General Electric Co.

GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY 747 Carmen Otero, and thereafter prepare and cause to be served upon the parties a revised tally of ballots, including therein the count of said challenged ballots.] ME-MB ER PETERSON took no part in the consideration of the above Supplemental Decision and Direction. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL UNION OF ELECTRI- CAL, RADIO & MACITINE WORKERS, CIO, PETITIONER. Case No. 9- RC-2223. August 6,1954 Decision and Direction of Election Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National La- bor Relations Act, a hearing was held before George M. Dick, 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 At. 2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent certain em- ployees of the Employer. 3. United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America, here- inafter referred to as the UE, was permitted to intervene, individu- ally, and on behalf of its Local 766. The UE asserts that its current national agreement with the Employer, which covers the operations involved herein at the Employer's Cincinnati Apparatus Department Service Shop, as well as other operations of the Employer, is a bar to the instant proceedings. This agreement, effective until April 1, 1955, and from year to year thereafter in the absence of appropriate termination notice, contains the following modification clause: Not more than 60 days and not less than 30 days prior to : June 1, 1954, April 1, 1955; and any April 1st date thereafter, respec- tively, either the Company or the Union may present to the other notice of proposed modifications or additions to the provisions hereof. Within 15 days after such notice is given, collective bar- gaining negotiations shall commence for the purpose of consider- ing such modifications or additions. Failing agreement thereon by June 1, 1954, April 1, 1955, or any subsequent April 1st there- after, respectively, the Union and its UE Locals shall have the right to strike, but the contract shall continue in effect as pro- vided in Article XXVI. However, in the event of such strike, the Company may, at its option, terminate this agreement upon three days' written notice to the Union. 109 NLRB No. 104. 748 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The Petitioner contends that in view of the modification clause in the contract and certain- representations made by the UE, that the UE is estopped from asserting the contract as a bar. The Petitioner further contends that there has been a schism in the ranks of UE Lo( a1766, which renders the contract ineffective as a bar. 'I he Board has had before it recently this same national agreement as it applied to the Employer's operations at Schenectady, New York, and Newark, New Jersey. For the reasons fully set out in its deci- sions involving those operations,' the Board finds that the contract between the Employer and the UE is not a bar to this proceeding. Member Murdock would find the contract in the instant case no bar on schism grounds in conformity with his concurring opinions in those decisions. Accordingly, we find that a question affecting commerce exists con- cerning the representation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The parties agree that the unit found appropriate by the Board in General Electric Company, Case No. 5-RM-140,2 is appropriate. There remains for consideration, however, a classification of employ- ees known as co-op employees, considered by the parties not ' co be covered by the contract or included in the unit. There are two types of these students : those who attend high school and those who attend the local university. The high school students work 2 weeks and go to school 2 weeks ; the university students work 7 weeks and go to school 7 weeks. The pay of the co-op helpers is the same as that of other helpers but they receive none of the contractual benefits as do regular employees. They work in the various departments and are shifted from department to department as needed. The Employer deals with the coordinator at the educational institutions when seeking the em- ployment of these students, and the school selects and sends the stu- dents to the Employer. The students may vary from time to time. Approximately 10 percent of the university students become perma- nent employees and 20 percent of the high school students become permanent employees. If a co-op helper becomes a regular employee, his seniority may be retroactive to include his co-op period at the discretion of the Employer. The parties stipulated that these co-op helpers should be excluded from the unit, and it appears that their employment is merely incidental to their education. We shall exclude them from the unit.3 WWTe find that all employees of the Employer at its Cincinnati Appa- ratus Department Service Shop, 444 West Third Street, Cincinnati, Ohio, excluding all office clerical employees, salesmen, service engi- 1 Geneial i lectiic Company, 108 NLRB 1290, 108 NLRB 1294 2 89 NLRB 726, at 770 1 See Sonoco Products Company, 107 NLRB 82 BRIDGEPORT CASTINGS COMPANY 749 veers, university and high school co-op students, professional employ- ees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] MEMBERS PETERSON and BEESON took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Direction of Election. BRIDGEPORT CASTINGS COMPANY and UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMER- ICA, CIO, PETITIONER . Case No. 2-RC-5954. August 9, 1954 Supplemental Decision and Certification of Representatives Pursuant to a Decision and Direction of Election issued by the Board herein on August 3, 1953,1 an election by secret ballot was con- ducted on August 31, 1953, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for the Second Region, among the employees in the unit found appropriate by the Board in its decision. Following the election, a tally of ballots was furnished the parties, which shows that, of approximately 116 eligible voters, 85 cast ballots of which 47 were for the Petitioner, 36 were against the Petitioner, and 2 were challenged. On September 8, 1953, the Employer filed timely objections to con- duct affecting the results of the election in which it alleged (1) that on the day of the election the Petitioner distributed to the employees form ballots such as would confuse the employees and cause them to believe that the Board endorsed the claims of the Petitioner, and (2) that the Petitioner through its representatives and agents engaged in other acts of restraint, coercion, and interference which prevented a free election. In accordance with the Rules and Regulations of the Board, the Regional Director conducted an investigation of these objections and on October 15, 1953, issued his report on objections in which he found that the objections raised no substantial issues af- fecting the results of the election and recommended that they be over- ruled. On October 26, 1953, the Employer filed exceptions to the report on objections and requested that either the election be set aside or ,a hearing be held to resolve issues of credibility raised by the re- port and exceptions. On November 16, 1953, the Board ordered a hearing to determine whether physical and economic threats were made by 2 employees as alleged by the Employer, and. whether those 2 employees were agents 1 Not reported in printed volumes of Board Decisions and Orders. 109 NLRB No. 110.