Thompson Ramo Wooldridge, Inc.

236 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD 2. By discharging Walter Maliauski on August 28, 1959, to encourage member- ship in the said labor organization, and by discharging the same employee on Sep- tember 25, 1959, because he had filed a charge with the National Labor Relations Board, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)^(3) and (4) of the Act. 3. By interfering with, restraining, and coercing employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed by Section 7 of the Act, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a) (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.] Thompson Ramo Wooldridge, Inc. and Local Union 11, Inter- national Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Peti- tioner. Case No. 21-RC-63392. July 22, 1960 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 Floyd C. Brewer, 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 [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 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. Petitioner seeks to represent a craft unit of maintenance elec- tricians 1 at the Employer's Canoga Park plant. The Employer ob- jects to the requested unit on the grounds, among others, that: (1) The category of employees sought does not have true craft charac- teristics and in any event, there are other categories of employees who possess and exercise similar skills; and (2) no unit can be appro- priate if confined only to one of the four operations in the western area. 'The petition would also include construction electricians, helpers, and/or apprentices. However, as there are no employees in these classifications, we shall make no determina- tion as to their unit placement. 2 The plants in its western area are : Canoga Park, Reseda, and Beverly Hills, Cali- fornia, and Denver, Colorado. The record indicates that the Employer also has plant facilities at Rome, New Yark. However, the Employer would not include this plant's employees in any of its unit contentions. 128 NLRB No. 32. THOMPSON RAMO WOOLDRIDGE, INC. 237 The maintenance electricians sought by the Petitioner are employed at Canoga Park in the maintenance department where other groups of maintenance employees such as those concerned with air condi- tioning and plumbing, buildings and grounds, and transportation are also located. The electricians are part of a group identified as the electrical and machine tool group. Each group has its own foreman. The electrical maintenance unit requested is composed of two lead- men and seven maintenance electricians "A." The job description sets forth the duties of maintenance electricians as including installing and maintaining electrical equipment such as motors, switches, circuit breakers, heating units, conduit systems, and switchboards; replacing wiring and parts, diagnosing trouble, working standard computations, and, as required, using a variety of electricians' hand tools and testing instruments; and the reading of blueprints, wiring diagrams, and drawings. The record otherwise establishes that they do in fact per- form the work set forth in the job description. While the Employer has no apprenticeship program and journeyman status is not required as a condition of employment, prospective maintenance electricians are questioned as to their journeyman status and are required to have at least 4 years' electrical experience, or the equivalent of the standard form apprenticeship prior to being hired. On the foregoing facts, we are satisfied that contrary to the Employer's contention its main- tenance electricians are craftsmen.' The electronic technicians and electronic test technicians, who the Employer contents do work similar to that performed by maintenance electricians, are not in the maintenance department, and are engaged mainly on the "pilot line" in the development phases of the Em- ployer's operations. They are separately interviewed for hire and separately supervised. While they occasionally maintain electrical equipment used on development projects sites, and do certain other electrical maintenance work, it appears to be routine in nature and does not require the exercise of the skills possessed by the electricians craft. Unlike the maintenance electrical group, this group is not required to have 4 years of electrical experience as a condition of hire. The air-conditioning maintenance mechanics, about whom the Em- ployer makes similar contentions, are in the maintenance department but under different supervision. While they may be called upon to do emergency electrical maintenance work on Saturdays and Sundays, when the maintenance electricians are not on duty, it does not appear that the performance of such work requires that they exercise the skills of the electricians craft, or that the Employer requires the same kind of background and experience as a condition of hire as is re- quired of the maintenance electricians. Royal McBee Corporation, 127 NLRB 896. 238 , DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD In accord with Board precedent we find that neither the electronic technicians, electronic test technicians, nor air-conditioning mainte- nance mechanics are entitled to be included in a craft unit of electri- 6ians.4 Accordingly, we shall exclude them from the unit hereafter found appropriate.' We now consider the Employer's objections to establishment of a single-plant unit and its contention that any unit the Board might establish should include all employees engaged in similar work throughout its western operations. The record shows that while the Employer has four separate facili- ties in the western area, maintenance electricians of the kind requested by the Petitioner are employed only at Canoga Park and at Denver, Colorado,6 where the Employer manufactures the items successfully tested at Canoga Park. Tending to support establishment of a unit including the Denver electricians are such factors as centrally estab- lished labor relations policies, uniform employee benefits, transfers of employees from one plant to the other, and retention of seniority on transfer. However, these factors are not so compelling as to preclude establishment of a unit confined to the Canoga Park electricians, for the Canoga Park plant is geographically separated from the Denver plant by 1,200 miles. The employees at each plant are separately hired and supervised. The transfers from one plant to another are permanent, and there is no interchange. While the transferred em- ployees do retain seniority on transfer, they have no "bumping" rights at the plant from which they were transferred. And there is no evi- dence that either the Canoga Park or the Denver plant lacks auton- omy in the conduct of its day-to-day operations. In these circum- stances, and as there is neither a history of bargaining nor any union seeking a broader unit than the one requested, we find that the unit of craft electricians may properly be confined to the Canoga Park plant.7 Accordingly, we find the following employees of the Em- ployer constitute an appropriate unit for the purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act : All maintenance electricians at the Employer's 8433 Fallbrook Ave- nue, Canoga Park, California, facilities, excluding all other em- ployees and supervisors as defined in the Act. [Text of Direction of Election omitted from publication.] 4 There is no evidence or contention in the record to indicate that there are any other categories of employees performing electrical work. Royal McBee Corporation, supra, footnote 4. The Beverly Hills and Reseda, California, facilities have no maintenance electricians and such work is performed by independent contractors ° Cf. American-Marietta Company, 121 NLRB 912, Southeastern Concrete Products Company, 127 NLRB 1024 In view of the foregoing determinations , we find it un- necessary to pass on the remaining contentions of the Employer and we deny its motion to dismiss the petition