General Electric Co.

In the Matter of GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY ( MEDFORD PLANT), EMPLOYER and INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL ''WORK- ERS, AFL, PETITIONER Case No. 1-RC-875.-Decided July 11, 194.9 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing in this case was heard before Joseph Lepi, hearing officer of the National Labor Relations Board. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from preju- dicial 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 Reynolds, Murdock, and Gray]. Upon the entire record in this case the Board finds : 2 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. 2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent employees of the Employer. 3. The question concerning representation : On April 1, 1946, the Employer and the Intervenor entered into a master collective bargaining agreement for l year, covering employees in some 82 plants of the Employer, including the River Works located at Lynn, Massachusetts. The contract was automatically renewed in 1947, and the present agreement is a modification of the 1947-1948 con- tract, and runs until April 1, 1950. The Intervenor contends that its contract which specifically includes the River Works, but not the Medford Plant, is a bar to this proceed- ' At the hearing , United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America, CIO , herein- after called the Intervenor, was permitted to intervene , although not in compliance with Section 9 (f), (g), and ( h) of the Act, on the basis of an alleged contractual interest. The Petitioner 's motion to dismiss all evidence of the Intervenor 's appearance at the hearing on the basis that the Intervenor is not in compliance with Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) of the Act is hereby denied. We have previously held that a noncomplying union may intervene in a proceeding , where it has an alleged contractual interest . Matter of Boston Consolidated Gas Co ., 79 N. L. It. B. 337 ; Matter of Niagara Hudson Power Corp., 79 N. L. It. B. 1115. 2 The Intervenor's motion for oral argument is hereby denied as the record adequately presents the issues and the positions of the parties herein involved. 85,N. L. R. B., No. 26. 150 GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY 151 ing. The Employer refuses to recognize the Petitioner until the Board determines whether the contract extends to the employees at the Med- ford plant. Prior to August 1948, the present Medford plant operated as a de- partment of the River Works, which as we have before noted is spe- cifically covered in the agreement between the Intervenor and the Em- ployer. The plant was then known as the Apparatus Service Shop and was engaged in the repair of transformers and motors for heavy machines. The employees in this department were hired through the personnel office of the River Works, were paid on its pay rolls, and were subject to its personnel policies. The managerial hierarchy of the department extended up through the management of the River Works and from there to a Boston office of the General Electric Cor- poration. There was some interchange of equipment and personnel between this department and the other departments of the River Works. In 1948 the Employer was faced with the necessity of expand- ing the size of the Apparatus Service Shop, and it selected for that purpose a site at Medford, Massachusetts, some 9 miles from the River Works. All of the equipment of the Apparatus Service Shop was moved to the Medford site as were some 34 of the employees. Since the move, the number of employees has been increased to over 100 em- ployees (at the time of the hearing) and a further expansion is en- visaged. The Medford plant has its own managerial hierarchy, and is no longer responsible to that of the River Works but instead reports, like the River Works, to a Boston office of the Employer. Its func- tions have remained substantially the same as when the department was a part of the River Works. While there is still some slight inter- change of employees and equipment, such transactions are on basis of a loan from one plant to another, and consist largely of special tech- nical service which are both brief and intermittent. All of the foregoing changes: i. e. the expansion of operations; the fact that a relatively minor proportion of employees at the new loca- tion are from the old plant; the geographical separation; and the independent managerial hierarchy; impel us to the conclusion that the Medford plant is tantamount to a new operation of the Employer and the contract of April 1, 1948, made before the commencement of such operation is no bar to a determination of representatives at this time .3 x See Matter of Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company ( Special Products Plant "C"), 80 N. L. R. B. 1347; Matter of Ball Brothers Company, 54 N. L. R. B. 1512; Matter of Sardik Food Products Corporation, 46 N. L. R. B. 894. Cf. Matter of St. Regis Paper Company (Multi-Wall B.ag Plant ), 84 N. L . R. B. 454 ; and compare Matter of Yale Rubber Manu- facturing Company, 85 N. L. R. B. 131, where we reached an opposite conclusion. In that case an entire unit was moved and the same managerial hierarchy was retained. 152 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD A question of representation affecting commerce exists concerning certain employees of the Employer, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The appropriate unit : The Petitioner seeks a unit of all hourly rated employees of the Em- ployer at its Medford plant, but excluding executives, office and cleri- cal employees, professional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. The Employer is in accord with the requested unit. The Intervenor took the position, consistent with its contention that its existing contract was a bar to the proceeding, that the unit is inappro- priate because it was still part of the over-all unit at the Lynn Works. Upon the basis of the entire 'record in the case, and for reasons here- tofore mentioned, we find that a unit confined to the Medford plant is appropriate. Accordingly, we find that all hourly rated employees of the Employer at its Medford plant, but excluding executives, office and clerical employees, professional employees, guards, and super- visors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for pur- poses of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. DIRECTION OF ELECTION As part of the investigation to ascertain representatives for the pur- poses of collective bargaining with the Employer, an election by secret ballot shall be conducted as early as possible, but not later than 30 days from the date of this Direction, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Region in which this case was heard, and subject to Sections 203.61 and 203.62 of National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 5, as amended, among the em- ployees in the unit found appropriate in paragraph numbered 4, above, who were employed during the pay-roll period immediately preceding the date of this Direction of Election, including employees who did not 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 re- instated prior to the date of the election, and also excluding employees on strike who are not entitled to reinstatement, to determine whether they desire to be represented for the purposes of collective bargaining, by International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL.4 I As the Intervenor is not in compliance with Section 9 (f), (g), and (h) of the Act, we shall not permit its name to appear on the ballot.