United Aircraft Corp.

392 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD not contain sufficient evidence to support , a finding that the employees involved constitute a residual unit. Accordingly, we shall dismiss the petition. [The Board dismissed the petition.] United Aircraft Corporation, Pratt & Whitney Aircraft Division and International Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO, Peti- tioner and International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW, AFL- CIO). Case No. 1-RC-2889. August 10, 1959 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER On April 17, 1953, following a second runoff election held pursuant to a Decision, Order, and Direction of New Runoff Election,' the Board issued a certification of representatives in which the Intervenor, herein called UAW, was certified as the exclusive bargaining repre- sentative for a unit of production and maintenance employees at the Employer's North Haven, Connecticut, plant. Thereafter, on March 11, 1959, UAW filed a motion to clarify certification, requesting that the Board specifically include "in-plant trainees" in the unit for which it was certified as bargaining representative. On March 25, 1959, the Employer filed a memorandum entitled "Opposition to Motion to Clarify Certification." On April 1, 1959, the Board remanded the matter to the Regional Director for the First Region, for the purpose of holding a hearing on the issues raised by the motion for clarification and the Employer's opposition thereto. A hearing was held on May 5, 1959, before William I. Shooer, 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, Jenkins, and Fanning]. Upon the entire record in the case, the Board finds : There are approximately 70 employees presently classified as "in- plant trainees." These employees are in training for specific produc- tion and maintenance jobs at the North Haven plant. Some have been recruited from outside, others from inside, the plant. Their training 1103 NLRB 102. See also 103 NLRB 878 , in which the eligibility period for the election was determined. 2 International Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO, the petitioner in the original rep- resentation case, made no appearance at the hearing on the motion for clarification of certification , and Chas not participated in this proceeding. 124 NLRB No. 52. UNITED AIRCRAFT CORPORATION 393 takes from 2 to 118 weeks, depending on the complexity of their pros- pective jobs, and consists partly of classroom lectures, partly of on- the-job training in the factory working areas. While in training, these employees are assigned to a separate training department, re- ceive compensation under a special pay scale, and do not participate in the Employer's regular merit rating program. Other working con- ditions of trainees are similar to those of regular production and main- tenance employees. On the eligibility date for the second runoff election, the week ending'March 14, 1953, the Employer had not yet fully established its operations at the North Haven plant. Employees then in training for North Haven jobs received classroom instruction at a company- owned schoolhouse in Hartford, and on-the-job training at the Em- ployer's plant in East Hartford. However, these trainees had been hired at North Haven expressly for jobs at that plant, and were at all times carried on the North Haven payroll. The unit set forth by the parties in their stipulation for certification upon consent elec- tion made no mention of the trainees, but the list of eligible voters thereafter agreed to did not include trainees, and none attempted to vote in the elections subsequently conducted. Shortly after the eligibility date for the second runoff election, both the classroom and on-the-job phases of the training program were physically transferred to the North Haven plant, where they re- mained until several months ago when the classroom instruction was returned to the Hartford schoolhouse. The record indicates that, during the period for which UAW has been certified, from 1953 to the present, employees who have entered the training program from other jobs in the plant have ceased paying dues to UAW. On several occasions, when the Employer inadvert- ently checked off dues from trainees, UAW refunded the dues so collected. One employee resigned as union steward and recording secretary upon entering the training program, and testified that it was his understanding that trainees were not part of the bargaining unit. He resumed payment of dues upon completing the training program. The question of the unit status of trainees was initially raised at the start of contract negotiations late in 1957. One of UAW's written contract proposals was that article I of the contract, dealing with coverage, be amended to include specifically "trainees and appren- tices." The Employer refused this request, and a new contract was signed on March 20, 1958, incorporating the old unit description. Shortly after the signing of the contract, UAW filed a grievance in- volving several employees, including one trainee. The Employer refused to include the trainee in the eventual grievance settlement. 394 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD The UAW contends that the question of the inclusion or exclusion of "in-plant trainees" has at all times been subject to doubt, and,that therefore their status is a proper subject for a motion to clarify cer- tification. We' do not agree. As noted above, North Haven em- ployees in an identical trainee status, temporarily undergoing training at another location, were considered ineligible to vote at the time of the original elections. There is no evidence that, prior to contract negotiations in 1957 and 1958, UAW considered trainees to be in- -eluded in the unit, or attempted to represent them. In fact, the.evi- dence is to the contrary, insofar as trainees ceased paying dues to UAW when transferred into the training program. Moreover, the wages and conditions of employment for trainees are apparently not covered by the collective-bargaining agreements negotiated by UAW. On these facts, and the entire record, we conclude that in-plant trainees were not included in the stipulated and Board-certified unit, and have not at any time since the Board certification been included in the bargaining unit represented by UAW. Accordingly, a motion to clarify certification is not the proper method for adding the ex- cluded category to the existing unit. UAW should rather have filed a representation petition requesting a secret ballot among the in-plant trainees, to determine whether they desire to be added to the present unit of production and maintenance employees.' We shall, therefore, deny UAW's motion requesting clarification of the certification. [The Board denied the motion.] sGeneral Motors Corporation, 117 NLRB 750; General Electric Company, 119 NLRB 1233. See also Ethyl Corporation, 1118 NLRB 1369, footnote 2. John S. Swift Company, Inc. and Local No. 4, Amalgamated Lithographers of America, AFL-CIO. Case No. 13-CA-f445. August 10, 1959 . . DECISION AND ORDER On November 7, 1958, Trial Examiner C. W. Whittemore issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that ilie Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor. practices, and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the Intermediate Report attached hereto. Thereafter the Respondent filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and a supporting brief. The Board has reviewed the rulings made by the Trial Examiner at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the In- termediate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in 124 NLRB No. 46.