Radio Corp. of America

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Jun 28, 1960

127 N.L.R.B. 1563 (N.L.R.B. 1960)

RADIO CORPORATION OF AMERICA 1563
I will also recommend that Respondent (1) cease giving effect to its agreement
with Local 1031, dated March 6, 1959, and to any extension, renewal, or modification
thereof, or to any other agreement with Local 1031 which may now be in force,
and (2) cease recognizing, and withdraw and withhold all recognition from, Local
1031 as the representative of its employees for the purpose of dealing with Respond-
ent concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours of employment,
or other conditions of employment, unless and until the said labor organization shall
have demonstrated its exclusive majority representative status pursuant to a Board-
conducted election among Respondent's employees.
In his brief, the General Counsel also seeks an order of reimbursement to em-
ployees of any dues or other moneys collected from them under Respondent's agree-
ment with Local 1031, relying on General Molds & Plastics Corporation, 122 NLRB
182. In the instant case, as in the General Molds case, the contracts contain no
union-security clause. However, in the General Molds case, the union membership
and authorization cards, to which employee signatures were obtained with the Re-
spondent's illegal assistance, also constituted authorizations to Respondent to check
off dues and fees from the signer's wages for transmittal to the assisted union. No
such authorization exists in the instant case. The contract obligates the Respondent
to make and remit dues deductions only upon request of Local 1031, accompanied
"with properly and legally executed assignments in accordance with law authorizing
said deduction." Under these circumstances, I am of the opinion that a dues reim-
bursement order is not necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act and that
Respondent's unfair labor practices will be adequately and effectively remedied by
the order recommended.
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. By rendering assistance and support to, and interfering with the administration
of, Local 1031, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Re-
spondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section
8(a)(1) and (2) of the Act.
2. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com-
merce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.
[Recommendations omitted from publication.]
Radio Corporation of America and Local Union 11, International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers , AFL-CIO, Petitioner.
Case No. 21-IBC-6236. June 28, 1960
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 Paul D. Cummings, 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 [Chairman Leedom and Members 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 claim to represent certain em-
ployees of the Employer.'
'International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, Local 854, AFL-CIO,
intervened on the basis of its contract interest.
127 NLRB No. 180.
1564 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
-3. The Employer and the Intervenor contend that their national
- agreement and supplementary local agreement executed on June 1,
1959, effective until June 1, 1962, constitute a bar to this proceeding
and that the petition which was filed February 19, 1960, is untimely.
The Petitioner contends that the agreements are premature extensions
of prior agreements and therefore do not constitute a bar.
There were in effect a prior national agreement between the Em-
ployer and the Intervenor's International , IUE, and a supplementary
local agreement between the Employer and the Intervenor, dated
May 26, 1958 , effective until June 1, 1961 . Pursuant to negotiations
under midterm wage reopening provisions thereof, the same parties
executed new agreements on June 1, 1959, which bear expiration dates
of June 1, 1962. The 1959 agreements therefore constitute premature
extensions of the prior contracts and do not constitute a bar to the
petition herein which was timely filed more than 60 but less than
150 days before the end of the second year of the original agreements.'
We therefore find that a question affecting commerce exists concern-
ing the representation 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 requests an election in a unit of all maintenance
electricians at the Employer 's new Van Nuys , California , plant. The
Employer and the Intervenor contend that the craft unit requested is
inappropriate because it is not coextensive with a multiemployer unit
which they contend has been established by the bargaining history, or
with a two -plant unit which they alternately contend is appropriate.
The Employer is engaged in the manufacture of electronic and re-
lated products in 21 plants located throughout the United States.
Its missile and surface radar division consists of several plants located
within a two-block area of West Los Angeles , California, referred to
as the Olympic Boulevard facility , and the new plant, located 17
miles away and referred to as the Van Nuys facility.
For several years there have been in effect between the Employer
and the IUE national agreements covering all units of employees who
are represented by IUE local unions for the various plants covered.
All national and supplementary agreements have been negotiated in
Camden, New Jersey.' In 1952, the Board certified IUE as the rep-
resentative of the production and maintenance employees at the
Olympic Boulevard plant. The provisions of the national agreement
then in effect were extended to cover that unit, and in 1953 the first
supplementary agreement was executed covering those employees.
The Olympic Boulevard facility now includes two buildings on
2 See Paci fic Coast Association of Pulp and Paper Manufacturers, 121 NLRB 990, 993.
The only exception which appears in the record is the negotiation of the first supple-
mentary agreement covering the Olympic Boulevard plant in Los Angeles in 1953
RADIO CORPORATION OF AMERICA 1565
Olympic Boulevard, one on Granville Street, and three buildings on
Mississippi Street, all within a two-block area.
In the most recent national agreement the Employer recognizes IUE
as the bargaining representative for "those units" where IUE or any
affiliated local has been or shall be recognized. It contains an appen-
dix describing in detail specific inclusions and exclusions for each of
nine separate units in seven different plants located at Camden,
Mooresville, and Somerville, New Jersey; Cincinnati, Ohio; Los An-
geles, California; 4 and Detroit, Michigan. It provides that any units
for which IUE shall hereafter be recognized shall automatically be
included and covered by the national agreement. It was signed by
the Company and IUE negotiating committees. In the most recent
supplementary local agreement for the Olympic Boulevard unit the
Employer recognizes the Intervenor as representative of all produc-
tion and maintenance employees at the Olympic Boulevard plant at
Los Angeles, California; it covers all production and maintenance
employees within the two-block area of the entire facility. Attached
thereto are schedules for wage rates and labor grades covering the
west coast missile and surface radar department-Los Angeles plant.
Both the national and supplementary local agreements contain sub-
stantive provisions governing wages, working conditions, and union
security.
On the basis of this record, we find that the national agreement is
merely a basic agreement for convenience in bargaining for whatever
local units may be represented by IUE or its affiliated locals and evi-
dences no clear intent by the parties to establish a multiplant unit.
Nor is there any other evidence of the parties' intent to merge the
separately certified or recognized units into a single overall unit, or
that such a unit would correspond with any geographic, administra-
tive, or functional grouping within the Employer's organization. We
therefore find, contrary to the Employer and the Intervenor, that
such a multiplant unit is not appropriate.'
As indicated above, the Olympic Boulevard facility alone consti-
tuted the missile and surface radar division until late 1958 or early
1959, when the Employer began construction of the new plant at Van
Nuys, 17 miles away, for the production of products similar to those
produced at Olympic Boulevard-i.e., missile checkout and ground
control equipment, and countermeasure, computer, and radar equip-
ment. On August 25, 1959, the Employer and the Intervenor exe-
cuted an agreement providing that the employee complement of the
new plant would be principally made up of employees transferred
* The contract covers three separate units in Los Angeles, the production and mainte-
nance unit, and a separate technicians unit, at the Olympic Boulevard plant ; and a unit
of hourly paid employees at a warehouse of the Company's tube division
5 Radio Corporation of America, 121 NLRB 633 ; Swift d Company, 124 NLRB 50.
1566 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
from Olympic Boulevard, that those transferred would retain their
seniority acquired at Olympic Boulevard, and that the plant would
be operated as part of, and under the same management as, the
Olympic Boulevard plant. The agreement provided for inclusion of
the Van Nuys facility as part of the Olympic Boulevard plant for the
purposes of recognition of the Intervenor as representative of the
production and maintenance employees. Production began at Van
Nuys in late 1959. At the time of the hearing, there were 213 em-
ployees working at Van Nuys, of whom 109 had been transferred from
Olympic Boulevard. Six more were scheduled for transfer. The
Employer plans to hire 40 to 50 more new employees at Van Nuys.
There are four maintenance electricians at Van Nuys, of whom three
were transferred from Olympic Boulevard. The Employer plans to
hire one more electrician at Van Nuys. The Employer also plans to
continue operating the Olympic Boulevard facility. All employees
transferred from there have been replaced and new employees are
being hired. There is one maintenance electrician at Olympic
Boulevard.
Employee classifications are the same at both locations, as are wages
and benefits, including those for maintenance electricians. Opera-
tions at both facilities are directed by a plant manager whose office
is at Van Nuys; there is a manufacturing manager at Olympic
Boulevard responsible to him. Personnel and labor relations, includ-
ing wages, salaries, services, training, and employment, of both plants
are directed by the personnel manager located at Van Nuys, to whom
a personnel administrator at Olympic Boulevard is responsible.
There is a single payroll for both facilities. Test equipment is trans-
ferred back and forth.
On the basis of all the foregoing and the entire record, including
the similarity of operations, centralized control of managerial and
labor relations policies, geographic proximity, and uniformity of
wages and working conditions, and the original staffing of the new
plant, we find, in agreement with the Employer and the Intervenor,
that the Van Nuys facility is essentially an extension of the Olympic
Boulevard operation and that its employees are an accretion to
the Olympic Boulevard production and maintenance unit.' A unit
confined to employees of the Van Nuys facility, is, therefore,
inappropriate.
The Petitioner has, however, made a sufficient showing of interest
in a unit of maintenance electricians employed at both the Olympic
Boulevard and Van Nuys facilities. As stated above, there are at
present three maintenance electricians employed at Van Nuys and one
6 Textron, Inc, 117 NLRB 19; Saco -Lowell Shops , 107 NLRB 590; Hess, Goldsmith &
Company Inc , 110 NLRB 1384 See also International Union, United Automobile, etc.
(Borg-Warner Corp.), 113 NLRB 152, enfd 231 F 2d 232 (CA 7)
LOCAL UNION 1692, INT'L LONGSHOREMEN'S, ETC. 1567
at Olympic Boulevard. The work performed by them is of the type
usually performed by experienced electricians with 4 years' appren-
tice training and some of them are journeymen. The record shows,
and the parties do not dispute, that their work is that of skilled craft
electricians. They are, therefore, entitled to separate representation
if they so desire. As the Petitioner is a union which traditionally
represents electricians, we shall direct an election in the following
voting group at the Employer's Olympic Boulevard and Van Nuys,
California, plants:'
All maintenance electricians, their helpers and apprentices, leadmen,
and working foremen, excluding all other employees and supervisors
as defined in the Act.'
If a majority vote for the Petitioner, they will be taken to have
indicated their desire to be represented in a separate unit and the
Regional Director conducting the election directed herein is instructed
in that event to issue a certification of representatives to the Petitioner
for such unit which the Board under the circumstances finds to be
appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining. If, however, a
majority vote for the Intervenor, they will be taken to have indicated
their desire to remain a part of the existing production and mainte-
nance unit and the Regional Director is instructed to issue a certificate
of results of election to that effect.
[Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.]
7If the Petitioner does not wish to proceed to an election in the unit found appropriate,
which is broader in scope than that petitioned for, we shall permit it to withdraw its
petition upon notice to the Regional Director, within 5 days of the issuance of this
Decision, who shall thereupon vacate the Direction of Election.
8 There is no dispute as to the composition of the unit
Local Unipp No. 1692, International Longshoremen 's Association,
Independent , and International Longshoremen 's Association,
Independent and J & R Contractors , Inc. Case No. 23-CC-63
(formerly 39-CC-63) . June 29,1960
DECISION AND ORDER
On a charge and amended charge duly filed on August 25 and Sep-
tember 15, 1959, respectively, by J & R Contractors, Inc., herein
referred to as J & R, the General Counsel of the National Labor
Relations Board, by the Regional Director for the Twenty-third
Region, issued a complaint and notice of hearing dated October 15,
1959, against Local Union No. 1692, International Longshoremen's
Association, Independent, and International Longshoremen's Associ-
127 NLRB No. 181.