Radiomarine Corp. of America

In the Matter of RADIOMARINE CORPORATION OF AMERICA, EMPLOYER and. RADIO OFFICERS UNION OF THE COMMERCIAL TELEGRAPHERS UNION, AFL, AND INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, AFL, PETITIONERS Case Nos. 2-R-7.02 and R-R-7338.-Decided December 24, 1947 Cahill, Gordon, Zachry cC Reindel, of New York City, by Messrs. William L. Dennis and Richard H. Graham, of Hollywood, Calif., for the Employer. Butter cC Silverman, of New York City, by Mr. Abner H. Silver- man, for the ROU. Mr. M. H. Trott, of Brooklyn, N. Y.; Mr. Otto A. Rieman, of San Francisco, Calif.; Messrs. C. DeMontreville and C. Walter Fuchs, of Los Angeles, Calif., for the IBEW. DECISION DIRECTION OF ELECTION AND ORDER Upon petitions duly filed, hearing in these cases was held at New York City, and Los Angeles, California, between February 10, 1947, and April 22, 1947, before George Turitz and Maurice J. Nicoson, hearing officers. The hearing officers' rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.' Subsequent to the hearing, the Employer filed a motion that the record be amended to show that certain employees in the classifications of laboratory assistant and wire assemblyman, respectively, had been transferred to the communications department from the production department in which they were located at the date of the hearing. Upon an order to shotiv cause why such motion should not be granted, Radio Officers Union of the Commercial Telegraphers Union, AFL, petitioner, filed 1 We find it unnecessary to pass upon the Employer's motion to strike the amended peti- tion in Case No 2-R-7338, upon the ground of alleged technical defects therein, in view of the subsequent amendment of the petition at the hearing and our determination herein with respect to the merits of the unit sought in such petition 75 N L. R. B., No. 77. 651 ,652 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD a memorandum opposing the motion of the Employer but not denying the truth of the facts alleged therein. No sufficient reason to the con- trary having been shown, the motion is hereby granted. Upon the entire record in the case, the National Labor Relations Board makes the following : FINDINGS OF FACT I. THE BUSINESS OF THE EMPLOYER Radiomarine Corporation of America , a Delaware corporation and a subsidiary of Radio Corporation of America, is engaged in the manufacture, sale, and servicing of marine radio and electronic equip- ment and in radio communication to and from ships at sea. The Em- ployer has its principal office in New York City and numerous branch offices, consisting of coastal stations and service depots, in various cities throughout the United States. The Employer purchases an- nually for use in its operations raw materials valued in excess of 1$1,000,000, of which approximately 75 percent is obtained from points outside the State of New York. During the past year, the Employer manufactured finished products valued in excess of $1,000,000, of -which approximately 75 percent was, shipped by the Employer to points outside the State of New York. The Employer admits and we find that it is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. II. THE ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED Radio Officers Union of the Commercial Telegraphers Union, AFL, herein called the ROU, and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, herein called the IBEW , are labor organizations affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, claiming to represent em- ployees of the Employer. III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION The Employer refuses to recognize either of the Petitioners as the exclusive bargaining representative of employees of the Employer until such Petitioner has been certified by the Board in an appropriate unit. - We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning the representation of employees of the Employer within the meaning ,of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. RADIOMARINE CORPORATION OF AMERICA IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT 653 . The ROU, in substantial agreement with the Employer 2 seeks a Nation-wide unit of employees in the communications department, including technicians, operators, printer-operators,, and printer.-op- erator-senior clerks, in all service depots and coastal stations of the Employer throughout the United States. The IBEW, on the other hand, contends that the employees in four service depots of the Employer on the West Coast of the United States constitute a separate appropriate unit.' In the operation of its business, the Employer maintains within the framework of its communications department numerous branch estab- lishments known as coastal stations and MRI service depots. Coastal stations are engaged in radio communication and in relaying and receiving ship messages from land lines of communication. MRI service depots perform the related function of installing, servicing, and repairing radio equipment on board ships while in port between voyages. The employees of coastal stations and service depots, wher- ever located, are under the common over-all supervision of the head of the communications department, which is centrally administered from New York City without any divisional organization based upon geo- graphical or other considerations. The evidence discloses that, in harmony with its policy of centralized control and integration of activities with respect to employees in the communications depart- ment,4 the Employer maintains throughout the country uniform wages and working conditions for such employees; and that transfers of employees are effected at the various branch locations according to the needs of the Employer. The IBEW urges in support of its contention for a separate unit the fact that since December 1942 the Employer has hired all non- clerical employees at certain of its west coast service depots through the IBEW, and has cooperated with the IBEW in requiring that its employees engaged in radio maintenance and repair work have IBEW clearance in accordance with the closed-shop provisions of two master agreements between the AFL Metal Trades Department and a group of west coast ship builders, covering all ship repairs and new ship construction on the west coast, respectively. There is, however, no ' The Employer, although in general agreement with the type of unit sought by the ROU, would include, in opposition to the ROU, the employees in certain categories hereinafter considered 'There aie approximately 16 non-supervisory employees in the 4 service depots in the west coast as compared with approximately 133 similar employees in the eutne communica- tions department 4 All Ming, discharges, and permanent transfers are made from the New Yoik City office Par sates are contolled there and the Employer does not inform the heads of the v-anou, branch stations with respect to ealmngs of then subordinates 654 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD written collective bargaining agreement between the IBEW and the Employer.' Moreover, the informal agreement between the Employer and the IBEW recognizing the obligation of the closed-shop provisions in the master agreements is not properly a part of the bargaining his- tory created by such master agreements., While we have excluded similar employees in a separate geographical area from a Nation-wide unit, where such employees have been represented on an area basis under an exclusive bargaining agreement with the employer concerned ,6 we are of the opinion that, in the absence of such a written agreement be- tween the IBEW and the Employer, and in view of the functional interrelationship the centralized control under a single department head, the interchange of personnel, and the similarity of skills and working conditions among the employees in both service depots and coastal stations throughout the country, only a Nation-wide unit of communications department employees is appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining. There remains for consideration the question of specific inclusions in and exclusions from the appropriate unit. The Employer would include, in opposition to the ROU, district managers, assistant dis- trict managers, MRI foremen, MRI clerk inspectors, MRI sales in- spectors and a selected group of miscellaneous employees consisting of certain laboratory assistants, production supervisors 8 and wire assemblymen. 4 District ma'nager', assistant district mnnageis alld MRI foremen The ROU contends that the employees in these classifications are supervisors and should be excluded. The Employer denies that such employees have substantial supervisory authority. The record dis- closes that, while the burden of supervision varies according to the number of employees at the various coastal stations and service depots, practically all managers supervise a substantial number of employees with respect to whom they have complete discretion in the assignment of work and the selection of employees for overtime compensation. It 5 Notwithstanding the absence of a bargaining agreement with the Employer, the cIBEW has, for at least the past 2 years, maintained at the Empioyei's Wilmington, California, service depot, a shop steward who has settled, by conferences with the local management, minor difficulties among the ennplolees at this location The IBEW admits, however, that it has never attempted to bargain collectively with respect to salary increases for such employees See Matter of Postal Telegraph Cable Corporation, 9 N L R B 1060 (distinguished in Matter of The Western Union Telegraph Company, 58 N L It B 1283). 7 A course of dealing which has not been pursuant to a written contract does not consti- tute a compelling history of collective bargaining. See Matter of International Harvester Company, 6S N L R B. 383 $ Thene is no contention that production supervisors are supervisors within the meaning of the Act RADIOMARINE CORPORATION OF AMERICA 655 also appears that, while managers have no authority to hire, promote, or discharge employees except upon specific authyrization from the New York office, they may make effective recommendations and re- ports, particularly with respect to new employees, and may either reprimand or suspend employees found in an intoxicated condition, or guilty of other serious misconduct while on duty. Moreover, service depot managers are expected to take care of the Employer's interest, not only in the servicing of radio equipment, but also in the solicita- tion of new business and the procuring of orders for such equipment. Similarly, in the case of assistant managers and MRI foremen, who have similar functions, the evidence reveals that such employees ex- ercise substantially the same authority as that of district managers. Upon the basis of the foregoing and the entire record, we find that managers, assistant managers, and MRI foremen are supervisors. We shall, accordingly, exclude them from the unit. MRI clerk-inspectors The three employees in this classification are all stationed at the MRI service depot in New York City. The ROU contends, in opposi- tion to the Employer, that these employees should be excluded as cleri- cal employees. The record discloses that those employees who are former MRI technicians are presently engaged in setting up job orders, compiling invoices and charges, and performing other work of a cleri- cal nature. They are, however, required occasionally to do MRI work aboard ships. Although their present work is largely clerical, we are of the opinion that they are essentially clerical 'employees of the type normally included by the Board in units composed primarily of non- clerical employees.a We shall, accordingly, include them in the -unit. MRI sales-inspectors The Employer has in its employ three sales-inspectors who have expert knowledge of legal requirements for maritime radio installa- tions. As part of their duties, they take orders from customers and also recommend to customers the type of work to be done together with an estimate of the cost of such work. As it appears that these employees, by reason of their relations with the public, are primarily salesmen as distinguished from MRI technicians, "whose work is of a manual character, we find that MRI sales-inspectors do not have suf- ficient interest in common with the maintenance and repair employees to warrant their inclusion within the unit. We shall, accordingly, exclude them. a See Matter of Douglas Aircraft Company, Inc., 60 N. L. R. B. 876. 656 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Miscellaneous employees The Employer contends that certain employees comprising a selected group of laboratory assistants, production supervisors, and wire assem- blymen, all of whom were originally in the production department, should be included in the present unit because such employees spend part of their time in maintenance and repair work and are capable of performing and will in the future be expected to perform such work on occasion. While it appears that the laboratory assistants and wire assemblymen have lately been transferred from the production depart- ment and are now under the supervision of the communications depart- ment together with the other employees in the appropriate unit, there is nothing in the record to indicate that a similar change in depart- mental supervision has occurred with reference to the production super- visors. Accordingly, as the latter are admittedly not within the• communications department and are under the supervision of the pro- duction department, a distinct division in the Employer's organization,. we shall not include production supervisors within the unit, but shall include therein the laboratory assistants and wire assemblymen who, are now within the communications department. . We find that all MRI technicians, operators, printer-operators, printer-operator-senior clerks, MRI clerk-inspectors, and employees in the classifications of laboratory assistant and wire assemblyman under the supervision of the communications department, employed in all MRI service depots and coastal stations of the Employer, but exclud- ing clerks, secretaries., stenographers, MRI sales-inspectors, district managers, assistant district managers, MRI foremen, and all other supervisors, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. DIRECTION OF ELECTION 10 As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the pur- poses of collective bargaining with Radiomarine Corporation of Amer- ica, New York City, an election by secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than thirty (30) days from the date of this Direction, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Second Region, and subject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62 of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations- Series 5, among the employees in the unit found appropriate in Section IV, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of this Direction, including employees who did not "Any participant in the election herein may, upon its prompt request to, and approval thereof by, the Regional Director, have its name removed from the ballot. RADIOMARINE CORPORATION OF AMERICA 657 work during said pay-roll period because they were ill or on-vacation or temporarily laid off, but excluding those employees who have since, quit or been discharged for cause and have not been rehired or rein- stated prior to,the date of the election, to determine whether they de- sire to be represented by Radio Officers Union of the Commercial Tele- graphers Union, AFL, or by International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL, for the purposes of collective bargaining, or by neither. ORDER Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and the entire record in these proceedings, the National Labor Relations Board hereby orders that the petition for investigation and certification of representatives of employees of Radiomarine Corporation of America, New York City, filed by International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (Case No. 2-R4338), be, and it hereby is, dismissed. MEMBER MURDOCK took no part in the consideration of the above Decision, Direction of Election, and Order.