Westinghouse Electric Corp.

WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION 573 tial relation to trade , traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes burdening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. IV. THE REMEDY Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain unfair labor practices, it shall be recommended that the Respondent cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action which it is found necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. It has been found that the Respondent, by inducing its employees to repudiate in writing their union authorizations, by granting wage increases, and by threats and interrogation, interfered with, restrained, and coerced its employees in violation of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. It shall be recommended that the Respondent cease and desist therefrom. Inasmuch as Respondent's antiunion activities are not so extensive in manner and scope and are not of such an aggravated character as to indicate an attitude of general opposition to employees' rights, it will be recommended that Respondent only be required to cease and desist from in any like manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed them in Section 7 of the Act. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact, and upon the entire record in the case, the Trial Examiner makes the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Union herein is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2 (5) of the Act. 2. Joslin Dry Goods Company is an employer, who at all times material hereto, was engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act. 3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act, Respondent Company has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (1) of the Act. 4. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting com- merce, within the meaning of Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act. 5. The Company has not committed the violations of Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act, alleged in the complaint. It is recommended that the allegations of the complaint setting forth said violations be dismissed. [Recommendations omitted from publication.] Westinghouse Electric Corporation (Sturtevant Division) and International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, CIO, Petitioner. Caiie No. 1-RC-f077. July 9,1957 DECISION AND ORDER Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election and the election held pursuant thereto, International Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO, hereinafter called the Union, was certified on April 25, 1951, as the collective-bargaining representative in a unit of production and maintenance employees at the Employer's Hyde Park, Massachusetts, plant, and South Boston, Massachusetts, warehouse, excluding among others time-study men. On December 14, 1956, the Union filed a motion for clarification of certification, requesting the Board to find that the classification of layout-calculator is included in the certified unit. On December 31, 1956, the Board issued a notice 118 NLRB No. 67. 574 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD to show cause why this motion should not be granted . On January 9, 1957, the Employer filed its answer thereto requesting that the Union's motion be dismissed. On January 25, 1957, the Board issued an order directing a hearing in this matter, and instructing the hearing officer to serve upon the parties a report containing resolutions of the credibility of witnesses, findings of fact, and recommendations as to the disposition of the issues involved. The order also provided that, if no timely exceptions were filed to the hearing officer's report, the Board would adopt the recommendations of the hearing officer. A hearing was held on February 28, 1957, before Robert E. Greene, hearing officer. On April 9, 1957, the hearing officer issued and served upon the parties a report, a copy of which is attached hereto, in which he recommended that the Board deny the Employer's motion to dis- miss the Union's motion for clarification , and that the Union's certifi- cate be amended so as to exclude the classification layout-calculator from the appropriate unit. Thereafter, the Employer and the Union filed exceptions to the hearing officer's report together with supporting briefs. 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 [Chairman Leedom and Members Murdock and Bean]. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the hearing officer made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the hearing officer's report , the exceptions, the briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the hearing officer's findings, conclusions, and recommendations with the following modification. . The hearing officer recommended that the classification layout- calculator be excluded from. the unit.. This was a temporary job classification which no longer exists . The employee performing the duties of this position is now classified as time-study employee, class C. He is part of the time-study department and is supervised by the head of that department. Time-study employees are excluded from the unit for which the Union is certified bargaining representative. Accordingly, we perceive no reason for amending the certificate, but find that, as a time-study employee, the disputed employee is excluded from the certified unit. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Employer's motion to dismiss the Union's motion for clarification , be,, and it hereby is, denied; and IT IS HEREBY FOUND that the position classified as time-study em- ployee, class C, is excluded from the unit for which the Union was certified as bargaining representative on April 25, 1951. WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION 5:75 HEARING OFFICER'S REPORT On April 25, 1951, the National Labor Relations Board issued its Decision and Certification of Representatives in the above-captioned matter wherein it certified that Lodge 1790 of District 38 the International Association of Machinists, AFL, hereinafter called I. A. M. had been selected by a majority of the employees of the Employer in the following unit which the Board found to be a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act, as amended: All production and maintenance employees at the Hyde Park, Massachusetts, plant and the South Boston, Massachusetts, Warehouse of Westinghouse Electric Corporation (Sturtevant Division), including plant clerical employees reporting to the Works Manager, and excluding executives, other office and clerical employees, erectors, timekeepers, time-study men, patternmakers, secretaries to executives of the rank of general foremen or higher, manufacturing engineers, tool designers, all other professional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in Section 2 (11) of the Act, as amended. On December 14, 1956, the I. A. M. filed a motion for clarification of certification as to the certification of April 25, 1951. The motion was based on a dispute between the I. A. M. and Employer as to the unit placement of a job or employee classifica- tion known as "layout-calculator." On December 31, 1956, the Board issued a notice to show cause why the Board should not grant the motion of the I. A. M. and include the classification layout-calculator in the certified unit. On or about January 10, 1957, Employer filed its answer to notice to show cause in which it contended that the classification here involved was properly a time-study job and not within the 1. A. M. certified unit. Employer further contended in said answer that the I. A. M. should not be heard to proceed by way of motion for clarification since to grant such clarification in accord with the I. A. M.'s contentions would be to find the Employer guilty of an unfair labor practice, presumably within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (5) of the Act. Thereafter, on January 25, 1957, the Board referred the matter to the Regional Director for the First Region and directed that a hearing be conducted to receive evidence on the issues involved. Pursuant thereto, said Regional Director issued and served upon the parties a notice of hearing and designated a hearing officer. Pursuant to said Order of the Board and notice of hearing, the hearing officer makes this his report together with recommendations as to the disposition of the issues involved. Procedure At the commencement of the hearing, the Federation of Westinghouse Independent Salaried Unions was permitted to intervene without objection from any of the otherparties. Employer moved that the motion for clarification be denied on several bases: first, that since no answer to the notice to show cause had been filed by the I. A. M. and that a verified answer had been filed by the Employer, there was no cause shown why the unit should be clarified; second, that the procedure on a motion to clarify was improper since there was nothing to clarify and any favorable action on that motion would be to add a new classification to the unit description; and third, that the questions present were properly within the grievance procedure set out in the contract between the I. A. M. and the Employer and not within the province of the Board. As to the first basis for Employer's motion, it was not contemplated that those of the parties who felt that the motion for clarification should be granted should make. answer thereto but only that those who felt that the Board should not grant the motion should make answer. Issue as to the placement of the classification of layout-calculator is joined by the motion for clarification itself and the Employer's answer.' As to the second procedural ground urged by the Employer for denial of the motion, the Board, in the matter of Clarostat Mfg. Co.,' on the motion of counsel for the petitioner therein, amended the unit formerly stipulated by the parties to be appropriate by adding to that unit description two classifications. 'Subsequent to the hearing, Employer filed a motion to correct transcript which was subsequently assented to by I. A. M. That motion is hereby granted . Also subsequent to the hearing, Employer and I. A. M. filed briefs which have been duly considered by the hearing officer. I See Clarostat Mfg. Go., 105 I' LRB 20. 576 DECISIONS • OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD As to the third basis for Employer's motion, that the determination of the question raised should properly be made under the grievance procedure of the contract rather than by the Board, the I. A. M. argues that it is precluded by its contract with the Employer from proceeding further under such grievance procedure, and in support of that position the I. A. M. points to article XVIII of that contract, and specifically to section F of that article, as it appears in I. A. M.'s Exhibit No. 6. Regardless of the arbitrability of this dispute, by Section 9 (b) of the Act, the determination of the composition of collective bargaining units is specifically allocated to the Board. It is further suggested by Employer that the motion to clarify should be denied since to determine it in accordance with the I. A. M.'s contentions would be to find the Employer guilty of an unfair labor practice within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (5). The Board does not require that the unfair labor practice procedure be utilized in determining disputes of this character. It is recommended that the Employer's motion to deny the motion for clarification on the above procedural grounds be denied. The Issues Petitioner contends that the job classification is within the unit as to which it has been certified, that though the job title has changed from layout man A to layout- calculator, the content of the job is the same as it was at the time that the certification issued. It is the contention of the Employer that the job content of the newly established classification of layout-calculator is different from that of layout man A or any other classification within the I. A. M. unit and that the I. A. M.'s motion for clarification should be denied. The position of the Federation of Westinghouse Independent Salaried Unions is in substance the same as the Employer's, that is, that the job content of the classi- fication of layout-calculator is that of a time-study employee and that the motion for clarification should be denied. The Merits There is very little if any substantial dispute among the parties as to the factual situation which gave rise to this dispute, and the following recitation is for the most part based upon uncontroverted and undisputed testimony. The I. A. M. is recognized by the Employer and has been recognized by it for some years as the bargaining representative for the unit described above, including layout men of all classes. Layout men class A work with certain metal marking or puncturing tools including punch pricks, hammers, scribers or scratch-ails, and di- viders. With these tools they prepare from drawings or blueprints accurate templates or patterns for use as setup gauges and checking templates for the guidance of production employees in the manufacture of sheetmetal items for inclusion in Em- ployer's products. This work of the layout men is performed in the production areas of the plant, generally in the same area where the piece or item will eventually be produced by the machine operator. The layout men are compensated at an hourly rate and are subject to the supervision of the production department foreman. Sometime in February 1956 the Employer purchased, and had installed in this plant, certain new types of presses known as Weidemann turret punch presses. The most efficient utilization of these new punch presses required a change in the method of preparing guides to the machine operator in the performance of his functions. Rather than using templates as such guides, coordinate charts are used. These coordinate charts are prepared for an employee from detailed drawings with the use of a modified Burroughs calculating machine. An example of such coordinate chart introduced for illustrative purposes is contained in the record as I. A. M.'s Exhibit No. 3. In the operation of the Weidemann type presses, the coordinate chart replaces the template. The chart is held in position before the press operator, as shown in Company's Exhibit No. 3, and from the figures and other information appearing upon it, the operator sets his machine. In the preparation of the coordinate chart, none of the metalworking tools used by the layout man in the making of templates are used, the Burroughs calculating machine being the only mechanical contrivance utilized. Unlike the layout man in his work in preparing templates, the layout-calculator, in the preparation of a co- ordinate chart, is concerned with the order or sequence of the operations to be performed by the press operator and indicates on the chart that sequence. The proper or improper establishment of the sequence of operations determines , in part, the profit realized by the Employer in the operation. Beginning about March 30, 1956, the installations of the Weidemann's being complete, the preparation of the coordinate charts was assigned to an employee: KNITGOODS WORKERS UNION 577 then classified as layout man A. During the first several weeks on this new operation, the layout man was closely supervised and instructed in this work by a member of the Employer's engineering staff, familiarizing him with the use of the calculating machine and assisting him in adjusting himself to placing the layout information on paper rather than on a metal template. During this period when this method of operation was being installed, the I. A. M. filed a grievance under its contract by which it sought to have the work of the layout man preparing coordinate charts up-graded, but this grievance was, withdrawn with the agreement that the Employer should be given more time to study this new operation. The basis of the I. A. M.'s grievance was that the new job required a higher grade of skill and knowledge than that required of layout man A. Subsequently, the grievance was resubmitted, the I. A. M. at this time contending that the job of layout-calculator required, in addition to the work normally performed by a layout man, that the employees select the particular machine on which the work was to be performed, determine the sequence of operations, the ability to mentally visualize the work to be performed, the exercise of independent judgment and further contended that, in its responsibilities, layout- calculator compared with the responsibilities of time-study and methods employees. The Employer disposed of this grievance by reclassifying the job of layout- calculator to the classification of time-study and methods engineer, thus removing it from the unit for collective bargaining represented by the I. A. M.3 and placing. it for the purposes of collective bargaining within the unit represented by Federation of Westinghouse Independent Salaried Unions. This reclassification became effective on August 6, 1956. On August 22, 1956, the I. A. M. filed a charge with the National Labor Relations Board, First Region, Case No. 1-CA-2156, that this action of the Employer was, violative of Section 8 (a) (1) (5) of the Act. This charge was withdrawn, the case being closed by letter dated November 14, 1956. Thereafter, on December 14,. 1956, the instant motion for clarification was filed. Testimony at the hearing as to the job layout-calculator shows that it is a salaried position and that it is subject to the supervision of the Employer's divisional industrial engineer who is charged with the administration of the Employer's, time-study operation. The location of the operation has been removed from the vicinity of the presses to a location occupied by time-study employees and by certain clerical employees, some of which clerical employees are within the I. A. M. unit. The present incumbent is classified as a method and time-study engineer C and his normal progression from that classification would be through method and time-study engineer B to time-study engineer A. He is in the process of being trained for such progressions by attending classes which include instruction in the taking of time studies, the calculation of time values from such studies, the methodizing of jobs and the general operations of a method and time-study engineer. RECOMMENDATION The hearing officer is convinced that the classification layout-calculator as it is set out in this Record is a time-study classification. It is therefore recommended that the unit found by the Board to be appropriate herein be amended by the addition of the words "including layout-calculators" after the words "time-study men" as they appear among the exclusions in the recital of the unit contained on the first page of this Report. 3 See unit description above. Knitgoods Workers Union , Local 155 International Ladies' Gar- ment Workers' Union, AFL-CIO and Packard Knitwear, Inc.. Case No. 2-CC-407. July 10,1957 DECISION AND ORDER On April 15, 1957, Trial Examiner Reeves R. Hilton issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent Local 155 had engaged in and was engaging in viola- 118 NLRB No. 71. 450553-58-vol. 118-38