Amperex Electronic Corp.

AMPEREX ELECTRONIC CORPORATION 353 AMPEREx ELECTRONIC CORPORATION, PETITIONER and. DISTRICT 15) INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, AFL. Case Na. 2 ISM-575. July 23,1954 Decision and Order Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a hearing was held before Aaron Weissman, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. 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 organization involved claims to represent employees of the Employer. 3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the represen- tation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, for the following reasons: The Employer petitions for an election in a unit of laboratory; technicians, or in the alternative, laboratory technicians and engi-, neers. The Union contends that the employees named in the petition are part of a production and maintenance unit for which it was certi- fied on May 7, 1952, and moved to dismiss the petition on the grounds that (1) no claim for representation was made, and (2) the existing contract bars this proceeding. Prior to March 1952, the Employer maintained a pilot shop, which was engaged primarily in the assembly and production of models which have already been developed and approved for produc- tion from specifications and drawings. The pilot shop consisted of 4 or 5 employees and these employees were part of the production department and were responsible to the production supervisor. They performed work of a mass production and repetitious character and worked from blueprints. They did not do research or development work and had nothing to do with the engineers employed by the Employer. The pilot shop employees voted in the 1952 election, at which time the Employer's plant was located in Brooklyn, New York. Since then the Employer moved to its present location in Hicksville, Long Island, New York, in March or April of 1952 and expanded its laboratory facilities. The pilot shop as such never moved to the new location and the pilot shop employees were disbanded. Several of these em- ployees became laboratory technicians; others were assigned to the production department. The Employer contends that those em- 109 NLRB No. 70. 354 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ployees who transferred to the laboratory took on new duties, and together with the newly hired laboratory technicians constitute a separate unit. The Union contends that the laboratory technicians are performing the same work as the pilot shop employees had originally performed and that they are, therefore, part of the bar- gaining unit. The laboratory technicians in the laboratory have the primary function of translating theoretical ideas and design ideas so that these ultimately take on some practical form; and only in the later stages do these ideas become sufficiently crystallized so that assembly draw- ings and specifications can be made. Also laboratory technicians may be engaged in pure research, under research contracts. On September 14,1953, the Union filed a request with the Employer stating in effect that the pilot shop employees become part of the bargaining unit. In the same document, the Union stated that the reason for its request is that the failure to include these employees in the bargaining unit was violative of article II of the contract, which sets forth contract coverage. On October 6, 1953, the Union filed a grievance alleging violation of article II 2.0 of the contract. By letter to the Employer dated November 5, 1953, the Union's attorney requested, among other things, the Employer to arbitrate, "3. The failure of the Company to recognize the Union as bargaining agent for the employees in the pilot shop, for which the Union was certified as collective bargaining agent." In view of the different type of work performed by the "old Pilot Shop" employees and the work performed by the laboratory tech- nicians, we find that the laboratory technicians here in question are not in the production and maintenance unit represented by the Union. A question of representation may be brought to the Board's atten- tion by the filing of an Employer's petition, but the question is raised only by an affirmative claim of a labor organization that it represents h majority of employees in an appropriate unit. In the present case, the Union's claim has been that the laboratory technicians are part of its production and maintenance unit. We have found that they are not. Therefore, no further question of representation exists., Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petition. [The Board dismissed the petition.] MEMBER PETERSON took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Order. 'See Ltbrascope, Incorporated, 91 NLRB 178; Luper Transportation Co. Inc., 92 NLRB 1178.