General Electric Co.

456 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR 'RELATIONS BOARD turning to work in the near future. Accordingly, we find they are therefore not eligible to vote in the election. The following employees constitute a unit appropriate for the pur- poses of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act : All plant protection employees of the Employer at its Early Times plant located at Shively, Kentucky, and its Old Forester plant at 1908 Howard Street, Louisville, Kentucky, including the regular part- time employees, but excluding all other employees including the laid- off employees, casual employees, and supervisors as defined in the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] Atomic Power Equipment Department of General Electric Com- pany and International Association of Machinists, District Lodge No. 93, Petitioner. Case No. 20-RC-3232. July 2,1957 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 David Karasick, 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 [Members Rodgers, Bean, and Jenkins]. 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. 3. The Petitioner, herein called the IAM, seeks a unit of all hourly rated production and maintenance employees of the Employer's Atomic Power Equipment Department, herein called APED, current- ly at the Employer's Medium Induction Motor Plant, generally known as the Motor Plant, or MIM, at San Jose, California. The Intervenor, International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, herein called the IUE, urges as a bar a national contract and a supplemental agreement covering the production and mainte- The petition and other formal papers in this proceeding are hereby amended to reflect the Employer's correct name. The Intervenor's motion to dismiss the petition , alleging an insufficient showing of in- terest, Is hereby denied, it being well established that the showing of Interest is an admin- istrative matter, not subject to collateral attack In a representation proceeding. The Babcock & W4icom Company, 116 NLRB 1542. For reasons set forth elsewhere in this Decision, the Intervenor's other motions to dismiss the petition , alleging contract bar, inappropriate unit, and prematurity of the instant petition, are also denied. 118 NLRB No. 54. ATOMIC POWER EQUIPMENT DEPARTMENT 457 nance employees at MIM. The Employer and the Petitioner contend that APED is a new operation, and that therefore neither the national agreement nor the supplemental agreement constitutes a bar. APED, one of the Employer's 40 operating divisions and a part of its Electronic, Atomic, and Defense Products Group, was established to develop and perfect atomic power equipment for peacetime uses, and is currently engaged in building commercial and experimental reactors. MIM, a part of the Employer's Motor and Generator Di- vision, is engaged in the manufacture of induction motors for agri- cultural and industrial purposes. MIM has been in operation at the San Jose location since 1948. During that period the IAM has been the certified bargaining representative of the tool- and die-makers, maintenance machinists, tool grinders, and machine shop leadermen at the San Jose plant. Since October 1955 the IUE has been the certified representative of all production and maintenance employees at the San Jose plant, excluding the employees covered by the IAM certification. The current contracts of both labor organizations are for an effective period from August 15, 1955, to October 1, 1960. In March 1955 the Employer established APED, with headquarters and manufacturing operations at Schenectady, New York. In Febru- ary 1956 it decided to move the operation from Schenectady to San Jose and, accordingly, on June 26, 1956, entered into a written tem- porary agreement with representatives of the IAM and the IUE, providing for the continuation of existing dues checkoff procedures and union membership and representation for employees about to be transferred from MIM to APED, pending clarification of the IAM and IUE certifications in their regard. Although the temporary agreement was originally to terminate on August 25, 1956, it was successively .extended to December 31, 1956. No clarification of the certification was sought. In August and September 1956 the Employer reestablished APED at its new San Jose headquarters, moving some 300 key office personnel from Schenectady to this site. Since that time APED has hired a total of 86 production and maintenance employees, including some 25 employees who were transferred from MIM? The Motor Plant consists of a main location with 3 adjacent build- ings, known respectively as the office building; building 400, a manu- facturing building; and the MIM building; also a manufacturing building. Of a total of approximately 900 APED employees, some 800 salaried employees work in the office building. The other APED employees are distributed in building 400, the MIM building, and at other nearby locations.' Of the 86 APED employees in the unit herein sought, approximately 58 are in the MIM building. There are some 2 There have been no transfers from APED to MI\i. 9 These locations include buildings on South First Street, 4 blocks away , and on North Fourth Street , some 4 miles away. 458 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 360 MIM employees. The present arrangement of APED and MIM employees is temporary, as APED is currently engaged in the con- struction of a new plant on the San Jose property, into which it anticipates moving these employees. The APED and MIM operations are almost completely autono- mous. Each is under the direction and management of a separate vice president, responsible only to the Employer's president, and each has separate staffs in all important respects, including employee and public relations, finance, manufacturing, marketing, engineering, and research. While the production operations of MIM are well estab- lished, standardized, repetitive, and based on production-line methods, those at APED are highly experimental, requiring operators trained in solving experimental manufacturing problems and in handling ma- terials with unusual chemical properties. The APED operations are not readily adaptable to production-line methods of manufacture; in fact, APED currently has no production line or plans for one at San Jose. Unlike MIM employees, APED employees are selected for their ability to use more than one machine and special machine tools. Although the APED employees are sometimes furnished de- tailed drawings, they are often given only sketches from which to work; the MIM employees, on the other hand, work from detailed drawings and are given planning cards which set forth the sequence of the machine operations and the type of tools to be used. The APED employees in the unit herein sought include generally skilled craft employees, maintenance employees, janitorial employees, quality control employees, and a lift truck operator. The approxi- mately 58 APED employees in, or attached to, the MIM plant work in a self-contained area partially walled off from the other employees. Although this work area is not guarded, MIM employees generally are instructed that they do not belong in APED areas, and APED supervisors are instructed to keep them out. APED employees in general wear badges and are cleared by the Atomic Energy Com- mission and the military authorities. Transferees from MIM to APED maintain their MIM seniority; on the other hand, they have no reemployment rights at MIM in the event of layoffs by APED. In support of its contract-bar position, the Intervenor contends that the APED employees fall within the scope of its certification, because of the fact that the majority of their number in the unit work in the MIM building, specifically covered by the certification. The Intervenor also contends that these employees are within the scope ,of its national contract and its supplemental agreement. In support ,of this contention, it cites article I, section 2, which provides that in the event the Board designates the IUE or any of its Locals as the exclusive bargaining representative for any additional bargaining units of company employees, such certified representatives shall be- ATOMIC POWER EQUIPMENT DEPARTMENT 459 come a party to the national contract, which shall also be applicable to the employees in such unit. It further alleges that the temporary agreement and the actions taken pursuant thereto indicate an intent of all the parties thereto to extend the IUE certification to cover the APED employees at the Motor Plant. We find these contentions without merit. As the Employer did not decide to move the APED operations from Schenectady to San Jose until February 1956, after the issuance of the certifications and the execution of the current bargaining agreements, it is clear, notwith- standing the aforementioned language of the national agreement,' that at the time the certifications and the bargaining contracts took effect none of the parties contemplated that these instruments would cover the APED employees. Nor can it be said that the APED em- ployees, although not specifically within the contemplation of the parties, could nevertheless be deemed included in the unit in view of their highly differentiated, specialized, and separate functions.- We therefore find that the APED aref engaged in a new operation and are outside the scope of the current contract.4 With respect to the supplemental agreement, even assuming, as the Intervenor points out, that at the time of its execution the parties clearly contemplated the establishment of APED at the Motor Plant, this agreement was still ineffective as a method of extending the scope of the contract to those employees, as at the time of its execution the Employer had recruited no employees at that site. A contract cannot serve as a bar if it was entered into before a representative group has been employed in the unit it purports to cover.' We conclude that the Intervenor's contract is no bar to a current determination of representatives. Accordingly, we find that a question affecting commerce exists con- ,cerning the representation of certain employees of the Employer, within the meaning of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The Petitioner and the Employer generally agree that the unit ,of production and maintenance employees hereinbelow set forth is appropriate. The Intervenor contends that the unit is inappropriate, alleging a high degree of integration between the MIM and APED employees. For reasons set forth in paragraph 3, supra, we find this contention without merit. The Intervenor would include, and the Employer and the Petitioner would exclude, the stock clerk and 4 or 5 employees referred to throughout the hearing as "plant clerical" employees. The stock clerk is engaged in shipping and receiving and is responsible for seeing that the stock for any given job is available. He also checks stock in 4 General Motors Corporation, Chevrolet Motor Division, Tonawanda Foundry Plant, 111 NLRB 841. 5 Footnote 4, supra. 460 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD use and receives stock on order. He works in a shop area within 50 feet of production employees. Notwithstanding that he is salaried and under the separate supervision of the production control supervisor who supervises only salaried personnel, we find that he is essentially a shipping and receiving clerk, such as the Board customarily includes in production and maintenance units, and we shall therefore include him in the unit.6 The so-called plant clerical employees, classified by the Employer as nonclericals, are salaried and under the separate supervision of the 'production control supervisor. They spend 7 out of 8 hours a day in the office and the remaining hour in the production areas posting the time worked on particular jobs. In the office they compare this infor- mation with time planned for these jobs, make simple arithmetical cal- culations in that regard, and furnish them to the production super- visor. They also perform typing whenever necessary. Their work does not bring them into contact with the production and maintenance employees. We find that these employees are office clerical employees and we shall therefore exclude them from the unit.' Accordingly, we find that all hourly rated production and main- tenance employees employed in the Employer's Atomic Products En- gineering Division at San Jose, California, including the stock clerk, shipping and receiving group leaders, and helpers, but excluding cler- ical employees, professional and technical employees, guards, and su- pervisors 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.' 5. The Intervenor contends that the petition is premature and that no election should be conducted at this time, on the ground that APED does not have a representative work force at the San Jose plant. At the time of the hearing there were 86 employees in the unit herein sought. An additional 20 were expected to be employed within the succeeding 90 days, and there is the possibility that the total number will be raised to 150 by the end of 1957.9 The APED operation will require little additional manufacturing equipment and will utilize substantially the same type of skills and tasks as are now being per- formed. Under these circumstances, we find that the APED work force currently in existence is representative of the new operation, and we therefore find the Intervenor's contention without merit.lo [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] O General Shoe Corporation, 109 NLRB 618. 7 Steamship Trade Association of Baltimore, Incorporated, 108 NLRB 6. fi We shall make no unit determination at this time respecting leadermen or apprentices, as one are currently in the Employer's employ. V Although the Intervenor cites estimates in the record of possibly larger numbers of employees after this date, such estimates appear too speculative to form the basis for a contrary conclusion respecting the representative character of the Employer 's work force. i° Hancock Electronics Corporation , 116 NLRB 442.