FWD Corp.

404 DECISIONS OF,NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD represented over 750 employees at Santa Susana who have numerous common interests with the employees sought by IUOE. In view of the foregoing and the record as a whole, we find that the groups of employees requested by both IBEW and IUOE comprise only small segments of a large group of unrepresented employees who perform similar work, hold similar classifications, and with whom the employees sought to be represented have many common interests. In light of these facts and the further facts that the Employer's opera- tions are highly integrated and that collective bargaining for all the Employer's represented employees in the Los Angeles area bargaining unit has always been on a multiplant basis, we find that the units re- quested by IBEW and IUOE are inappropriate for purposes of col- lective bargaining. Furthermore, as the Santa Susana facility is an integral part of the Employer's other Los Angeles operations and as collective bargaining for the represented employees of the Employer has always been multiplant in scope, any appropriate residual unit should be coextensive with the multiplant unit and not merely coex- tensive with one of the Employer's facilities.10 [The Board dismissed the petitions.] CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH and MEMBER BROWN took no part in the consideration of the above Decision and Order. 10 The Loa Angeles Statler Hilton Hotel, 129 NLRB 1349. FWD Corporation 1 and Office and Professional Workers Local 15, affiliated with Associated Unions of America , Petitioner. Case No. 12-R-451. May 2, 1961 SUPPLEMENTAL DECISION AND ORDER On March 31, 1942, following a consent election, the Board certified the Petitioner as the collective-bargaining representative of the fol- lowing employees : "All office, local sales, technical and other salaried employees of the Employer, excluding executives, supervisory em- ployees, department heads, confidential employees, field sales and servicemen, employees in branch offices, and deputized guards under supervision of federal agencies." On July 29, 1960, the Petitioner requested the Board to clarify its certification by finding that certain employees, classified as "staff or confidential" are included within the certified unit. On October 20, 1960, the Board remanded the matter to the Regional Director for the Twelfth Region for the purpose of receiving evidence on the issues 1 The names of the Employer and Petitioner appear as amended at the hearing. 131 NLRB No. 55. FWD CORPORATION 405 involved. Pursuant thereto, a hearing was held on November 15, 16, 17, 29, and 30, 1960, before Max Rotenberg, hearing officer. The hear- ing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record in the case, the Board 2 finds : Approximately 19 years ago the Petitioner was certified to repre- sent a unit of employees described in the Board certification set forth above. The Petitioner now contends that 51 employees classified as "staff or confidential" should be declared included in that unit, as they perform the same duties and functions as other employees cur- rently within the bargaining unit. The Employer contends, inter alia, that the individuals in question are excluded by contract and that Petitioner's request constitutes in effect a petition for recertification without an election. The 1942 certification described the appropriate unit as : "all office, local sales, technical and other salaried employees of the Employer." The recognition clause of the parties' 1942 contract provided that: "The Company recognizes the Union as the exclusive collective bar- gaining agency for all monthly paid employees." The parties next contract (1944) contained a recognition clause which provided for the : "Union as the exclusive bargaining agency for all office and salaried employees in the following departments." There then followed a list of 21 departments. The recognition clause of the parties' 1945 contract covered the same departments listed in the 1944 contract, but only at the Em- ployer's Clintenville and Stevens Point, Wisconsin, operations. The 1946 to 1955 contracts recognize the Petitioner as: "the ex- clusive bargaining agency for all of the office and salaried employees who are paid in accordance with the rate ranges set forth in [the] agreement." The contracts from 1955 to the present provide for the : "Union .. , as the sole and exclusive bargaining agency representing the em- ployees of the Company...." The recognition clauses set forth above disclose that the parties have made a series of changes in the unit description since the Board's 1942 certification. The record further indicates that some of the in- dividuals sought by Petitioner for inclusion in the unit have been excluded from the time of the 1942 certification and that others were removed from the bargaining unit at various times from 1942 to the present? 2 Pursuant to Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, the Board has delegated its powers herein to a three-member panel [ Members Rodgers, Leedom, and Fanning]. S The record does not set forth the dates when these individuals were removed from the unit, but it does indicate that some individuals were excluded , from the time of the 1942 certification, and that others were removed some time between 1942 and the present. 406 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD In view of the age of the certificate, the numerous changes from the certificate's unit description made by the parties in the collective- bargaining contracts negotiated since the certification, and the ex- clusion of some or all of the individuals in dispute from some or all of these contracts, we find that the unit for which the Petitioner is bar- gaining representative is too indeterminate at this time to permit re- solving by motion for clarification the question whether the disputed individuals belong in the unit.4 The Petitioner should file a new pe- tition for certification of representatives to resolve this question. The Board will then decide in the light of present conditions what is the appropriate unit and whether any employees because of bargaining history should be permitted to vote separately before including them in the unit.' ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the request of Office and Professional Workers Local 15, affiliated with Associated Unions of America, for clarification of certification be, and it hereby is, denied. 4 Sec A. 0. Smith Corporation, Kankakee Works, 119 NLRB 621, 622; Lockheed Aircraft Corporation, 89 NLRB 1, 2. 5 See The Zia Company, 108 NLRB 1134. Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, AFL-CIO' and Peyton Packing Company, Inc. Case No. 28-CC-66. May 3, 1961 DECISION AND ORDER On May 23, 1960, Trial Examiner Wallace E. Royster issued his Intermediate Report in the above-entitled proceeding, finding that the Respondent had not engaged in the unfair labor practices alleged in the complaint and recommending that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety, as set forth in the copy of the Intermediate Report at- tached hereto. Thereafter, the Respondent and the General Counsel filed exceptions to the Intermediate Report and the General Counsel filed a brief in support thereof. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Interme- diate Report, the exceptions and brief, and the entire record in this case, and hereby adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommenda- tions of the Trial Examiner to the extent consistent herewith. 1 The complaint against Local 391, Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen of North America, was dismissed by motion of the General Counsel at the hearing. 131 NLRB No. 57.