind., Petitioner. Case No
4-RC-3598 August 26, 1958
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 Seymour X Alsher,
hearing officer The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are
free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed
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 [Members Rodgers, Jenkins, and
Fanning]
121 NLRB No 85
634, DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the
National Labor Relations Act
2 The labor organizations 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
Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act
4 The Petitioner seeks a unit limited to the employees at the
Employer's Lancaster, Pennsylvania, plant. These employees have
been covered, together with the employees of 8 additional plants, under
a "national agreement" between the Employer and the Intervenor,
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers and its Local 1666,
and 8 other IBEW Locals, and under separate local agreements at the
9 plants, all of which expired June 1, 1958 The national agreement
defines the "bargaining units" as including all units in which the
IBEW or any of its Locals has or shall be recognized as the exclusive
bargaining representative, and contains an appendix in which each of
the plant units is described in detail, with its specific inclusions and
exclusions This agreement provides that wage rates, 2 of the 8
holidays, seniority privileges, and insurance and disability payments,
are all to be determined by local agreements, and that these local
agreements may supplement although not change the national agree-
ment The national agreement is signed by representatives of each
Local, as well as by International representatives
The Intervenor first bargained with the Employer in 1950, follow-
ing certification by the Board at the Lancaster plant In the interim,
it has been certified for units at additional plants The local agree-
ment for the Lancaster plant is in evidence It refers to the national
agreement and the local agreements for "each" of the bargaining
"units "
The Employer has 22 plants, of which 12 manufacture industrial
products or defense equipment The nine plants here in question
manufacture essentially consumer goods They do not, however, con-
stitute all of the Employer's plants engaged in this field for there is a
plant at Monticello, Indiana, which manufactures cabinets These
9 plants fall within 4 divisions of the Employer's organizational
setup , Geographically they extend from New Jersey to California
The Employer and the Intervenor contend that the petition for a
single plant unit should be dismissed because, only a 4niiltiplant unit
encompassing the nine plants is appropriate in view of the history of
bargaining on that basis We deny the motions to dismiss because on
this record we conclude that the national agreement is merely a basic
agreement for convenience in bargaining for whatever local units
may be represented by the Union, and evidences no clear intent by the
RADIO CORPORATION OF AMERICA 635
parties to establish a definable multiplant unit or to extinguish the
right of employees at individual plants to select and change their
bargaining representative at appropriate intervals on a plant-unit
basis.' In the absence of a multiplant unit established by bargaining
history, we find that the nine-plant unit is inappropriate because it
corresponds- to no geographic, administrative, or functional grouping
of plants within the Employer's organization? Considering all these
factors, we find that the single-plant unit sought by the Petitioner is
appropriate. We cannot in good conscience conclude, as does our
dissenting colleague, that the above facts support the existence of a
bargaining history for a "definable multiplant unit." Such a con-
clusion, in our opinion, ignores the separate treatment accorded sep-
arate plant units and the'specific agreement of the parties that major
issues of collective bargaining must be determined wholly on a local
basis.
The following employees constitute a unit appropriate for the pur-
poses of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b)
of the Act :
All production and maintenance employees of the Employer at its
Lancaster, Pennsylvania, plant, including employees in the engineer-
ing and equipment development section, gas house employees, and
leadmen, but excluding tool- and die-makers, machinists, maintenance
machinists, machinist grinders, machinist heat treaters, technical em-
ployees, professional employees, office clerical and plant clerical em-
ployees, time-study engineers, group leaders, guards, and supervisors
as defined in the Act.'
5. Laid-off employees: The record shows that there are several hun-
dred employees at this plant, where the unit is estimated at 1858, who
were in laid-off status at the time of hearing. The bulk of these
employees had been laid off before January 1, 1958. The Intervenor
contended at the hearing that it was premature to make a decision as
to the eligibility to vote of these employees. The Petitioner would
have as many employees as possible vote. The Employer contended
that "where they have been laid off more than 1 year," employees
should not be eligible to vote. As to the likelihood of these employees
being recalled, the Employer stated only that "it depends on business."
In the circumstances, we find the record insufficient to show whether
i See American Can Company, 109 NLRB 1284, 1289; Hygrade Food Products Corpora-
tion, 85 NLRB 841; compare Gulf Atlantic Warehouse Company, 111 NLRB 1249, where
bargaining for the three-plant unit had been merged in a single agreement.
2 See American Can Company, supra; cf. Owens-Illinois Glass Company, 108 NLRB
947; and General Motors Corporation, Cadillac Motor Car Division, 120 NLRB 1215,
where the units were divisionwide and companywide, respectively
8 This is the unit for which the Intervenor was certified in 1950 In Case No 4-RC-721,
except for lack of reference to leadmen and group leaders, technical and professional
employees, and clerical employees. The local agreement at Lancaster which has just
expired defined the unit essentially as set out above The parties do not contest the
inclusions and exclusions
636 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
these laid-off employees have a reasonable expectancy of recall in the
foreseeable future, and we shall therefore permit those who have been
in laid-off status less than a year at the time of this Decision and
Direction to vote subject to challenge 4
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication ]
MExBER RODGERS, dissenting
Upon the record as a whole it has been established to my satisfaction
that a definable multiplant unit, based upon bargaining history, is
presently in existence Accordingly, I would dismiss the petition
Cf General Motors Corporation, Cadillac Motor Car Division, 120
NLRB 1215
s Compare Hunt Heater Corporation, 113 NLRB 167 , where the Employer's manager
testified without contradiction that because of the Employer 's manpower curtailment
program certain laid off employees would not be rehired within the foreseeable future
See also Channel Master Corporation , 114 NLRB 14 86, where the Board found eligible to
vote those on the layoff list who had responded to the Employer 's annual check of this
list to ascertain which employees in laid off status were interested in returning to work
Westinghouse Air Brake Company (Air Brake Division) and (In-
dustrial Products Division ) 1 and Engineers Professional Asso-
ciation, Petitioner. Case No 6-RC-2108 August 26, 1958
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 Harvard A Bor-
chardt, hearing officer The hearing officer's rulings made at the
hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed
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 [Members Rodgers, Bean, and Fanning]
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 herein claim 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 Section2 (6) and (7) of the Act
4 The Petitioner seeks to represent a unit of the professional
employees at the Employer's Air Brake and Industrial Products
Divisions at Wilmerding, Pennsylvania The Employer and the
'The Employer' s name appears as amended at the hearing
121 NLRB No 77