Westinghouse Electric Corp.

WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORP. (MANSFIELD DIVISION) 31 7 of the Act and discouraging membership in and activities for the above-named labor organization, the Respondent has engaged and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (3) and (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. [Recommendations omitted from publication.] Westinghouse Electric Corporation (Mansfield Division) and Federation of Westinghouse Independent Salaried Unions, Petitioner. Cases Nos. 8-RC-0774 and 8-RC-3810. July 1 2,1960 DECISION, ORDER, AND CLARIFICATION OF CERTIFICATION Upon a petition duly filed, a hearing was held before a hearing officer of the National Labor Relations Board. 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 National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel [Chairman Leedom and Members Bean and Jenkins]. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act. 2. The labor organization involved claims to represent employees of the Employer. 3. The Petitioner was certified in Case No. 8-RC-2774 for a unit of all clerical employees at Employer's Mansfield, Ohio, plant, which included salaried works production clerks, but excluded, among others, hourly paid factory production clerks and engineering department employees. In this case, Petitioner seeks to gain representation of nine material controllers and a production coordinator. It requests a clarification of the certified unit to include such employees or, in the alternative, an election among the material controllers and production coordinator whom it would represent in a separate unit or as part of its existing unit. The Employer is opposed to any clarification of the certification by the way of this proceeding, and contends that the employees in issue do not constitute a separate appropriate unit. As noted above, salaried works production clerks were part of the certified unit. Their duties included the receipt of orders for renewal parts and the performance of the necessary clerical work for procure- ment of these parts, the execution of purchase orders to sources out- side the plant, and performance of clerical duties involved in handling foreign export orders. Since about 1958 the Employer has been en- gaged in a plant reorganization, a result of which has been the elimina- tion of the classification of salaried works production clerks and the 128 NLRB No. 9. 32 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD creation of two new classifications of salaried employees, namely, ma- terial controllers and production coordinator. Some employees now classified as material controllers previously worked as production clerks. The production coordinator was formerly a salaried works production clerk. The employees now classified as material control- lers and production coordinator perform virtually the same functions as were performed by works production clerks; the basic functions of the job covered by the abandoned classification have been transferred to the successor classifications without material change. It is plain from the foregoing that a dispute exists between the parties as to whether the production coordinator and the material con- trollers are included or excluded from the unit for which the Petitioner was certified by the Board, which question can best be resolved by a clarification of the certification. For the aforementioned employees, some of whom were included in the unit as works production clerks, are shown by the record as salaried material coordinators and production coordinator to be essentially successors to the duties and responsibili- ties of the works production clerks, a classification which was part of the certified unit before its discontinuance. Under all the circum- stances, we shall dismiss the petition as such and, treating it in the nature of a request by Petitioner to clarify the existing certification,' hereby clarify the certification issued in Case No. 8-RC-2774 by hold- ing that the material controllers and production coordinator are included within its coverage. [The Board dismissed the petition.] i As for authority to proceed in this manner, see J. R Pepper, et al., d/b/a Bluff City Broadcasting Co , 102 NLRB 102; The Daily Press, Incorporated, 110 NLRB 573; The Bell Telephone Company of Pennsylvania , 118 NLRB 371. George H. Braun, d/b/a Alamo-Braun Beef Company and George Braun Packing Co.' and Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO, Local Union No. 171, Petitioner George H. Braun, d/b/a Alamo-Braun Beef Company and General Drivers & Helpers Local Union No. 657, affiliated with International Brotherhood of Teamsters , Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America , Petitioner. Cases Nos. 03-RC-1509 and 03-RC-1517. July 12, 1960 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTIONS Upon separate petitions duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the Na- tional Labor Relations Act, a consolidated hearing 2 was held before i The Employer' s name appears as amended at the hearing. 2 The Employer objected to consolidation of Case No. 23-RC-1509 with Case No. 23-RC-1517 and, for this reason , moved to dismiss the petition in the former case. 'Consolidation is a matter for administrative determination . As the Employer has failed 128 NLRB No. 6.