Telecomputing Corp.

708 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD bus, Ohio. At the time of this consolidation, the Employer had 26 employees, Fairmont had 31 employees. The expanded operations of the Employer remained substantially the same in character, except that it acquired a cottage cheese operation from Fairmont, employing two or three employees. The Employer also uses two or three of the former Fairmont employees to do maintenance work which was for- merly subcontracted. The employee classifications at the Bowman plant remained substantially unchanged. At least 30 percent of the Employer's enlarged complement had been employed at the time the 1958 contract with the Dairy Workers was. executed, and at least 50 percent of the plant job classifications were also in existence at that time. The merger and consolidation of the operations of Bowman of Ohio and Fairmont did not result in the creation of an entirely new operation with major personnel changes.2' The employees transferred from Fairmont to Bowman have no par- ticular skills and no special interests not possessed by the original employee complement of the Employer with whom they are now com- mingled.' Accordingly, pursuant to the rules established by the Board in the General Extrusion case,4 we find that the Dairy Workers' con- tract of February 1, 1958, covers the employees of both the former Richer Dairy and the Fairmont Foods plant, and is a bar to the, proceeding. We shall, therefore, dismiss the petition. [The Board dismissed the petition.] a See New Jersey Natural Gas Company, 101 NLRB 251, 252, where the Board found' the merger of two gas utility systems which resulted in a fivefold expansion of the- Employer 's original operation , as comparable to an entirely new operation. Builders Emporium, 97 NLRB 1113, 1115. General Extrusion Company, Inc., et al., 121 NLRB 1165. Whittaker Controls Division of Telecomputing Corporation (Lynwood Plant ) and International Union, United Automobile,, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America,. UAW-AFI.-CIO Whittaker Controls Division of Telecomputing Corporation, (Hollywood Plant) and International Union, United Auto- mobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW-AFL-CIO. Cases Nos. 21-RC-5344 and 201-RC- 5494. April 10, 1959 DECISION, ORDER, AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION On December 19, 1958, the Board issued a Decision and Direction of Election in Case No. 21-RC-5344,1 finding therein that a unit I Whittaker Controls Division of Telecom'puting Corporation, 122 NLRB 624, hereink called the Lynwood case. 123 NLRB No. 90. WHITTAKER CONTROLS DIV. OF TELECOMPUTING CORP. 709 composed of production and maintenance employees at the Lynwood plant of the Employer's Whittaker Controls Division was an appro- priate unit. On December 30, 1958, the Employer filed a motion for reconsideration of the decision in that case , contending that the Board :should find that a unit of all the Employer's plants is the only appro- priate unit. On November 3, 1958, the Petitioner filed a petition in Case No. -21-RC-5494,2 seeking a production and maintenance unit at the Hollywood plant of the Employer's Whittaker Controls Division and a hearing was held in that case before Max Steinfeld, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from preju- dicial error and are hereby affirmed. As these cases are related cases, involving the same parties and issues the cases are hereby consolidated for the purpose of decision and ,disposition. Upon reconsideration of the Lynwood case, and upon the entire :record in these cases,' the Board 4 finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in coirunerce within the meaning of the Act. 2. The labor organization involved claims to represent certain em- ployees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists 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. 4. In the decision in the Lynwood case, the Board, as noted above, found appropriate a single-plant unit of the Lynwood plant of the Employer's Whittaker Controls Division , on the basis of the geo- graphical separation of the plant, absence of employee interchange, local autonomy in matters affecting labor relations , the absence of a bargaining history, and the fact that no labor organization sought a broader unit. In the Hollywood case the Petitioner, as noted, seeks It unit limited to the Hollywood plant of the Employer's Whittaker Controls Division. It is, however, willing to proceed to an election in a unit combining both of these plants, if the Board finds that such a unit is appropriate. In support of its motion for reconsideration in the Lynwood case and in the Hollywood case, the Employer con- tends, as it did in the original Lynwood proceedings , that the only .appropriate unit for its employees is an employerwide unit, pointing to additional factors which have arisen since the hearing in the Lynwood case which, it argues, add further support to its contentions. 2 Herein called the Hollywood case. a As the records and briefs in these cases adequately present the positions of the parties, Employer 's motion for oral argument is hereby denied. 'Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the Act, the Board has delegated its powers herein to a three-member panel [ Members Rodgers, Jenkins, and Fanning]. 710 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD As the Board has noted in the Lynwood case, while there are factors here, such as centralized administration and labor relations policy- making, which might in other contexts support the appropriateness of an Employerwide unit, these factors do not compel the conclusion that such a unit is the only appropriate unit. With respect to the additional factors relied on by the employer, the extension of the profit-sharing plan to other divisions, and the standardized year-end holiday shutdown and medical-life insurance program, are merely cumulative evidence of such centralization. Nor do the further changes in corporate structure or the permanent transfer of em- ployees, neither of which affects the units petitioned for herein, com- pel a different conclusion. Accordingly, we reaffirm the Board's rejection of the Employer's contention that only an Employerwide unit is appropriate. There remains for consideration the question of the appropriate unit or units for the Lynwood and Hollywood plants in the light of present circumstances. Although the Board found in the Lynwood case that a unit limited to that plant was an appropriate unit, we are convinced upon consideration of the records in both cases that this decision cannot stand. Thus, the Hollywood and Lynwood operations are jointly engaged in the production of aircraft valves, which are products completely distinct from those produced by any of the Employer's other plants. All standard parts used in the Whittaker Controls operations are stocked at Lynwood and are sent upon order to Hollywood. At Holly- wood a subassembly operation takes place. The subassemblies are then sent to Lynwood where they are placed in stock until needed for the final assembly operation, which takes place at Lynwood. Person- nel from both plants meet regularly for purposes of coordinating engineering, purchasing and production, and for establishing prices. A shuttle system of trucks operates between the two plants, delivering parts at Hollywood and returning the subassemblies to Lynwood. A vice president of the Employer is general manager of the Whittaker Controls Division, with authority over both of these plants. Thus, the production of the final product of the Whittaker Controls Divi- sion is a combined effort of the Lynwood and Hollywood plants and the operations of these two plants are interdependent. In these cir- cumstances, we find that a two-plant unit, including employees at both the Lynwood and Hollywood plants, is appropriate,5 and that 5 At the second hearing the Employer introduced additional leaflets used by the Peti- tioner in its campaign to organize the Lynwood , Hollywood , and the Whittaker Gyro plants. The Employer contends that this simultaneous organizational campaign by the Union at three plants of the Employer, and the references in the leaflets to common problems of the employees at the various plants, constitute admissions that the overall WHITTAKER CONTROLS DIV. OF TELECOMPUTING CORP. 711 single-plant units at such plants are therefore inappropriate. We shall, therefore, to this limited extent, grant the Employer's motion for reconsideration and shall set aside and vacate the Decision and Direction of Election heretofore issued in the Lynwood case. As the Petitioner is willing to represent the two -plant unit, we shall direct an election therein. In the Decision in the Lynwood case, the Board considered various disputed categories of employees , including some in the unit and ex- cluding others. No reason appears for reaching a different result here. Insofar as such categories exist at the Hollywood plant, we shall place them in the same manner. At the Hollywood plant there exists, in addition, the planner, prototype, who performs duties necessary to plan and expedite pro- curement of parts for small production runs, maintaining daily status records of all parts in process and conducting a daily followup to see that schedules are maintained. The Employer contends that this employee is a plant clerical and should be included in the production and maintenance unit, while the Petitioner contends that this em- ployee should be excluded, as his interests are closely allied to those of management and he is a professional or technical employee. We find that he is not a professional or technical employee and that his interests are sufficiently allied to those of the production and main- tenance employees to warrant his inclusion, and we shall therefore include him. Accordingly, on the basis of the foregoing and the entire record, we find that all production , maintenance, and plant clerical employees at the Employer's plant No. 1 at Hollywood, California, and plant No. 2 at Lynwood, California , including the planner , prototype, and the employees listed in Appendix A attached hereto, but excluding the employees listed in Appendix B attached hereto, all office clerical employees, watchmen, guards, professional employees , and super- visors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit appropriate for the pur- poses of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act. ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion for Reconsideration in Case No. 21-RC-5344 be, and it hereby is, granted to the limited extent set multiplant unit is the only appropriate unit for this Employer . We find no merit to this contention for, as noted in the Lynwood decision, the fact that the Petitioner may be attempting to organize the Employer 's employees on a broader basis does not, contrary to the Employer 's contention , render the narrower unit sought inappropriate under Sec- tion 9 ( c) (5), prohibiting the Board from giving controlling weight to extent of organiza- tion, where , as here, the independent factors noted above establish the appropriateness of such narrower unit. See The Berger Brothers Company, 116 NLRB 439, 441. 712 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD forth herein above, and that the Decision and Direction of Election therein, issued on December 19, 1958, be, and it hereby is, vacated and set aside. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] APPENDIX A 1. PRODUCTION Assembler, Hydraulic, A, B, C Burrer, A, B, C Carpenter, Maintenance, A, B, C Electrician, Maintenance, A, B, C Gage, Crib Attendant Grinder, Production, A, B, C Grinder, Tool & Cutter, A, B, C Group Leader Inspector, Floor Inspector, Line, A, B, C Inspector, Assembly Floor, A, B, C Inspector, Bench, A, B, C Inspector, Gage, A, B, C Inspector, Tooling & Prototype, A, B Inspector, Test Janitor & Janitress, A, B, C, Leadman, Leadwoman Machinist, Production, A, B, C Machinist, Prototype, A, B, C Millwright, Maintenance, A, B, C Oiler Operator, Bench Lathe, A, B, C Operator, Borematic, A, B, C Operator, Burgmaster Operator, Drill Press, A, B, C Operator, Engine Lathe, Hardinge, A, B, C AND MAINTENANCE EMPLOYEES II. PLANT Buyer, Purchasing or Outside Production Clerk, Dispatch Clerks, File, A, B, C (in blueprint room) Clerk, Receiving Clerk, Shipping Clerk, Tool Room Coordinator, Manufacturing Order Control Operator, Engine Lathe, Production Operator, Engine Lathe, Toolroom, A, B, C Operator, Honing, A, B, C Operator, Jig Bore & Setup, A, B, C Operator, Lapping, A, B, C Operator, Machine Operator, Milling, A, B, C Operator, Punch Press, A, B, C Operator, Screw, Automatic & Setup Operator, Turret Lathe, A, B, C Painters Plater, A, B, C Plater, Hard Chrome Polisher & Buffer, A, B, C Stores Attendant Technician, Burring Technician, Honing & Lapping Technician, Shipping & Receiving Technician, Industrial X-Ray Testers Timekeeper Tool & Die Maker, A, B, C Tool Maker, A, B, C Truck Driver, A, B, C CLERICALS Coordinator, Manufacturing, Traffic Coordinator, Manufacturing, Special Packaging Section Coordinator, Manufacturing, Stockroom Dispatcher, Stock, A, B, C Expediter, Shop, A, B, C Followup man, Purchasing APPENDIX B 1. SUPERVISOR Assistant Foreman, Maintenance II. OFFICE Biller Typist Clerk, Cost Clerks, File, A, B, C-(other than those included above) Clerk, Mail CLERICALS Clerk, Order Clerk, Typist Cost, Estimator Operator, Key Punch Scheduler, Production III. TECHNICAL EMPLOYEES Technician, Assembly & Test