General Electric Co.

GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY 13 General Electric Company andInternational Brother- hood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Local No. 6, Petitioner. Case 20-RC-7245 August 20, 1970 DECISION AND DIRECTION OF ELECTION Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, a hearing was held before Hearing Officer David F. Sargent. Following the hearing, and pursuant to Sec- tion 102.67 of the National Labor Relations Board Rules and Regulations and Statements of Procedure, Series 8, as amended, the Regional Director trans- ferred the case to the National Labor Relations Board for decision. Thereafter, briefs were timely filed by the Employer, the Petitioner,' and the Intervenor.2 The Board has reviewed the Hearing Officer's rul- ings made at the hearing and finds that they are free from prejudicial error. They are hereby affirmed. Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds: 1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of the Act, and it will effectuate the purposes of the Act to assert jurisdiction herein. 2. The labor organizations involved claim to repre- sent certain employees of the Employer. 3. The Petitioner seeks an election in a single unit of all production and maintenance employees, including group leaders, employed by the Employer at its operation at 3400 Wood Street, Oakland, Califor- nia, excluding all of the clerical employees, profession- al employees, salesmen, service engineers, guards, and supervisors as defined in the Act. UE Local 1412 contends that the petition should be dismissed because it is not coextensive with the existing multiplant unit including the Oakland service shop for which it is the recognized representative. The Employer and IBEW assert that the appropriate unit in which an election should be held is the separately certified Oakland shop. The facts show that in 1929, the San Francisco service shop was established as a separate facility. Its function was the repair and service of the heavy apparatus line which included transformers, motor generators, turbines, locomotives, switchgear, control meters, instruments, and the manufacture of coils. In 1955, the Oakland service shop was established primarily to repair transformers for Pacific Gas & Electric Company. This work had previously been performed in San Francisco. The employees and part of the equipment were transferred from San Francisco to the Oakland shop. In 1957, the Oakland service shop was moved to its present location on Wood Street and its function was expanded to include the repair of locomotives and electrical units used in locomotives. This work was also previously performed in the San Francisco service shop and the employees and equipment accompanied the transfer to Oakland. The San Francisco shop remained the dominant facili- ty. The work there was more diverse, included opera- tions not performed at the Oakland shop, and required broader skills. In 1966, the Employer decided to enlarge the Oak- land shop, transfer all remaining operations from San Francisco to Oakland, and close the San Francisco shop. This move was essentially accomplished between September 1, 1966, and April 1967. On September 1, 1966, the San Francisco facility occupied 34,000 square feet compared to 20,000 square feet in the Oakland shop. It performed nearly three times the amount of work in dollar volume. The San Francisco shop employed nearly four times the number of pro- duction and maintenance employees located in Oak- land. Of the 15 Oakland production and maintenance employees, 5 were originally from San Francisco and 49 of the 58 San Francisco shop employees transferred to Oakland. After the transfer, 54 of the 63 production and maintenance employees at Oakland had come from San Francisco. All supervisors from the San Francisco shop were transferred to the Oakland shop. The transfer added new lines of work to the Oakland operation that previously had been performed in the San Francisco shop. Most of the equipment was moved from San Francisco to Oakland and the transferred employees performed at Oakland the same work they had been performing at San Francisco under the same supervision. The Oakland facility was enlarged to approximately 44,000 square feet with all the pro- duction and maintenance employees working within the same area. At the time of the move in 1966, and for the preceding 10 years, IBEW was the certified representative of the employees at the San Francisco service shop. At that time the Oakland service shop employees were represented by UE Local 1412 under a 1963 certification. In view of these facts, we find that the consolidation of the two service shops is comparable to a new operation3 and that the petition herein gives rise to a question concerning representation. In these circum- stances of a new operation, the existing representation question is unaffected by, and may therefore be inde- Herein also called IBEW United Electrical Radio and Machine Workers of America, Local National Car Loading Corporation, 167 NLRB 801, 802, Panda 1412, AFL-CIO, herein called UE Local 1412 Terminals, Inc., 161 NLRB 1215, 1223 185 NLRB No. 4 14 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD pendently resolved without regard to, UE's multiplant unit contention." To hold, as the UE suggests, that the employees from the San Francisco shop who substantially outnumbered the Oakland employees, must accept UE Local 1412 as their bargaining repre- sentative would be inconsistent with the basic princi- ples of the Act. We believe that influences disruptive to industrial peace and a satisfactory bargaining rela- tionship will be eliminated only if the conflicting representation claims are resolved through the process- es of a Board-conducted election. 4. For purposes of this proceeding, we find that an election should be directed in the following unit to determine whether the employees of the consolidat- ed facility wish to be represented by the IBEW or whether they wish to be represented by UE Local 1412: All production and maintenance employees including group leaders employed by the Employ- er at its operation at 3400 Wood Street, Oakland, California, excluding all of the clerical employees, professional employees, salesmen, service engi- neers, guards and supervisors as defined in the Act. [Direction of Elections omitted from publication.] MEMBERS MCCULLOCH AND BROWN, concurring: While we agree with our colleagues that the merger of the San Francisco-Oakland shops has resulted in a changed operation, we do not agree that the changes are so substantial in the circumstances as to require establishing a separate unit for the merged operation in the event of a UE victory in the election directed herein. If the UE does prevail in the election, we would therefore include the merged operation, as was the Oakland shop, within the bargaining unit of GE employees whom UE represents on a multiplant basis. The record reveals that since the 1930's UE has become bargaining representative for employees at various plants of the Employer across the country. Presently it represents approximately 16,500 General Electric employees as the result of Board certifications of the International and its constitutent locals. 'Compare General Electric Company, 180 NLRB No 162 :Compare order to assure that all eligible voters may have the opportunity to be informed of the issues in the exercise of their statutory right to vote, all parties to the election should have access to a list of voters and their addresses which may be used to communicate with them Excelsior Underwear Inc., 156 NLRB 1236, NLR B v Wyman-Gordon Company, 394 U S 759. Accordingly, it is hereby directed that an election eligibility list, containing the names and addresses of all the eligible voters, must be filed by the Employer with the Regional Director for Region 20, within 7 days of the date of this Decision and Direction of Election The Regional Director shall make the list available to all parties to the election. No extension of time to file this list shall be granted by the Regional Director except in extraordinary circumstances Failure to comply with this requirement shall be grounds for setting aside the election whenever proper objections are filed Commencing in 1937, notwithstanding the separate unit certifications, UE and the Employer have engaged in multiplant bargaining in negotiating a series of national agreements, including the recent 1970 agree- ment. Since 1950, the agreements recited in their preamble the identification of UE as a party to the contract: ... acting for itself and on behalf of its below- listed affiliated UE Locals, currently certified as collective-bargaining representatives of Compa- ny employees, which ratify this Agreement as set forth herein and such other UE Locals as may hereafter be certified as collective-bargaining representatives of Company employees ... With regard to the contractual coverage of newly certified locations, the national agreements since 19506 provide that such coverage: ...shall, as of the date of certification, automati- cally become effective as to such certified bargain- ing representative and employees represented by it, provided that the Union, or Local so certified shall within 30 days thereafter, or within such additional time as may be agreed upon between the Company and the Union, ratify this Agree- ment and cause to be delivered to the Company evidence of ratification, the nature of which has been mutually agreed upon. The record shows that employees at a newly certified location have never refused to ratify the national agreement. However, if a local failed to ratify the national agreement it could not negotiate a separate agreement, but would be confined to the processing of grievances until the expiration of the unratified agreement at which time it would be represented in the conference board and participate in the bargain- ing process for a new contract. The General Electric Conference Board, consisting of elected delegates from each local union, was estab- lished by UE in 1937, to control the negotiation of the national agreement. Its function is apparent from the procedure followed in the recently concluded negotiations with the Employer, which parallels that followed since 1937. Prior to the reopening of the contract, a letter from the conference board was sent to all locals asking each to notify the conference board as to what changes, additions, and demands they wished to make on the Employer in the forthcom- ing negotiations. Upon receiving these proposals from the various locals, the conference board met, consid- ered all of the proposals, and selected those demands which should be presented to the Employer. The consensus list then was sent by the conference board to the locals for their approval. After responses were ' Contained in the "Effective Date of Agreement" clause GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY 15 received the conference board submitted the demands to the negotiating committee with instructions to bargain on those proposals. During negotiations there were periodic meetings of the conference board which received reports from the negotiating committee on the progress of the negotiations. When the conference board was convened to vote on and rejected the Employer's offer, it recommended that the locals like- wise reject the offer and take a strike vote. The locals did reject the offer and authorized a strike in the event that the negotiating committee failed to obtain an agreement satisfactory to the conference board and the locals. The negotiating committee, having failed to secure acceptable proposals issued a strike call to all locals. During the strike,' there were periodic meetings of the conference board. When the negotiating committee reached a basis of agreement which it felt that it could recommend to the conference board, the latter was again convened. The conference board approved the proposed settlement and referred it to the locals for a vote. Each local sent the result of the vote to the conference board which then sent a letter to the Employer stating that the membership had ratified the agreement.' This ratification is binding on all locals regardless of their individual consent. The comprehensive provisions included in the national agreement made between UE and the Employer, such as wages, working hours, vacations, holidays, and a grievance and arbitration procedures, are applicable to all locations involved. Matters of individual plant concern dealing with local conditions, such as the layoff and rehire procedure, have been reserved for local bargaining. Such local agreements cannot deprive employees of any benefits provided for in the national agreements. The conference board administers the national phase of the grievance procedure set out in the national agreements . When a grievance has been processed through the first two steps of the grievance procedure at the plant level, it is then referred to the conference board which decides whether the grievance should be pursued at the third step which is at the national level. The conference board also administers the arbi- tration provision of the national agreements. Concomi- tantly, the Employer's representatives at its headquar- ters in New York handle third step grievances and arbitration as well. On these facts, we would find that the separately certified units have been effectively merged into a single multiplant unit.' A similar holding on substan- tially similar facts involving the same employer and the International Union of Electrical Radio and Machine Workers, AFL-CIO, was made by the Board in General Electric Company, 180 NLRB No. 162, on January 28, 1970.10 Accordingly, should the UE be certified in the present election, we would deem the San Francisco- Oakland operation as within the multiplant unit as was the Oakland plant previous to the San Francisco transfer. ' The same procedure was followed during the only other national strike that occurred in 1946 ' Prior to 1950, the Conference Board had to deposit with the Employer individual notices of ratification by each local covered by the national agreement ' See General Motors Cadillac Motor Division, 120 NLRB 1215 ° The Employer concedes in its brief that "The procedures and scope of national bargaining, procedures for handling strikes, grievances and arbitrations are generally similar in the two cases "