General Electric Co.

884 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD certify the Petitioner as the collective-bargaining representative of the employees in the appropriate unit. [The Board certified International Union, United Automobile, Air- craft, Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW) AFL- CIO, as the collective-bargaining representative of the employees in the unit herein found appropriate.] REPORT ON OBJECTIONS Pursuant to Decision and Direction of Election of the Board , dated January 29, 1959, the Regional Director conducted an election on February 18, 1959, among certain employees of the Employer. The tally of ballots cast at said election is as follows: Approximate number of eligible voters---------------------------- 38 Void ballots-------------------------------------------------- 0 Votes cast for Petitioner---------------------------------------- 35 Votes cast against participating labor organization------------------ 3 Valid votes counted-------------------------------------------- 38 Challenged ballots--------------------------------------------- 2 Valid votes counted plus challenged ballots------------------------- 40 On February 26, 1959, the Employer filed timely objections to conduct affecting the results of the election , serving copy thereof on the Petitioner . The objections allege as follows: the election was held, over the protests of the Employer , while the Em- ployer's Motion for Revocation and Reconsideration of the Board's Order and Direction of Election was pending and prior to a ruling by the Board thereon, which ruling, as set forth in the Employer's Motion to Revoke and Reconsider should be in favor of the Employer as a matter of law. Pursuant to Section 102.69 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, Series 7, the Regional Director has conducted an investigation and makes this his report thereon. As heretofore stated, the Board's Decision and Direction of Election was dated January 29 , 1959, and arrangements were made to conduct the election on February 18, 1959. Employer's Motion to Revoke and Reconsider Board's Decision and Direction of Election was filed on February 3, 1959. The Board's Order Denying Employer's Motion was dated February 20, 1959. In the opinion of the Regional Director the conduct of the election 2 days prior to the Board's denial of the Employer's Motion for Revocation and Reconsideration did not in any way prejudice the Employer 's rights in this matter, and is consonant with the usual practice of the Board and its Regional Offices. It is therefore recommended that the objection be dismissed and that the Petitioner be certified for the unit found appropriate. General Electric Company and Local Union No. 1, Powerhouse Workers Protective Association , Petitioner. Case No. 2-RC- 9497. April 24, 1959 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 Louis Schneider, hearing officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.' I Local 301, International Union of Electrical , Radio & Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, intervened on the basis of its contractual interest. 123 NLRB No. 105. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY 885 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 employees of the Employer.2 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.' The Employer and the Intervenor contend that the petition herein should be dismissed for the reason that the Petitioner is in fact acting as a "front" for the United Mine Workers of America, District 50, hereinafter referred to as the UMW, a labor organization not in compliance with the filing requirements of the Act. The pertinent facts are as follows: Testimony by Osborne, the president of the Petitioner, and Mil- stead, the secretary, shows that in mid-April, 1958, and shortly there- after, the employees in the proposed unit signed membership cards in the UMW. On April 30, the UMW wrote the Employer and demanded recognition, which was refused. On May 21, 1958, Osborne filed a decertification petition admittedly with the assistance of a representative of the UMW. However, Osborne withdrew the peti- tion the first week of June, on the advice of a Board agent who indicated that severance of the powerhouse unit could not be achieved in a decertification proceeding. He then filed Case No. 2-RC-9440 on June 9, as an individual seeking severance of the powerhouse employees. The testimony is conflicting as to whether at the time of filing this petition Osborne or the employees intended to affiliate with the UMW. On June 18, 1958, a meeting was held at which the Petitioner was formed. At the invitation of Osborne, a representa- tive of the UMW attended and addressed the employees as to the formation of the union and the method of adopting a constitution. The UMW representative also offered to assist the employees in the future and expressed the hope that their union would affiliate with UMW. The following day, June 19,1958, the UMW supplied Osborne with various sets of bylaws which were later used by the Petitioner in framing its own bylaws. On the same day, the Petitioner wrote the Employer, demanding recognition. During the first week of July, Osborne withdrew the petition in Case No. 2-RC-9440. On July 7, 9 As the testimony shows that Petitioner was organized for the purpose of bargaining collectively with the Employer as to wages. hours, and working conditions of its employees, we find that Petitioner is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3 The Intervenor contends that a current contract bars this proceeding. The contract between the Intervenor and Employer extends from August 15, 1955, to October 1, 1960. The instant petition was filed on July 7, 1958. As the petition was filed after the second year of the contract, we find, in accordance with existing Board rules, that it was timely filed, and that the contract is no bar. See Pacific Coast Association of Pulp and Paper Manufacturers, 121 NLRB 990. 886 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 1958, the instant petition was filed in behalf of the newly formed union. Minutes of the Petitioner, dated August 20, 1958, show that it had received from the UMW a copy of an agreement between the UMW and another company, which was to be used as a guide in drawing up an agreement between the Petitioner and Employer. Osborne testified that this contract was mailed to him pursuant to a request made by him of the UMW "when the first petition was filed," and that there was no contact between the UMW and the Petitioner or its officers after June 19, 1958. Further, Osborne and Milstead, both officers of the Petitioner, testified that the members of the Peti- tioner do not intend to affiliate with the UMW. The Petitioner itself has met the filing requirements of the Act. In view of the foregoing, we find that the evidence presented does not establish an existing relationship between the Petitioner and UMW necessary to support a finding that the Petitioner is a "front" for the UMW.4 Accordingly, we deny the Intervenor's motion to dismiss on this ground. However, if the Petitioner should be certified as a result of the election directed herein, the certification is subject to revocation upon a showing that the Petitioner has affiliated with, is acting as an alter ego, or is otherwise a "front" for any noncomply- ing labor organization. 4. The Petitioner seeks to sever from the existing unit of pro- duction and maintenance employees a separate unit of powerhouse employees. The Employer and Intervenor contend that such a unit is not appropriate. There are three power stations at the Employer's plant in buildings #265, #13, and #61. The power station in building #265 has five watch engineers, eight boiler operators, four turbine operators, eight water tenders, four water treatment operators, eight coal mill opera- tors, four slag and soot men, two water and meter service operators, and three steam record and meter maintenance employees, all under the immediate supervision of Foreman C. D. Wheeler. The power stations in buildings #13 and #61 are manned by 2 distribution operator leaders, 4 distribution operators, 4 watch engi- neers, 4 turbine engineers, 4 turbine operators, 4 air compressor operators, 12 heating operators, all under the immediate supervision of Foreman R. White. Under Foreman A. J. Duquette, the electrical operations section is an additional section within the Employer's plant facilities depart- ment which deals with the production and distribution of power. This section is comprised of four electrical maintenance and dis- tribution operators, five electrical maintenance employees, and four switchboard operators who work in power station in building #13; * See C. K. Williams & Co ., 116 NLRB 187 ; The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, 116 NLRB 1463. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY 887 four load dispatchers, eight electrical maintenance and distribution operators, one electrical maintenance leader, and one electrical main- tenance employee who works in the power station in building #265; two electrical maintenance employees and four switchboard operators at the power substation in building #63; four switchboard operators in power substation in building #158; four switchboard operators in the power substation in building #273; and four switchboard opera- tors at large. All of these employees are separately supervised by their respective foremen and are located apart from the main production areas. They do not interchange with other employees of the Employer, though they do interchange among themselves, and they do no production work. Their primary function is to operate and maintain boilers, turbines and air compressors, and to regulate the distribution of this power throughout the plant. To qualify in their respective positions, these powerhouse employees are required to undergo in-plant train- ing and experience for periods varying from 6 months to 4 years. No skills other than those acquired on the job are required, and the em- ployees progress through an established line of progression in each section according to their training acquired on the job and the avail- ability of openings. We find that the powerhouse employees form a functionally distinct departmental unit traditionally recognized by the Board as appro- priate for severance purposes.5 The Intervenor questions the Peti- tioner's requested inclusion of the waste treatment plant operators and the exclusion of the coal handlers. As these employees are separately supervised and separately located from powerhouse employees, and perform no tasks directly related to the production or distribution of power, we shall exclude them. The Employer contends that the Petitioner is not a union which has traditionally represented the category of employees it seeks to repre- sent. The record shows that the Petitioner is a union which was formed by certain employees in the unit sought herein; that it has its own constitution, bylaws, and officers; that it is unaffiliated, has only one local chapter, and has entered no contracts with employers. Under these circumstances, we find that the Petitioner was organized solely for the purpose of representing powerhouse employees of the type which we have found herein may be appropriate, and is therefore qualified to seek severance of such a unit.6 Accordingly, we shall direct a separate election in the following voting group of employees, excluding all other employees, office clerical employees, professional employees, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act : 5 Whippany Paper Board Company, Inc., 119 NLRB 1615; General Electric Company, 89 NLRB 726, 748. 9 Dana Corporation, 122 NLRB 365 ; Friden Calculating Machine Co., Inc., 110 NLRB 1618. 888 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD All powerhouse employees at the Employer's Schenectady, New York, plant, including watch engineers, boiler operators, turbine operators, water tenders, water treatment operators, coal mill oper- ators, slag and soot men, power stations steam record and meter main- tenance employees, water and meter service operators, distribution operator leaders, distribution operators, turbine engineers, air com- pressor operators, heating operators, electrical maintenance and dis- tribution operators, electrical maintenance employees in buildings #13, #265, and #63, load dispatchers, and switchboard operators, but excluding the waste treatment plant operators, the coal handlers, and the machine repair leader, machine repair machinists, and plant utilityman in the power stations in buildings #13 and #61. If a majority of employees vote for the Petitioner, they will be taken to have indicated their desire to constitute a separate bargain- ing unit, and the Regional Director conducting the election is in- structed to issue a certification of representatives to the Petitioner for such unit, which the Board, under such circumstances, finds to be appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining. In the event a majority do not vote for the Petitioner these employees shall remain a part of the existing unit and the Regional Director will issue a cer- tification of results of election to such effect. [Text of Direction of Election' omitted from publication.] MEMBERS RODGERS and BEAN took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Direction of Election. 7 The testimony establishes that the recently laid-off powerhouse employees , although they retain -recall rights under the existing contract, have no reasonable expectancy of recall within the immediate, foreseeable future. We find, therefore, that they are in- eligible to vote. See Brown-Forman Distillers Corporation, 118 NLRB 454. Thiokol Chemical Corporation, Redstone Division and Inter- national Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Cases Nos. 10-RC-/.208 and 10-RC-4209. April 24, 1959 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing was held before Dennis R. MacCarthy, 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]. 123 NLRB No. 102.