General Electric Co.

GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY 615 5. The Board has considered the Regional Director's report, the Petitioner's exceptions thereto, and briefs of the parties, and hereby adopts the Regional Director's findings and recommendations.' See General Electric Company. 161 NLRB 615. Accordingly, as we have overruled the objections and as the tally of ballots shows that Petitioner has not received a majority of the valid votes cast, we shall certify the results of the election. [The Board certified that it majority of the valid votes was not cast for the International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, and that the said labor organization is not the exclusive representative of the employees in the unit found appro- priate.] MEMBER JENKINS took no part in the above Decision and Certifi- cation of Results of Election. I The Petitioner's exceptions, in our opinion, raise no material or substantial issues of fact or law which would warrant reversal of the Regional Director's findings and recom- mendations with respect to the objections. General Electric Company, Oklahoma City Computer Operation and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL- CIO, Petitioner. Case 16-RC-4114. October 28,1966 DECISION AND REMAND TO REGIONAL DIRECTOR Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election executed on November 23, 1965, an election by secret ballot was con- ducted on December 16, 1965, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for Region 16 among the employees in the appropriate unit. At the conclusion of the election, the parties were furnished with it tally of ballots which showed that of approximately 657 eligible voters, 630 cast ballots, of which 42 were for the Peti- tioner, 39 were for Intervenor, International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, 1 for Intervenor, Com- munications Workers of America, AFL-CIO, and 548 for no union. Thereafter, the Intervenor, International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, filed timely objections to conduct affecting the results of the election. In accordance with the National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, the Regional Director conducted an investigation and, on April 18, 1966, issued and duly served upon the parties his report on objections in which he recommended that 161 NLRB No. 54. 616 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD objections numbered 1, 6, and 7 be sustained, and that the election be set aside and a new election be held. In view of such recommenda- tion, he found it unnecessary and did not pass upon the remaining objections. Thereafter, the Employer filed timely exceptions to the Regional Director's report. Upon the entire record in this case, the National Labor Relations Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. 2. The Petitioner is a labor organization claiming to represent certain employees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion of the employees of the Employer within the meaning of Sec- tions 9(c) (1) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 4. The parties stipulated, and we find, that the following employees constitute a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargain- ing within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act: Included : All production and maintenance employees, includ- ing material handlers, employed at the Employer's Military Communications Department and the Oklahoma City Computer Operation, in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Excluded : All office clerical employees, engineers, professional employees (including draftsmen), quality control technicians, salaried production control employees, and excluding the engi- neering model shop, watchmen, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. 5. The Board has considered the Regional Director's report, the Employer's and IUE's exceptions thereto, and briefs of the parties, and makes the following findings : Objections 1, 6, and 7 in principal part involve the IUE's con- tention that the Employer unlawfully interfered with the election by informing employees during the preelection period that in the event the IUE was selected as bargaining representative, the Savings and Security Plan would be terminated, thereby causing the fore- feiture of all benefits accrued thereunder. It is the IUE's position that the plan survived an election and that the Employer was under an obligation to bargain with the Union with respect to its termina- tion or continuance. The Regional Director was of the opinion that, under the plan, the Employer retained the sole discretion to terminate the plan in the event the employees selected a bargaining representative, and GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY 617 that this possible exercise of the Employer's discretion, in such circum- stances, coerced and restrained employees. Accordingly, the Regional Director recommended that the objections be sustained and the elec- tion be set aside. The plan, a voluntary participation plan, providing for certain matching contributions by the Employer, also provided in material part that upon selection of a union, the employees would be eligible to participate in the savings program under specified conditions pro- vided that "such employees shall not thereupon automatically be covered by an existing multi-plant bargaining agreement." It is not disputed that during the preelection period the IUE had a multi- plant contract whose terms provided that any newly certified IUE local would automatically come under its coverage. It appears in this connection that the existing multiplant bargaining agreement between the Employer and the IUE, to which the new unit would be subject assuming that the IUE won the election, implicitly precludes participation in the plan, because the plan, inter alia, incorporates a dual wage structure, i.e., some participants in the plan receive a lower wage rate than nonparticipants, whereas the bargaining agreement does not so provide. Additionally, the Employer's practice has been to discontinue the plan with respect to employees for whom the IUE has become the certified representative; the IUE has acquiesced in this practice; and the IUE has in fact advised employees that the plan would be discontinued under these circumstances. Finally, there is evidence that the IUE had rejected this plan during prior negotiations. Under all the circumstances, therefore, and contrary to the Re- gional Director's opinion, we find that the plan did not vest discretion in the Employer to continue or terminate the plan upon the selection of the IUE. For this reason, and for the additional reason that the Employer, by informing employees of the factual contents of the plan and the past practice of the parties, did not threaten employees with reprisals if they selected the IUE as bargaining representative,' we find objections 1, 6, and 7 are without merit and therefore do not adopt the Regional Director's recommendation that such objections be sustained. However, as the Regional Director failed to pass on the remaining objections, we shall remand the case to him for fur- ther proceedings. [The Board remanded this proceeding to the Regional Director for Region 16 for further investigation of the IUE's objections to 'We note that the IUE also filed similar exceptions in 161 NLRB 618, 161 NLRB 614, 161 NLRB 611, and 161 NLRB 612, and a brief in support thereof. 618 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the election and for issuance of a supplemental report thereon. The parties to this proceeding may file exceptions to the Regional Direc- tor's supplemental report, pursuant to Section 102.69 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, as amended.] MEMBER JENKINS took no part in the above Decision and Remand to Regional Director. General Electric Company, Wiring Device Department and Inter- national Union of Electrical , Radio and Machine Workers, IUE, AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case 1-RC-8749. October 28, 1966 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF SECOND ELECTION Pursuant to a stipulation for certification upon consent election executed on January 11, 1966, an election by secret ballot was con- ducted on January 26, 1966, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director for Region 1 among the employees in the appro- priate unit. At the conclusion of the election, the parties were fur- nished with a tally of ballots which showed that of approximately 235 eligible voters, 225 cast ballots, of which 29 were for, and 189 against, the Petitioner, and 7 ballots were challenged. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed timely objections to conduct affecting the results of the election. In accordance with the National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations, Series 8, as amended, the Regional Director conducted an investigation and, on March 10, 1966, issued and duly served upon the parties his report and objections in which he recommended that objection numbered 7 be sustained, and that the election be set aside and a new election be held. He recommended that all other objections be overruled. Thereafter, the Employer and the Petitioner filed timely exceptions to the Regional Director's report. Upon the entire record in this case, the National Labor Relations Board finds : 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, and it will effectuate the purpose of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. 2. The Petitioner is a labor organization claiming to represent cer- tain employees of the Employer. 3. A question affecting commerce exists concerning the representa- tion of the employees of the Employer within the meaning . of Sec- tions 9 (c) (1) and 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 161 NLRB No. 55.