General Electric Co.

GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY 165 body mountings. He has a college degree in mathematics and physics. A college degree or its equivalent in schooling and experi- ence is required for both positions. The work these engineers perform is intellectual and varied in character entailing the exercise of inde- pendent judgment and discretion. Under these circumstances we find that Johns and Scheel are professional employees within the meaning of Section 2(12) of the Act, and shall exclude them from the unit of technical employees.' We find that the following employees constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Sec- tion 9 (b) of the Act : All technical employees at the Employer's vehicle manufacturing plant in Richmond, Indiana, including draftsmen, blueprint machine operator, experimental mechanics, and the working foreman in the experimental enginering department, but excluding the electrical engineer, the data or chassis engineer, all other employees, guards, and all supervisors as defined in the Act. [Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.] 7 See Southern California Edison Company, 107 NLRB 951. General Electric Company and International Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO 1 and International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO,2 Petitioners. Cases Nos. 11-RC-1131 and 11-RC-1135. November 20, 1958 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9(c) of the Na- tional Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before Jerold B. Sindler, 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 Fanning]. 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. Hereinafter called the TAM. z Hereinafter called the IUE. 122 NLRB No. 21. 166 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 3. Questions affecting commerce exist concerning the representa- tion of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section 9(c) (1) and Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act.3 4. The IUE seeks to represent a unit of production and main- tenance employees at the Employer's Hendersonville, North Carolina, plant. The TAM seeks two separate units, one to comprise the main- tenance employees, the other the toolroom employees. The Employer agrees with the IUE's contention that a production and maintenance unit is the sole appropriate unit. Both the Employer and the IUE moved to dismiss the IAM's petition upon the ground that the units sought therein are inappropriate.' There is no history of collective bargaining. Production and maintenance unit : The production and maintenance unit sought by the IUE is a customary unit and may be appropriate.-' However, for the reasons stated below the units for which the JAM has petitioned may also be appropriate. Toolroom unit: The Employer's 20 toolroom employees, including 9 master tool-and-die makers, 4 tool-and-die makers, and 7 appren- tices, are under the supervision of the toolroom foreman. They work in an area which is separated from the rest of the plant by a wire fence, approximately 8 feet high. The toolroom employees produce and maintain the tools, jigs, and fixtures which are used in produc- tion. The apprentices are undergoing the Employer's 4-year appren- ticeship program in preparation for becoming tool-and-die makers. The 13 tool-and-die makers were hired as experienced craftsmen. We find that the toolroom employees constitute a craft group and may if they so desire constitute a separate appropriate unit.' Maintenance unit: In addition to its proposed toolroom unit, the IAM seeks a separate unit of maintenance employees. The unit sought consists of approximately 25 employees, of whom 10 are multiskilled and classified by the Employer as maintenance-all-around. The re- maining classifications are janitor, gardener-trucker, maintenance general, and boilerroom attendant. Each of the employees classified as maintenance-all-around has a basic trade or craft. However, all of them have had some experience in one or more additional crafts or trades. All maintenance employees, except three of six janitors and four boiler watch operators, are regularly supervised by the mainte- nance foreman. They are responsible for plant maintenance generally 8 The Employer's motion to dismiss the IUE's petition on the ground that the IUE lacks an adequate showing of interest is denied. The sufficiency of a petitioner's showing of interest is an administrative matter not subject to litigation. We are administratively satisfied that the IUE's showing of interest is adequate . 0. D. Jennings & Company, 08 NLRB 516. 4 For the reasons stated hereinafter the motions are hereby denied. 5 Thiokol Chemical Corporation, 113 NLRB 547 ; Westinghouse Electric Corporation, 108 NLRB 556. 6 Westinghouse Electric Corporation, supra; Lee Brothers Foundry, Inc., 106 NLRB 212. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY 167 and work throughout the plant, exercising skills different from those of the production employees. A maintenance area and the mainte- nance foreman's office are located in the middle of the plant, in an enclosure similar to that surrounding the toolroom. In the absence of collective bargaining on a broader basis and in view of the foregoing circumstances, we find that the maintenance employees, if they so desire, may constitute a separate appropriate unit.' The Employer would exclude four boiler watch operators on the ground that they are guards. It appears that the IAM would ex- clude them from the maintenance unit on the ground that they are not regularly supervised by the maintenance foreman. The IUE would include them. These employees, classified as maintenance-all- round, primarily operate boilers. All of them are licensed boiler operators. They spend roughly one-third of their working time in- specting the plant for leaks, fire, and other hazards. They also perform these inspection duties when the plant is closed. They do not wear uniforms or sidearms. They are not responsible for plant security and do not have the authority to enforce plant rules. The plant is otherwise protected by an armed, uniformed guard provided by an independent contractor. From the foregoing we find that the four boiler watch operators are not guards and shall include them in the maintenance voting group." The IAM would exclude three janitors from the maintenance unit. The IUE contends that they are maintenance employees and should be included in the maintenance unit. The Employer takes no posi- tion. The Employer employs six janitors, all of whom it classifies as maintenance employees. Three janitors whom the IAM would in- clude in the maintenance unit are supervised by the maintenance fore- man. The three disputed janitors work in the production area under the supervision of the general foreman of production. All six janitors perform similar work. Apart from separate super- vision we find no substantial basis for excluding the three production area janitors and shall include them in the maintenance voting group.° In view of the foregoing, we shall make no final unit determina- tions at this time, but shall direct that the questions concerning repre- sentation be resolved by separate elections among the employees in the following groups at the Employer's Hendersonville, North Caro- lina, plant, excluding from each group all laboratory employees, professional employees, dispatchers, technical employees, office cleri- 7 Westinghouse Electric Corporation , supra. 8 Magma Copper Company, 115 NLRB 1. 9 Oroply Corporation, 121 NLRB 1067. 168 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD cal employees, plant clerical employees, salaried employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act : io (1) . All toolroom employees. (2) All maintenance employees, including janitors and boiler watch operators. (3) All production employees. If a majority in voting groups (1) or (2) vote for the IAM, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to constitute a separate appropriate unit or units, and the Regional Director conducting the elections herein is instructedto issue a certification of representatives to the IAM for such unit or units, which the Board under the circuin- stances finds to be appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining. If the employees in voting groups (1) and (2) vote in- each instance for the IAM and if a majority of the employees in voting group (3) elect to be represented by the IUE, then the Regional Director is instructed to issue a certification of representatives to the IU- E for a separate unit of production workers, which the Board under the cir- cumstances finds to be appropriate for purposes of collective bar- gaining. If a majority of the employees in either of voting groups (1) and (2) do not vote for separate representation by the IAM, such group or groups shall be included in the same unit with the employees, in voting group (3) and their votes will be pooled with-those in voting group (3),11 The Regional Director conducting the elections is in- structed to issue a certification of representatives to the^IUE if that labor organization is selected by a majority of the employees in the pooled group, which the Board in such circumstances finds to be 'a single unit appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining. How- ever, if a majority of the employees in voting group ( 8) vote against the IUE; the Regional Director is instructed to issue a certification of results of election. [Text of Direction of Elections omitted from publication.] 10 The exclusions follow an agreement of the parties. 11 If the votes are pooled, they are to be tallied in the following manner : The votes for the IAM shall be counted as valid votes, but neither for nor against the IVE ; all other votes are to be accorded their face value, whether for the IUE or for no union. Herman Sausage Co., Inc. and Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, Local Union No. 282, AFL-CIO.' Case No. 12-CA-13$. November 21, 1958 DECISION AND ORDER On April 2,1958, Trial Examiner Ralph Winkler issued his Inter- mediate Report in this case, finding that the Respondent had engaged 122 NLRB No. 23.